Wikipedia:Wikipedia:Deletion review

List of schools in Romania (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Overturn as No Consensus. Naturally, the role of a closer is to determine the consensus irrespective of their own views on a page. Here the closer appears to have, inadvertently, been influenced by their view of the usefulness of the list. A redirect without a merge is effectively a delete and, in my view, these was no consensus for this. My conversation with the closing admin is here. I agree that the utility of the list is, at present, limited but that is the way with lists; they start out incomplete and are developed over time. A redirect cuts down the list before it has chance to grow. TerriersFan (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not oppose recreation and closing as a non consensus, however, I disagree that a redirect is the same as deletion. And the utility of the list in question is, other than a place holder, virtually zero. --Tone 22:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• "Redirect", "merge", and "keep" are effectively the same outcome in DRV terms: they're variants, or flavours, of "keep". "Delete" and "userfy" are flavours of "delete". Procedurally, DRV will not normally consider overturning one keep outcome to another, or one delete outcome to another. The distinction is whether the article becomes a redlink in the Wikipedia mainspace.

  Tone's closure established that this article should be a bluelink, and any remaining decision does not require administrative tools and is not a matter for an admin. Therefore it isn't a matter for DRV either. If you would like to recreate the list, the procedure is WP:BRD (in other words, you do it, then if someone reverts you, discuss it with them on the list's talk page).

  Technically my !vote is speedy close for this reason, but I will say that I personally have considerable sympathy for TerriersFan's view that there should be a list and not a redirect there.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• What S Marshall said, basically. There are only two possible outcomes of an AFD — delete and not-delete. What happens after a not-delete is up to the editors of the page thereafter. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Stephen Toulouse (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Also "Stepto": Stepto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Former vanity page (as "Stepto"), but subject is in a prominent Microsoft position and is commonly quoted on official issues of Xbox Live Policy. He is also a frequent guest on gaming-related programs in his professional capacity. White 720 (talk) 22:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: I think that this DRV was triggered by a recent G4 deletion of Stephen Toulouse based on a 3-year-old AfD, and not to review the closure of the AfD itself. JIC anyone is confused like I was. Tim Song (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that's why I opened this review. Apologies if this is the wrong venue. White 720 (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• DRV is the correct venue, but have you discussed the matter with the admin who G4'd the article? I can't see any discussion on his talk page. Tim Song (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oops, my mistake. I left a note on the talk page of the original deleter, not the person who speedy-deleted the rewritten article. I've left a note on the most recent deleter's talk page. White 720 (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Relist While I'm not quite convinced that "Director of Xbox LIVE Policy and Enforcement. " is a sufficiently notable position at MS, it is more important than his position was 3 years ago. This should not have been G4'd . An admin doing a G4 must look at the originally deleted article. If the new one, though possibly still not notable, is significantly improved, it needs a renomination, not a G4 -- especially after such a period as 3 years. DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment if the article is as the google cache suggests, then I can't see that it has substantially addressed the concerns of the original AFD debate so would appear to meet the G4 criteria. It still does nothing to establish notability in line with the general notability guide, is essentially unsourced (except perhaps the subjects personal website, which would align with the vanity concern of the original) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist, article was substantially different to the previously-deleted article, and as such, CSD:G4 doesn't apply. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The editor Accounting4Taste provided a copy of the article in my user space: User:White 720/Stephen Toulouse. The article as it stands does not have much content, but I'll work on it and resubmit it when I get the chance. At that point it can be reviewed again. Thanks for all your help, everyone. White 720 (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Strawberry Switchblade.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|restore)

The recent deletion of the photograph illustrating this article was unnecessary. I am the photographer who took that image, I own and hold the negatives of that image and the copyright belongs to me. The image was used by WEA records to promote a single of theirs and was used on a record cover - but it was only used on that one off basis and that copyright remained with me. Peter McArthur. As the copyright holder I give permission for it to be used here on Wikipedia to illustrate this article. 116.77.48.126 (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you contact WP:OTRS with this, so they can verify what you say. We cannot do so here. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Bobby Schilling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion was closed and the article was deleted because the deleter, Black Kite, said there was a consensus that it "failed" WP:POLITICIAN. There are two problems with this: First, that WP:PERPOLICY says an AfD discussion is NOT a vote. Second, as far as I can tell, Bobby Schilling clearly passes WP:POLITICIAN because he has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the article. The deleter and the discussion participants all based their arguments on the idea that Schilling will not be notable until he has received coverage outside of the local media, but nowhere in Wikipedia policy does it say this is a requirement. Schilling has received significant coverage in the media, as evidenced by Google News. Therefore, I request that the article be restored. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse my own close. Consensus at the AfD was quite clear, I believe. Four delete comments including the nom, against one Keep by the article creator (I ignored the IP SPA). An AfD is indeed not a vote, but it requires contributors to base their comments on policy. Those on the delete side pointed out that this person does not pass WP:POLITICIAN (and hence effectively WP:BIO) because they have not receieved significant coverage in third-party sources. After looking at this, I agreed with them. Ironically, the requester's Google News search actually backs this up, because the link they have provided shows a grand total of four GNews hits, all from local media. All the remaining hits are about other people called Schilling. This is not significant coverage. Black Kite 21:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• endorse close Seems consensus was clear that he doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN. Personally, I think we should hold off until after elections are over to delete such articles but there's no real policy issue here. He also doesn't seem to meet WP:N. Maybe userfy and work on a draft showing that he meets WP:BIO? JoshuaZ (talk) 21:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Happy to userfy it. Personally, I think we should hold off creating such articles until elections are over - but this person isn't even a candidate for the election yet. My concern is always that such articles are acting as puff pieces for prospective candidates; we've had one quite high-profile one of these recently. Whilst assuming good faith, I also note that the article creator uploaded the campaign image of Schilling along with an OTRS ticket verifying it. Black Kite 21:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree that we should generally hold off creating such articles until after elections are over. You are correct that the person isn't actually a candidate yet but just a candidate for the primary (which I hadn't noticed when I looked at the cached version earlier until you pointed it out now). Given that, it is very hard to see how this person will meet inclusion criteria anytime soon. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
      • CommentBlack Kite: Here is significant coverage --
      • Here Here herehereherehereherehere herehere here hereherehere
      • With all due respect to the others in this conversation, you have yet to make an argument based on policy, because to the regular person, he appears to pass WP:POLITICIAN. NYyankees51 (talk) 23:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Comment Again, this is more local news stories ("Bobby Schilling will hold a town hall meeting in Quincy this week."), mentions in listings of (possible) candidates, and blogs. Please don't confuse numbers of links with significance. I'm going to leave it to others to comment further. Black Kite 00:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion (Disclaimer: I voted to "Delete" in the AFD). No notability outside the locality was presented and the consensus reflects this line of thought. Maybe USERFY it and have it moved back in case this guy wins the election? Corpx (talk) 02:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, valid reading of consensus, exclusively local coverage rarely establishes notability. Guest9999 (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, consensus was there to delete even before discounting !votes from SPAs, as is customary. Stifle (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close - no problems with the close. As a BTW he is not even a candidate for office but a candidate to be a candidate which is too far down the political food chain, anyway. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Again, he meets all the requirements for WP:POLITICIAN. This is why I never donate to Wikipedia, because it's run by hundreds of random people with no real authority who feel the need to shut down any article they don't find interesting. Wikipedia needs to establish credibility and trust, and automatically knocking down everything is not going to help. When will Wikipedians stop being so power hungry? I'm sorry to be a jerk, but I'm sick of the bureaucracy here. NYyankees51 (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Let me have a look at that statement.
    • "[Wikipedia is] run by hundreds of random people with no real authority" — no, it's run by everyone who comes by. A consensus gives authority.
    • "[Wikipedians] feel the need to shut down any article they don't find interesting" — Straw man. This has nothing to do with interesting or not; it's simply due to installing some minimal criteria (which we call notability) so that Wikipedia doesn't have an article for all of the 6.5bn (or thereabouts) people on Earth, plus innumerate people who have ever lived.
    • "Wikipedia needs to establish credibility and trust" — Why? I think we're doing pretty well as-is.
    • "automatically knocking down everything is not going to help" — Nobody's automatically knocking down anything. The people have considered the article at the AFD discussion and considered that the subject didn't meet the inclusion criteria for Wikipedia. You then brought the matter to deletion review because you disagreed with the outcome, and people are endorsing the deletion because the deletion process was properly followed.
    • "When will Wikipedians stop being so power hungry?" — Fallacy of many questions.
  • In summary, please feel free to write about notable subjects. WP:RA has a list of suggestions. Stifle (talk) 08:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion and closure - badly failed our criteria of substantial coverage. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:27, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Wouldn't it make much more sense to keep him up until the election, and if he loses, to delete it then? Or is that too illogical for all the intellectuals? NYyankees51 (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Blood-of-Angels.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Please read discussion article undelete ABOVE Ebonyskye (talk) 00:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Close this DRV I fail to see a reason to list this and recommend close of this DRV. If the album article is restored, then obviously the image can be restored too. But, we don't need to have TWO DRVs covering this concern. One is quite enough, thank you. --Hammersoft (talk) 04:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: This entry should have been listed in August 29, not August 28. It is fixed now. Tim Song (talk) 05:35, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

African admixture in Europe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

An article was recently deleted. Soon after, someone recreated it. I nominated that one for deletion the regular way. I now realize that I should have nominated it for speedy deletion G4, which is in fact the action that Administrator RoySmith ended up taking on his own. But then he was forced to relist it due to a procedural error on my part. Inexplicably, the ensuing deletion discussion resulted in a decision to keep the article (though just barely). All of the people who voted "keep" completely ignored the fact that it's a recreation of a recently deleted article, even though I made that perfectly clear. And one voter looked suspiciously like a sock. So this article has been spared on a technicality (my stupid mistakes that other people went along with), which I don't think is a valid reason. The fact remains that it meets WP:CSD G4 and should be deleted. I tried convincing the Administrator who closed the discussion, but he told me to request a deletion review. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. This is absurd. DRV is for fixing procedural errors, not just a second chance to overturn a decision you didn't like. This is a content dispute between a small group of editors (possibly two?). They have been unable to resolve their differences and have taken the argument to AfD and now (twice) to DRV instead of working with each other to reach consensus. What makes this so absurd is that we're not even talking about deleting a topic; the entire debate is whether the topic should be covered as a distinct article or a section of a larger one. It doesn't matter. I'm starting to think the best solution here is to just slap a long block on both parties for being disruptive. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. No procedural problems. The numbers are not close (I count 6-3 in favor of keep), so IMO you need a very strong showing that the closer committed a clear error in weighing the arguments. I can't even say that there was error, much less clear error. No opinion on the block suggestion; DRV is not the proper venue for that. Tim Song (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment from closing admin - my only comment is that I can't countenance the idea that a speedy deletion can override an AfD consensus (with the standard exceptions like copyright, BLP, etc.), which is why I did not accept Small Victory's request to overturn to deletion. I believe I am correct in maintaining this assertion, though I'm willing to be told I'm wrong. No other comments to make regarding the correctness of the close. Fritzpoll (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• I endorse this accurate close. Fritzpoll could not have closed it in any other way. Also, I'm heartily sick of seeing this article at DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:37, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse- Odd situation, one I admit to never having seen before, but I can't find fault with the way it was closed. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse The point of G4 is only to weed out recreations that are not worth considering. If the article is improved enough that there is a consensus that it is good enough, that consensus holds. It's absurd to think we can never reconsider a decision to delete, but can reconsider a decision to keep as often as necessary. DGG ( talk ) 16:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with you people? This is a clear-cut case of an article that should have been deleted immediately. And in fact it was, until a silly procedural error brought it back from the dead. The deletion discussion you're all talking about is beside the point because it should never have taken place. This is the discussion that counts, where it was decided (9-1) that the material should be removed and merged into a preexisting article, which is what happened. The new article, which is nothing but a poorly disguised clone of the old one, was created two weeks later in direct violation of that consensus. None of the "keep" voters the second time around paid any attention whatsoever to these facts, and now neither are any of you. This is beyond ridiculous. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus can change. As DGG explained quite clearly, G4 is designed to avoid repetitive discussions that serve little purpose. Since the discussion has already happened anyway, and resulted in a different consensus, the new discussion is the one that controls now. Besides, WP:CSD says that admins may, "at their discretion", bypass discussion and delete the article if it fits a CSD. It's within the admin's discretion to decline a G4 and bring a case to AfD even if it were a recreation (I haven't seen the original, so I can't tell). And, even if the article were deleted by G4, it probably would have been brought to DRV and restored/listed for AfD, if the !votes in this discussion are any indication, so at most, any error was harmless. This is at least wikilawyering that wastes everyone's time. Tim Song (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow, if you guys can't even get something as straightforward as this right, then the deletion review process is officially worthless. Looks like I'll just have to nominate the article for deletion again until the "consensus changes" to the right decision. Nice work everybody. ---- Small Victory (talk) 11:45, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. It's not good for Wikipedia, and it's not good for you, either. Tim Song (talk) 12:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "make a point". I'm trying to get rid of an article that doesn't belong. And after a reasonable amount of time passes, I have every right to renominate the article for deletion, which is exactly what I plan on doing. The user who recreated it is the one being disruptive, and the Administration's inability to recognize this and take the correct action is mind-boggling. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Disillusion yourself of the notion that there is an all-powerful "administration" that can make these decisions. We read and enact community consensus - unless you can show that I misread the consensus at the AfD, there isn't anything we can do. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. I think that User:Small Victory has overlooked a key point; if the topic of an article is legit, the article will be kept even if the article is biased or riddled with errors. In this case, nobody can deny that there has been continuous African gene flow into Europe. An article on Australian Aboriginal admixture into Africa would be deleted. If the article is full of errors, fix it. Abductive (reasoning) 04:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

There's been gene flow from Africa to everywhere in the world, so there's nothing notable about the gene flow to Europe. Furthermore, that's not the same thing as "African admixture". The field of population genetics is now at a point where admixture can be accurately quantified, and the studies doing so have found no more than a drop of African admixture in Europeans. Certainly not enough to justify a whole article on the subject, which is in large part why the previous article was deleted and merged (in shorter form) into Genetic history of Europe. It seems you've already come around to this way of thinking. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Andrew Lancaster, in a effort to resolve the edit war between Small Victory and others has moved content to the page in question from Genetic History of Europe. I think this improves the Genetic History of Europe. Therefore the reasons for keeping the page is greater than ever, Andrew is currently working on improving the page, and when I get some time I will help this process along.

• As for small victory's Claim - The timeline for initial spread from Africa is currently between 70 and 135kya (Considering recent datings from Skhul cave, Israel), in this context there is notable contribution in the more recent time from (since human occupation Europe extends from 40kya in eastern Europe to 32 kya in western Europe) the introduction of genetic markers from North and Northwestern Africa is evident into the post settlement population, and not just from other areas of asia and information supporting that is presented on the page. Ergo, Small Victory is trying to engage in information suppression effort. The reason I voted for the deletion of the Sub-saharan admixture in Europe and for the African admixture page is that there is no strong evidence in support of the former page (other than what is known in the historic period), however there is strong evidence for support of the currently named page from the prehistoric period. While this may be a technical distinction, because historic documents suggest a displacement of negroid Africans from NW Africa prior to the 12th century, therefore by our standard of what is Subsaharan there may have been genetic contribution from the region, however technically once a person is born in North Africa, then any contribution to elsewhere would be consequence of North African ancestry.PB666 ^yap
• As for Small Victory there has been both alert and incident reports filed against by two different individuals. I think if you read this and his talk page, you have more than enough information to make a decision.PB666 ^yap
• My opinion here is that Small Victory's constant edit warring and deleting of material is highly disruptive, particular with regard to the genetic history of Europe page. I desire that this page should be improved and the editing climate of that page needs to improve for this to happen, this will not occur if the two sections that were on the page remain, since no matter how much effort was made, we cannot draw Small Victory into a consensus. The problem has been that people have been doing full revert jumps to edits that basic reverse several peoples edits, causeing other edits to the page to be lost. If this warring will end effort will be made to clean-up unnecessary material on the page, and there may actually be a mature and concensus oriented discussion of what material should be on the page. As I said in previous WP boards, I fell sorry for you guys, you will eventually block SV just as you have blocked SOPHIAN, however don't be surprised at all if sockpuppets appear.PB666 ^yap 15:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

SOLAE (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion was based on listing the mission of the organization. I attempted to reword it some but left a lot the same so as to not lose the intent of it. Canterbury Tail offered no help or suggestions just the Speedy Delete. All information in the article was new and not on the organizations website except the mission statement. Note: I find it tacky that Canterbury Tail also had to then go tag another of my articles for deletion. ToyCharlie (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I deleted article as copyright violation following a previous deletion by another admin on the same article for copyright violation. I took the second paragraph and found it to be lifted directly (with the insertion of a few words) from the organisation's bylaws PDF. I did not check the rest of the article. Canterbury Tail talk 20:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Actually, according to CSD A12, you should not have deleted the article unless you found the rest was copyvio also. It may have been. I admit that I have sometimes deleted in similar cases when the rest of the article seems written in the same manner, but here the style in the rest seems much less formal. . I think the thing to do here is simple, permit recreation in user space. If recreated, I remind ToyCharlie that he will need to show notability through references, according to WP:ORG--& I don't find the notability of this local festival very obvious. DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse; copyright violations are copyright violations. Recreation is of course permissible if proper permission is sent in for the text or it is rewritten without the copyright violation. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment chiming in here: I was the first admin to delete the article (as it stood then, it was a definite copyvio). I echo DGG's suggestion. Lectonar (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse – We will not restore a copyright violation into the mainspace. Also, they're not your articles. Once you hit that "save page" button, they become the community's articles. As it says right below the "save page" button, if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. Thank you, MuZemike 00:38, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
  • With that said, if you indeed own the copyright to the material, you may release said information from copyright and license them under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License. You can do this by following the procedures on the Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials page. MuZemike 00:42, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Also, if you can't read that mumjo-jumbo about the CC-BY-SA there, here's a very simplified overview of it here. MuZemike 00:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Without access to the article, it's hard to tell, but I'm inclined to defer to the judgment of the several admins that participated here that at least part of the article was copyvio. As such, it would never be restored due to legal concerns. There's no way this DRV will overturn. BTW, DGG, you meant G12, right? Tim Song (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Isola (fictional island) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

As I mentioned to the closing admin, this article has one problem and one problem only: it does not establish its notability. User:A Nobody presented a number of straw man arguments throughout the AFD including its supposed multiple reliable sources and eventually resorting to WP:POINT-ily copying snippets of text from this article into others in order to keep it from being deleted because of GFDL concerns. WP:N is extremely clear about the requirement of significant coverage from multiple sources. Every single source cited in the article at present (and each and every Google News result mentioned by A Nobody) is a trivial name drop of the setting, with no further comment on its importance. The sole exception is the developer quotation, which really only says that it may or may not have been inspired by Lost--definitely not establishing notability. So yes, it is the common setting of a handful of games, but it is apparent that the setting itself is not a major aspect of the games, warranting an article. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse reasonable close. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn - I agree that no reliable source about this setting's notability has yet appeared: removing indirect mentions (often a single time in an article about something else) nothing remains. Goochelaar (talk) 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have read only now the exchange between Axem Titanium and the closing admin. Perhaps in the case for the closure a little too importance has been given to the number of delete and keep "votes", rather than to their reasons, in my opinion. Goochelaar (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I believe Axem Titanium's delete !vote was well-argued and carried considerable weight, but some of the other delete !voters were on less solid ground. That much discussion of whether the article "asserts" notability shows a confusion between AfD and CSD, which doesn't bode well for the contributors' understanding of the issues involved.

  I believe that the delete !voters established that the fictional article was not notable. However, A Nobody's counterarguments were effective. A Nobody has a very clear understanding of every single rule that might even hint in an article being kept at AfD, and he certainly employed most of them there. I believe that A Nobody failed to establish that the sources he used were reliable, but, I also believe his arguments that the article should be merged rather than deleted because of WP:PRESERVE were solid, policy-based, and not refuted.

  I think Backslash Forwardslash had no choice but to close that as "no consensus" and I endorse his closure.

  I hope the eventual outcome is that the article's content is trimmed and merged, but that's an editorial decision, not a matter for DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

  • It is precisely those underhanded WP:PRESERVE tactics that I object to most about this whole incident. Since A Nobody knew his sources weren't substantial enough, he copy and pasted a sentence from this article into a few other articles in order to invoke WP:PRESERVE, which seems to be a case of following solely the letter of the law and completely ignoring its spirit and what it was meant to be used for. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
    • DRV is not supposed to be AFD round 2. If we have information that multiple of your colleagues believes worthwhile, what is the big deal if they use it to actually improve other articles? Isn't that the whole purpose of what we are trying to do here, i.e. use content to make the most comprehensive encyclopedia in history? We know the material is not a hoax, we know it is not libelous, and on the reverse we know it can be used to improve other articles and has been used to improve other articles. That is not using underhanded tactics, an allegation that borders on insulting if not a personal attack, but rather it is doing what we are supposed to do here. We are only expected to use AfDs and especially DRVS as an extreme last resort when it has become apparent that the content is dangerous to include or when no merge or redirection options exist--neither of which are the case here. A fictional island that appears in a half dozen games and is mentioned in the mainstream press is not some patent absurdity that urgently must be expunged from the project. In fact, the content is notable to many of your colleagues and we have other options to use it and have indeed used it accordingly like we are urged by WP:BOLD, WP:PRESERVE, etc to do. I cannot imagine why anyone would be so fixated on trying to remove it so as to just disregard his fellow editors' desire to use it to improve Wikipedia's article that almost no editors would challenge including. You may not like me, but I have experience with DRVs and trust me in good faith when I say from experience that DRVs cannot and should not be used just because we disagree with the outcome. Any admin would reasonably close that one as no consensus or even merge and redirect. None would have cloed as delete and maybe only a few would have closed as keep. The administrator clearly acted within reason, ergo no justification for yet another discussion here. If you wish to participate in the proposed merge discussion that is fine. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close. Article cannot be deleted due to merges, votes for deletion were not as persuasive as those to keep. Excellent close! Good job! Sinceerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I wouldn't describe relying on WP:PRESERVE as "underhanded". WP:PRESERVE is policy (unlike notability, which is a guideline), and one of its most important purposes is to act as an obstacle for those people who would otherwise cut sourced content out of the encyclopaedia. I think an important principle is that when thinking about deleting an article for not being notable, editors should generally consider where to move any content that does have sources.

  When I first began to edit Wikipedia, WP:PRESERVE was very strongly-worded indeed, and because policy should normally trumps guidelines, it made a bit of a mockery of notability. I added the last two paragraphs of the current version (in this edit) so as to tone it down a bit, and now I think it reads roughly as it should.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse close [8] 11 people thought it was worth Keeping. Slightly less than that said delete. Everyone felt their own arguments were valid. It closed properly. Dream Focus 01:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse It should be possible to figure out a good merge. DGG ( talk ) 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close The close was proper. The closer weighed the arguments and followed procedure. DRV is not to be AfD #2. Further, there is now no reason to undelete as the informations have been merged to where they do have context and notability. And I am saddened that any editor thinks preserving information is underhanded. Growth is the purpose of Wikipedia, and not its bane. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 02:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse and figure out what to do with the info. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 06:06, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, it's hard to get a delete consensus from that discussion, even though I probably would have !voted delete or merge myself. A no consensus doesn't mean that we can't work out a merge or figure out a better way of presenting this information, though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC).
• I can't find a consensus to delete here; much as it pains me to do so, I endorse the closure. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse – I cannot see how it could have came out any other way from looking at the AFD. MuZemike 00:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete - a good example of how AfD is supposed to be an examination of the arguments, not bean counting. The nominator's point was never effectively countered in the discussion - instead we have a pile-on from the canvassed Rescue Squad (as above, again) which has made this piece of trivia a battlefront. Clearly a non-notable & trivial topic that has no real-world significance and should not stand independently as a spinout from the larger topic. A flawed close in my view. Eusebeus (talk) 20:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
  • "Non-notable" is not a valid reason for deletion, especially when concerning a non-trivial topic with real world significance. The nominator never made an effective point in the discussion and was only supported by inaccurate claims. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus Looking through the AfD there is no evidence of consensus to delete and where there is no evidence of consensus, a close of "no consensus" should be the result. Arguments based on how an individual would have voted at AfD are irrelevant in deciding whether the closing admin decided correctly, and there is no evidence of any issue with the close. Alansohn (talk) 22:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Dil Jan Khan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Delete The consensus, tally, to delete the page was 5 to 1, still the article wasn't deleted. Not only the tally but the article itself lacks to be notable as the article is about a simple bureaucrat. I would request a speedy deletion of the article, in regard of overlooking the previous deletion nomination. --LineofWisdom (talk) 09:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• That discussion was irretrievably sock-tainted, and Juliancolton's decision there was, effectively, to decline to close it. I don't blame him in the least.

  I think you can take the article back to AfD immediately, if you wish. I also think Juliancolton would have told you that, if you had asked him on his talk page before listing this DRV.

  I hope the next AfD is conducted in good faith.

  In the usual DRV argot, my !vote is endorse closure and permit immediate relisting.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

O.K I agree and will nominate if for Afd. Regards. --LineofWisdom (talk) 12:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm leaning towards overturning to delete. While there were a few socks involved, the only keep opinion doesn't bring up any points to refute the delete arguments, instead only saying that the nomination violates WP:POINT and should be ignored on those grounds. There are many delete arguments made by established users, and I am loathe to throw out their !votes just because of a little sockpuppetry. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete; I don't think the socks sufficiently tainted the discussion. Stifle (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep I am really disappointed by this second nomination by the same person who has some personal biases against this gentleman. Just to bring it on record the nominator of this AFD was banned for one week for using the same sock puppets who had tainted the earlier vote as his talk page is a witness to this. As for this AFD, I would like to reproduce a comment by Anarchangel in the earlier AFD as under;

"*Comment I sympathize with the nominator's apparent rare form of dyslexia that prevents them from reading the first line of an article, and print it here for him and any others afflicted with this condition, possibly a Cherry-picking work-related ailment. "Dil Jan Khan (Urdu: دل جان خان) (born April, 1934) is a former President of International Narcotics Control Board of UNODC." Having had a job at the United Nations is a big deal worldwide, and establishes a degree of notability for this article. The notability of Dil Jan Khan's cop job is quite irrelevant in comparison."

I would say once gain that its his ascend to the position of being the head of INCB of the UNODC which merits him a separate article. Smelling a clear cut personal grudge I would vote to Keep it.-- MARWAT  16:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I should add that president of an agency like that is notable -- just having "a job" at the UN isn't. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Relist – I'm not sure if, discounting the commentary by the socks, a consensus for deletion has been solidly formed. Would like to get a better gauge of consensus here. MuZemike^{Use my VG templates!} 16:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

the closing easn;t keep, but "no-consensus" so it seems you actually do agree with it. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Reminder to those who may be unfamiliar with DRV- We're here to discuss whether or not the close was correct, not to re-hash whether or not the article should be kept. In this case, I endorse the closer's point that the discussion was irreparably tainted by the sock puppeting going on, and that a no-consensus close was correct. However, given that the discussion was screwy, allowing a relist is certainly a reasonable next step. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

correction- I meant to say "re-nomination", not "relist" above. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment As users Stifle, lifebaka and MuZemike stated above that the consensus for deletion was made, despite the sockpuppets were involved who voted against my nomination (in favour of keeping the article), the decission be overturned and the article be deleted. I agree that sockpuppetry was involved but isn't there a overwhelming consensus made beside the sockpuppets' votes? Wasn't there a valuable discussion made to delete the article by users? I would also like to make some other comments that:

• Why I am being personally attacked for nominating this article, instead of discussing the deletion/keeping, as per requirement and subject of this case? It is the article and person whose notability is challenged to be discussed not the nominator. It in any case wouldn't affect the consensus. Doesn't this means that Marwatt is having personal vandetta against me? But why?

• My sockpuppetry is never proved. One of the operator / Administrator has himself stated that the other sockpuppet who voted against me was infact nothing but a taunt to my nick.

• We must stuck ourselves to the subject / topic of the article, rather attacking each other personaly. If someone have something against me, he or she should contact an Administrator and adopt a procedure laid by Wikipedia, rather abusing me.

• No more personal discussions here, please. Just relate to topic and subject!

I would request deletion of the article, as it is not meeting the notability criteria set by Wikipedia. --LineofWisdom (talk) 18:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Closing admin - I'm not sure why I was not notified of this discussion, or even asked to explain my decision. That said, in my opinion, once a discussion is largely tainted by sockpuppets or other similar issues, it is impossible to fairly and reasonably form consensus. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with speedily renominating, but with a new discussion page. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse Close without prejudice to a renomination. The discussion is a complete mess with all the sock-puppetry. As such, there was no easy way to get a clear consensus and so a no-consensus decisions was correct. -- Whpq (talk) 20:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• Conclusion Though the article is re-nominated upon several suggestions and advices, I would like to request that the decission be made here if possible. As the tally was 15+/- the it is not hard to "drag-out" the comments and votes by sockpuppets. You could see, even here is a large consensus. --LineofWisdom (talk) 20:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• endorse and I think if sufficient attention were paid to improving the article, it might be a clear keep. It is not "just a desk at UN, who he was head." It's an important intensation body that he's head of. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Clarification Since I have worked with UNOPS as a consultant for 2 years, I can safely say that the position which this gentleman was heading was an election by the member countries and every member to INCB is nominated by his or her country and is confirmed by the UN Secretary General. So it is a big deal for a person like him who came from a humble background. -- MARWAT  02:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Clarifying The osition is always held by bureaucrats from different countries. The position is not for the Ministers, Member Parliamnents or any higher position like those. Infact, a bureaucratic job. Tens of thousand of officers are heading UN Missions in entire world. Would wikipedia allow space for each of them? Only in Pakistan, theer are more than 29 missions of UN and 120+ missions of different countries. The Closing Admn must consult the UN's official site or could verify through an e-mauil the status of the position and job. Regards, --LineofWisdom (talk) 06:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Relist, the existing discussion is too tainted by socks to draw any firm conclusions from it, I think it would be best to start from scratch and watch carefully to make sure that the second discussion is not derailed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:00, 27 August 2009 (UTC).
• Endorse without prejudice to speedy renomination from scratch. This is very well within the closer's discretion in these circumstances. Not even error, IMO. Absolutely not clear error. Tim Song (talk) 14:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn / Delete The consensus was clear, with the voting tally by frequent editors other than involved in persoanl war. In my hmble opinion, I would agree with the logic users expressed while writing in favour of Overtunr & Deletion. --WikipedianBug (talk) 19:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse close but allow speedy renomination. The "good faith" delete !votes would normally be enough for a delete consensus but our deletion processes not only need to be fair but must appear to be fair. They can't be when there are obvious SPAs saying "delete". Julian made the right call but he should have added "with leave to speedy renominate" to his closing statement. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:25, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Closing Admin The user who nominated this article for deletion and was behind this appeal has been finally blocked indefinitely for multiple reasons including placing bad faith AFDs. -- MARWAT  17:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete I would have voted to keep and agree that the claim of notability is valid and could be supported by reliable and verifiable sources. The article as it stands now is a bare paragraph unsupported by reliable sources to support the claims made therein. While the AfD was rather muddled by sockpuppetry and irrelevant allegations of bias, the consensus there was to delete the article. There should be no prejudice to the article's recreation once the claims can be backed up by the appropriate reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 01:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and Delete Even with the sockpuppetry, I fail to see any arguments backed by policy to keep the article Corpx (talk) 02:45, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse or void the entire discussion, I do not see how a decision to keep or remove content from Wikipedia could be based on that mess. Guest9999 (talk) 06:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Exinda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (restore)

Article was salted after multiple recreations and deletions per WP:CSD#G12 for copyright concerns. A non-infringing Stub now exists at User:Hass2009/Exinda. Requesting unsalting and move to article space. MLauba (talk) 19:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• That may be a non-infringing stub, but I'm concerned about the sources. I think it could be questioned whether those sources are reliable; the second source is the company itself, and the fourth source seems to be talking about a company based in Melbourn, Australia (and if it's the same Exinda, then it's a little concerning that the sources can't agree on whether it's an American or Australian company). To me, all the sources read like infomercials rather than critical reviews.

  I'd suggest finding a discussion about Exinda in something like the BBC or the New York Times, or some other rock-solid source, in order to prove that the company is notable.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • While sourcing at present may be light (but adequate for a stub), requesting the BBC or the New York Times is most certainly overkill in order to establish that this passes WP:CORP. Further sources include e-week, part of the Ziff-Davis network (RS), The Australian (RS, also highlights that the company operates an R&D center in Melbourne), or PC World magazine, also a RS, CNet.com, still an RS. All relevant to the field the company operates in, more than sufficient to establish WP:N. Regarding the second source, not all references quoted have to establish WP:N, referencing to a more complete product description is an adequate (if slightly spammy) use of primary sources. MLauba (talk) 22:55, 25 August 2009 (UTC) - Addendum: That the article needs close scrutiny against WP:PROMO, in particular since there is a WP:COI potential, is undeniable. That being said, the company passes WP:GNG and has its place here. The rest is a matter of cleanup. MLauba (talk) 22:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Those extra sources would help a lot, if they were in the stub.

      The author's clearly more familiar with writing for marketing or promotional purposes than with writing for an encyclopaedia. That's not a crime, but some stylistic tweaks would help a lot. I'd like to see:

      "delivers WAN optimization and bandwidth management solutions" → "sells computer networking equipment"

      "has some 2,000 customers in a range of vertical markets" → "has 2000 customers"

      "is designed to help customers manage their bandwidth and network resources by providing a combination of application visibility, traffic control, network optimization and application acceleration" → "monitors and controls network traffic", and

      "markets its products through a global network of value added resellers" → anything written in intelligible English.

      Also, the VARS link doesn't go where the author expects it to go and should probably be redacted.

      With these changes being considered and the extra sources you list being included, I would recommend unsalt so this stub can go into the mainspace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

      • Y Done I tweaked some of the sentences somewhat, and added the two stronger of the above sources to the article, also clarifying the (relative) uncertainty about the company's geographical location in the process. Please let me know if more is required at this stage. If this gets unsalted and moved while I'm asleep, I suggest that the mover also place {{Notable Wikipedian|Hass2009|editedhere=yes}} on the article's talk page, for full disclosure (assuming this can also be used if the contributor himself is, in practice, not notable himself). MLauba (talk) 01:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment If every deletion was taken pursuant to G12, such that the community have never pronounced on the suitability of the topic (even if the copyright-violating content was theoretically G11able), it is not for DRV to evaluate whether the draft provides sourcing sufficient to meet WP:V and WP:N, or even whether the article would survive A7; unsalting, instead, should be automatic (and usually is, AFAIK; I have seen several admins summarily unprotect a page salted because of repeated copyvios when asked by an established user who intends to introduce a new version, and I’ve never understood that there is a consensus against that operation) upon an editor's offering that he/she has a draft that is not a copyvio (we unsalt/permit recreation generally when the community are satisfied that the issue from which deletion followed is resolved, or at least addressed to a point from which a new discussion on the merits of deletion might be had at XfD, but in copyvio cases the requisite showing is made on the face of the article, and no further inquiry is required). Joe (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I suggest that you think about what Stifle wrote when concurring with you. S Marshall is doing a good job of trying to ensure that the draft, written by the same editor who wrote the copyright violations, doesn't get tagged for speedy deletion or sent to AFD as soon as it arrives in article space. "This isn't what DRV is about." wonkery entirely misses the point that two editors here are working productively on making a potential article better and ensuring that we don't waste time with future deletion discussions that we could prevent from occurring in the first place — the very future deletion discussions that the people agreeing with you are alluding to. And that's not even the only thing that you're missing. See below. Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• Concur with Jahiegel and permit recreation. Of course, nothing prevents AFDing this article at a later stage. Stifle (talk) 07:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • It's already been through AFD and deleted. Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• permit recreation per Jahiegel and Stifle's comments. Hobit (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • You've missed something. Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
• I recommend that everyone here now look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exinda Networks, which is the prior AFD discussion that sets the sourcing hurdle that this new draft has to clear. This is not solely about satisfying copyright violation concerns. Applause to S Marshall and MLauba for reviewing these concerns at Deletion Review before even knowing that there was an AFD discussion that raised them. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

• Hmm, thanks, Uncle G. Nevertheless, the point Jahiegel and Stifle both raised is well-taken—and indeed, both those users stand very highly in my esteem. DRV is already a very powerful authority; Wikipedia has plenty of provision for addressing conduct disputes, but in terms of content disputes, DRV is the highest court in the land, in the sense that there is nowhere to appeal a DRV decision. (I've remarked, in jest, that for an editor who disagrees with a DRV closure, a direct appeal to the monarch is the only option.)

  It follows that DRV wields enormous power over the encyclopaedia, and that does need to be held in check by a strictly limited remit. I should have said explicitly that my remarks above are not intended as a condition of moving the article to the mainspace, and I omitted to do so, so I will say a mea culpa over this.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• In the grand scheme of things, these remarks nonetheless helped making the proposed stub into something with more staying power, so I'm sure not complaining ;) MLauba (talk) 14:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Darklore Manor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

NAC as redirect, then article effectively recreated with this edit, thus reinstating large amounts of unsourced material.  Chzz  ►  02:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP -- Chzz, the material is sufficiently sourced. There are citations after almost every paragraph. Fangoria News, Google News, Legends Magazine, Ottaway Newspapers, The Day newspaper, even a book published on the haunted house story What exactly do you have issue with, and why? And the redirect was a total removal of ALL material. What you're doing is getting pretty darn close to vandalism. Ebonyskye (talk) 02:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'm curious as to why you didn't !vote in the AFD. If you were to make the same argument there as you are making here and on my talk page, the result might have been different. It looked to me as if it were a dead discussion that nobody much cared about and that's why I closed it how I did. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Closer. I sometimes go through the logs for the previous 7 days to see if there are any relisted debates or withdrawn nominations that can be closed. While doing so I came across this debate that I have previously relisted and it appeared that it was headed either for a second relist (which I hate doing) or a "no consensus" close. As there was only one !vote and it was "redirect" that's what I did. As there was no consensus to delete in the original AFD and little participation, I would recommend that the nominator withdraw the DRV and renominate the article for deletion. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:42, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Shouldn't have been non-admin closed; per WP:NAC non-admins should only close unanimous or almost unanimous keep results. However, redirecting as a result of an AFD is not generally considered binding, and may be changed by another user under the normal editorial process. If the question is on whether the page should be a redirect or not, the proper place for discussion is the article talk page. If the question is on whether the page should be deleted or not, the article may be relisted at AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Relist It doesn't matter if the closer was an admin or not: there wasn't enough consensus for a trouble-free close. The most appropriate action would have been to go for a second relist, and if Ron wanted to help the process along then leaving a comment on the AfD that his view was that the article should be redirected would have been more helpful than actually doing so in those circumstances. Sometimes an article has to be relisted three times to get a result, but there is no hurry - better to get consensus for an action than to leave the door open to a challenge. SilkTork *^YES! 08:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Actually I have been closing a lot of relisted debates like this, some as "no consensus". (with leave to speedy renominate, example) This IMHO is still in line with WP:NAC as they are "unanimous" in the sense that nobody but the nominator is advocating deletion. Yes the nominator might not be cool with it but he's free to renominate any time he wants which has the same effect as a relist. In this case I went with the suggestion of the only !voter in the discussion. This usually isn't a problem because usually if nobody !votes then nobody cares. AFD is now on a 7 day cycle which means a relisted debate is open for half a month. This minimizes the chance that an interested party may be out of town or something. The drawback is that you might have a situation like this where an interested party doesn't !vote in the AFD but objects after it's closed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Just to reinterate here, so that it is clear: I have absolutely no problems with the NAC, and agree that in most cases it would have worked out fine. My motive in DRV was the most expedient way of sorting out the issue, that is all. Thanks everyone.  Chzz  ►  13:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Content question Discuss on the talk page. Del Rev does not have authority over this. You could try AfD again after a reasonable time. At that point, if the verdict is redirect, we can consider protecting the redirect. And there's another solution that might satisfy everyone: a merge. DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)The thing about DRV is that "redirect" and "keep" are both effectively the same outcome: they are different flavours of "keep". By convention, DRV can overturn a keep (or redirect) to a delete, and it can overturn a delete to a keep. But turning a keep into a redirect (or vice versa) is not an administrative decision because it doesn't require use of administrative tools, so DRV would normally view this as a matter to be solved via the normal editing process (i.e. talk-page discussion).

  I therefore recommend a speedy close without an outcome.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:29, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The West Wing presidential election, 2006 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Although, admittedly, a consensus was effectively formed to delete the 1998 and 2002 election articles, I'm not convinced there was a consensus for the 2006 article. A few delete voters in the AfD said they regarded the 2006 election as a special case, as it contained some real world information. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 19:10, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable query. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse, correct interpretation of consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• It's very hard to fault Backslash Forwardslash for closing that debate as "delete". Both the numerical !vote count and the weight of argument supported his decision there.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse I'd certainly have !voted to keep the 2006 one, but there is no other way to read that AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse I, too, would have been a "keep" !vote, at least re 2006 (but then my Aaron Sorkin fandom is such that I'd want to keep anything with which he is associated), but no close but "delete" can be contemplated here; even if Kusma's and C mon's !votes, captioned "delete", are construed as "keep" with respect to the 2006 article, consensus is clear. Joe (talk) 19:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse such was the consensus, unfortunately. However, it might well have been better to relist 2006 separately, as having less consensus. I suggest simply recreation in a more compact form, and with references or additional references relating it to real life, which will meet the objections well enough to pass G4, hoping this time for a sensible decision. Alternatively, combine the three, emphasising the outside sources for 2006 & finding some for the others. There might also be some on the general topic. Or reduce in size and add to the list of episodes, in the parts discussing the whole seasons before getting to the individual ones. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Outline of South Africa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD was closed "Per WP:WPOUTLINE". Thus it was closed "per a Wikiproject", and not in line with any policy or allowing for any reasonable discussion (indeed it was open only for 2 and a bit hours). I've spoken to the admin involved offwiki. The AfD was closed some months ago, but for the sake of clarity and process I suggest the DRV for the purpose of confirming that a Wikiproject's support for an article is not sufficient to speedily close an AfD. DRV would not be, and is not, the place to discuss the merits of Outlines of Knowledge. This page should be relisted (the decision made at AfD is relatively baseless, but DRV probably isn't the place to "overturn and delete" (without massive drama) in this case! Thanks Martinp23 20:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Relist This shouldn't have been speedy-kept because one Wikiproject seeks to promote this type of article. Deletion discussions are based off of our central policies and guidelines, not those of individual Wikiprojects. ThemFromSpace 20:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  I didn't see the timestamps in the discussion. This should be closed as stale and renominated for a new consensus. ThemFromSpace 21:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I do find this decision from One rather perplexing, but I note that he hasn't yet had the opportunity to respond to your talk page note. I shall wait for him to elaborate on his reasoning before commenting further.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• This discussion is over three months old, just relist it for AFD if you think it should be deleted. Speedy close this discussion without prejudice. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• If I wanted to do that, I would. The question is whether the deletion decision and reasoning were correct - personally I don't necessarily feel that the article should deleted hence have no desire to sponsor an AfD. Thanks. Martinp23 21:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• That's interesting, and unusual. DRV will typically consider one specific case. To the best of my knowledge DRV has never made a general ruling that has precedential force. Are you sure you're in the right place?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• DRV is indeed not for 'making policy' - at best it provides a limited insight into community consensus. In this case I'm contesting that the close on the AfD in question wasn't based within policy - DRV is the place to discuss that (a relisted AfD is not). DRVs don't have precedential force to my knowledge, but they can provide clarifications or pave the way for further AfDs without prejudice. I hope you see what I'm getting at - the Outline has, I think, changed little in the past few months so an AfD could easily be immediately dismissed on that basis and pointing to the older AfD. The overturn of the [alleged] incorrect closure is something that DRV is here for, to remove the potential precedential force of the AfD itself! Martinp23 22:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I understand that clearly, and thank you. I will just wait and see how the closer responds, I think, before making any further remarks.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"Thus it was closed "per a Wikiproject""

No, actually, it wasn't, and we discussed this, Martin. I actually hyperlinked wrong, and was intending to link to Wikipedia:OUTLINE, or Wikipedia:Outlines. One two three... 23:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Do I understand rightly that you speedy closed after two hours per a proposed guideline, One? Because I must be missing something, surely.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• One, your comments are, and have continually, confused me. WP:OUTLINE didn't exist when the debate was closed. Martinp23 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• To be fair at the time he closed ([9]) Wikipedia:Outlines had only been edited by one user, no talk page [edit: discussion] and a note at the top saying "This is a draft, under development." so it's easy to see where there could be confusion. 80.47.149.6 (talk) 23:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Oh and it was in user space at User:The Transhumanist/Outline of knowledge, so close per user space draft rather than close per proposed guideline. 80.47.149.6 (talk) 23:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• (←) I can't endorse this. Sorry, One, but that's not a valid closure.

  "Overturn" doesn't achieve what the nominator wants, so technically my response is speedy close per Stifle, with a side of trout.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Given that there's little support for a speedy close, with the honourable exception of S Marshall, I am amending my suggestion to note that the closure was wrong, with liberty to relist at AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I understood the close to have been made on the basis that the arguments for these outlines, which had been made at various places, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of computer engineering Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Palestine and were generally accepted, superseding the 4 years-old Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of Islamic and Muslim related topics, with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of the South Island being deleted for reasons peculiar to its lack of merit, and that this article was in fact an outline and such discussions were therefore relevant. It should have been spelled out, but I think it was in essence correct & the discussion would have supported that. But it wasn't really cut-and-dried, so I wouldn't have closed this quickly. Over-rapid closes tend to lead to DRV. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth both the discussions you link came after this one. 80.47.149.6 (talk) 01:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Challenging a speedy close 3 months after the event is a bit, well, pointless, but I would say that a speedy close per a wikiproject is, well, wrong. So I'd vote to overturn and relist on general principles. I'd say the practical thing is to just relist this given the time since the listing though. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn invalid speedy keep meeting none of the criteria. There is nothing to prevent a normal renomination, but explicitly allow renomination for clarity. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. "Per WP:WPOUTLINE" is not a valid speedy keep criterium. Very poor judgment on the closer's part. 14:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and allow renomination I can't see the point in reopening a three-month old discussion, but the closer is quite right that the existence of a Wikiproject on a subject is not a valid speedy keep criterion and this should be noted. Hut 8.5 16:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted." This MFD discussion was incorrectly closed as "no consensus", despite the fact that it was clearly established that User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses violates Wikimedia Foundation policy regarding non-free content. Summary of argument:

(1) I initially requested the deletion of User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses on the grounds that it violated WP:NFCC#9, which prohibits non-free content in userspace.

(2) Milomedes argued that WP:NFCC#9 was inapplicable to text. What portion of the policy is applicable to text, according to him? Only the statement that "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author." So, according to Milomedes, WP:NFCC imposes no limitation on non-free text in userspace at all.

(3) My response was threefold:

(a) As the express stated purpose of WP:NFCC is to "[limit] the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law", Milomedes' construction of WP:NFCC as permitting any use of non-free text that isn't an actual copyright violation in userspace is inconsistent with the intent of the policy.

(b) The "Other non-free content" to which the numbered non-free content criteria apply includes non-free text in userspace, since the term "other" is used in relation to "brief verbatim textual excerpts" in "articles".

(c) Even assuming, arguendo, that WP:NFCC does not specifically discuss non-free text in userspace, silence in this context is prohibitory, since, per wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, non-free content is only permitted as expressly allowed by projects' EDPs, which, for our purposes, is WP:NFCC

(4) Milomedes' response to (c) was a claim that non-free text is not considered to be "uploaded" within the meaning of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Thus ensued a discussion concerning the construction of the term "upload" as used in the context of the Foundation resolution. I now regard the precise interpretation of "upload" as moot, since wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy applies to "content", whose meaning clearly includes text, not "uploads" or "media": provision 1 states that "All projects are expected to host only content which is under a Free Content License..." If there were any intent to exempt text from the application of the Resolution, it would state "All projects are expected to host only media which is under a Free Content License...", or otherwise clearly indicate the exception. The subsequent references to media in the policy do not render provisions 1, 2, and 3 inapplicable to text.

As User:Jack Merridew/Blood and Roses is in violation of wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, its continued retention endangers Wikipedia's self-governance. An issue of this magnitude cannot be properly resolved with "no consensus". Erik9 (talk) 03:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Erik9's reasoning 100%, and as I stated, I felt policy to be very clear. I did not count heads, and I did not count heads then, either. So when I made the closure the first time, too many people disagreed for my comfort. Enough people are dead convinced that an argument based out of US law despite Wikimedia law that it's actually meaningful, since consensus is the vox populi so to speak. With a more non-ambiguous situation like an image, we could easily get almost all of the people agreeing or disagreeing, since it's spelled out. However, as we learned from this MfD, it is not spelled out for whatever reason. Obviously for me to vote "endorse closure" is dumb, but before we subject more of these kinds of pages to deletion discussions, the situation must be clarified since enough experienced Wikipedians are defending the page. @harej 03:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  When administrators retain non-free content that clearly violates Wikimedia Foundation policy because "too many people disagreed for my comfort", it's a dark day for Wikipedia. Administrators are expected to enforce WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy to the best of their abilities, irrespective of the number of anti-policy arguments advanced, or the number of editors articulating them. Please don't do this again. Erik9 (talk) 03:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  There is a consensus on the policy but not a consensus on this special case which appears to be unique somehow. I'd like to know myself why this is considered to be an exception (aside from the reasons already articulated, of course). @harej 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no "userspace loophole" for non-free content. Claims that you can have as much non-free text in your userspace as you want, subject only to legal limitations on fair use, are absurd, unsupported by policy, and purely smoke and mirrors. Erik9 (talk) 03:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, statements like "I did not count heads, and I did not count heads then, either. So when I made the closure the first time, too many people disagreed for my comfort. Enough people are dead convinced..." may easily be construed as self-contradictory. Erik9 (talk) 03:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. There was nothing out of process about this decision, which is what DRV is meant to address. DRV is not AFD part 2. UnitAnode 03:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  You mean MFD part 2. :P @harej 03:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So, um, you consider the fact that the discussion had run for an adequate period of time, and that an administrator closed it, to reflect adherence to our deletion process, irrespective of the substantive incorrectness of the action taken? Erik9 (talk) 03:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

There was nothing out of process about how it was closed. Disagreeing with a "no consensus" close isn't enough to overturn it. You have a particular point of view about how the policy should be applied in re:Jack's userpage. Other's disagreed. This isn't MFD part 2 (Thanks for that, Harej). UnitAnode 03:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being repetitive, per Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." An MFD closure which is grossly contrary to policy, such as WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, is unacceptable. Erik9 (talk) 03:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of being repetitive, this is not MFD part 2. It is your opinion that Jack's userpage is "grossly contray to policy." I'm not going to reargue the MFD with you. I've endorsed the close as within guidelines for admins closing MFDs. That's all I have to say about it. UnitAnode 03:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Per our deletion guidelines, XFD closures require substantive evaluation of the merits of the arguments advanced, which appears to have been missing here. Erik9 (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Agreed, but it is also not determined by admins choosing what they think is best. The closing admin felt that both sides had good arguments and that consensus was not reached. His/her closure was perfectly reasonable. And the "too many people disagreed for my comfort." merely reflects the fact that the admin is human. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec again)and for the record, endorse. - Drew Smith What I've done 03:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The issue in a nutshell: is a good-faith belief by "The closing admin... that both sides had good arguments" enough, or is the question of whether "both sides had good arguments" subject to review here? I would argue for the latter, so that we are not at the mercy of bad closures merely because the closing administrator genuinely believes that he's doing the right thing. Erik9 (talk) 04:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course, we generally expect the judgments of administrators and the community regarding the merits of arguments to coincide; however, even an administrator with a overall favorable record of XFD closures might be wrong in a particular case. Erik9 (talk) 04:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

<--- "whether "both sides had good arguments" subject to review here" Thats where you're wrong. That would be MfD 2, not DRV. In light of that, I propose this DRV be closed as "wrong forum" or some such. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept that the evaluation of arguments an administrator performs in closing an XFD discussion is unreviewable -- administrators don't have such a level of autocratic authority. Deletion review may properly consider the substantive basis on which discussions were closed (and would have very little activity if it couldn't.) Erik9 (talk) 04:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Thats not what any of us are saying. All we're trying to say is that this isn't the place for it. Go to MFD and try get more (neutral) people to look at it this time around. - Drew Smith What I've done 04:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

To renominate the user subpage for deletion, immediately after the closure of a previous MFD discussion, with no intervening changes of policy or other material facts would likely be seen as highly disruptive. Substantive review of XFDs shouldn't be shirked because "you can just keep renominating it until it gets deleted." Incidentally, though not relevant to the present case, your position makes it absolutely impossible for the community to restore a previously deleted article or other page when consensus changes, since deletion review would confined to the question of narrowly construed procedural correctness in closing the initial XFD. Erik9 (talk) 05:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Eric about the mechanics of the process here... this DRV is appropriate and should be run to its conclusion. Taking this matter back to MfD, absent time passing or some policy change/clarification, would not likely result in a different outcome and would be pointless. ++Lar: t/c 06:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse no consensus close. The substance of Erik's argument here, as I understand it, is that this particular passage of text is so large that the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC (which exempts one or two line quotations) and the underlying EDP does not apply, and thus the normal consensus process does not apply either, that the closing admin erred in not summarily ruling in favor of deletion despite the lack of consensus. Erik has not conclusively demonstrated that to be the case. (it takes an extraordinary consensus, or extraordinarily clear cut and unambiguous policy statements, to agree not to use consensus) The next step here is to run an RfC to ask the community to clarify policy in this area, and then armed with a new, clarified and more precise policy, run the MfD again. If the community fails to come to consensus on this matter and fails to produce additional precision in the NFCC, that would be that, absent the WMF board itself stepping in to impose clarity by fiat, since Mike Godwin has apparently declined to do so. ++Lar: t/c 06:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My apologies then. I was under the impression that only deleted artciles, and non-deleted articles that where wrongly closed were DRV'd. That is the way the DRV page sounds to me, and probably others as well, so we may want to change the wording. - Drew Smith What I've done 07:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Since policy represents far a broader consensus than a particular XFD discussion, such discussions should be closed in a manner consistent with policy, unless there is a consensus to do otherwise. "the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC (which exempts one or two line quotations) and the underlying EDP" is not policy, and does not, in any case, affect the application of WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy to issues not squarely within its remit, such as 617 words of non-free text in userspace. As there was no consensus not to delete the non-free content as mandated by WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, the policies should be upheld. Erik9 (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You see this as clear cut, as a case where fiat-ed policy handed down from the WMF overrides, but others don't. You haven't shown that "the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC (which exempts one or two line quotations)" isn't policy. Policy at en:wp is what we do, not what's written down, so in fact, it IS policy, and you have tacitly admitted it is. When what's written down lags, we fix it to match what we do. Until it's clear cut, and everyone agrees it is clear cut, you can't ask for a summary judgment this way. Get the RfC going so that it DOES become clear cut. That would be a good place to invest energy instead of rearguing the MfD. Once you do, you'll find me arguing there that the defacto exemption for one or two line quotes should be made official, and that quotes this large should be disallowed, by policy.++Lar: t/c 19:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Assuming, arguendo, that "the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC (which exempts one or two line quotations)" is policy whose meaning is elucidated by common practice, then the meaning of the "exemption" can be ascertained with reasonable precision by reference to common practice: as no evidence has been offered that we have ever permitted quotations anywhere near as large as 617 words of non-free content in userspace, the "exemption" may reasonably be construed as being restricted to cases with respect to which evidence of common practice was submitted: "one or two line quotations", and is thus inapplicable to Jack Merridew's 617 words of non-free text. You seem to be arguing that the "exemption" has some characteristics of policy, but not others: it's policy, to the extent that it effectually modifies the written policy at WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, but it's not policy, insofar as its dim and uncertain contours prevent its precise meaning from being determined. I don't support the recognition of "quasi-policy": either

(a) "the de facto exemption from the en:wp NFCC" is policy, and is restricted by its own terms and justifying evidence to "one or two line quotations", in which case it is irrelevant to a 617-word non-free quotation in userspace, which may nonetheless be deleted per WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy or

(b) the "exemption" isn't policy, so a 617-word non-free quotation in userspace may be deleted per WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. Erik9 (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

This is not a courtroom. Using Latin words and phrases such as "arguendo" is unhelpful has been deprecated for some time. Please stop that practice, it reduces clarity, just say the English equivalent (and please remember that not everyone here speaks English as their first language). Also, you're putting up a straw dog here by arguing against something I do not advocate. Let me reiterate my closing sentence (that you were replying to): Once you do "[get an RfC going]", you'll find me arguing there that the defacto exemption for one or two line quotes should be made official, and that quotes this large should be disallowed, by policy... what was unclear about that, exactly? The MfD was closed properly as no consensus, there's a hole in written policy, and it needs fixing to match what we actually do here. Work to get it fixed instead of skirmishing. Unless skirmishing is what you enjoy more? ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

That you support the modification of policy such that 617-word non-free quotations would be prohibited in userspace does not refute my argument against the position you have taken in the MFD discussion and here regarding the acceptability of the quotation under current policy: you have argued for the retention of Jack Merridew's extensive non-free text since the beginning of the MFD[10], using the specious argument that since one-sentence quotations of non-free content have been permitted in userspace contrary to the letter of WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy, we should also retain Jack's multi-paragraph non-free userspace quotation, as if the quantity of non-free content used were of little significance. The prospect of an RFC regarding potential modifications to WP:NFCC does not by itself establish the legitimacy of retaining non-free content which violates both WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy as current written. Erik9 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Much of that is rearguing the MfD. Given that you are not arguing that there actually was a consensus which the closing admin missed, you need to show that the close, no consensus was improper, that is, that under current policy, as written and more importantly as practiced, it is unambiguously clear that consensus does not apply in this case and that the closing admin was bound to find for deletion regardless of consensus. You have failed to do so. You are basing your argument on a difference in degree (length), not in kind. You are wasting time rearguing this, at length, when you could be spending that time getting policy changed. Ineffective as an approach, and likely to further alienate people who might be your allies if you showed reasonableness. ++Lar: t/c 23:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn and delete, local consensus, where it exists, cannot override foundation-level policy requiring that non-free content be permitted by projects' exemption doctrine policy, and Wikipedia's EDP only applies to images. Stifle (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If only the foundation level policy were that clear cut. The existance of so many de minimis quotes says it's vague and needs fixing. ++Lar: t/c 19:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The existence of extremely small, one sentence, non-free quotations in userspace does not impugn the application of WP:NFCC and wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy to Jack Merridew's 617-word monstrosity -- there's no evidence that such significant quantities of non-free text have ever been permitted in userspace. Erik9 (talk) 20:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

1/2 of 1 percent of the total size of the work is one person's "monstrosity" and another person's de minimis, I suspect. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• An interesting DRV that raises some points I had not previously considered.

  I shall not fault the closer for deciding there was no consensus to delete the material. That was a correct reading of the consensus, so I endorse it.

  Also, I would like to praise Jack Merridew for finding an interesting, memorable and creative way of making his argument.

  However, the consensus was wrong. To the extent that the said material contributes to building an encyclopaedia, it could be phrased differently. In other words, the use of copyrighted text in that instance is not necessary and I do not think it is justified either. So I would like to overturn the consensus itself and delete the offending material.

  I would also like to make a general point here:- Everyone has freedom of speech, but freedom of speech does not include the right to write on someone else's wall. Wikipedia is someone else's wall (specifically it's the property of the Wikimedia Foundation) and its use is granted subject to compliance with their rules. This includes userspace.

  In other words, your userspace is not your property and what you write in it still needs to comply with Wikipedian rules. This includes copyright.

  I want to warn DRV participants here that this decision could have far-reaching consequences. We must not establish a principle that it's okay to write whatever you like, even in your userspace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • "We must not establish a principle that it's okay to write whatever you like, even in your userspace" I agree with you there. But I hope it's fairly clear by now that this case's outcome, whatever it may be, shouldn't set such a precedent. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I hope so too, Lar. I think most DRV regulars would agree.

      On the other hand, I still think the point should be made. DRV occupies a unique position. Wikipedia has many procedures for resolving conduct disputes, but in terms of resolving content disputes, DRV is "the highest court in the land", in the sense that if you disagree with a DRV closure, there's nowhere else to go to appeal it. In other words, DRV decisions are typically final. And this is a matter of content, not conduct, so our consensus here is really the end of the line.

      Also, we don't often see matters related to userspace at DRV, except in the special case where someone wishes to move a userfied article back into mainspace (which isn't really the same thing). Most of our decisions relate to XfD closures or speedy deletions of content bound for mainspace.

      I've found this DRV has helped shape my thoughts on what's appropriate in userspace and what isn't, and I should imagine that at least some others have had the same experience.

      And finally, DRV tends to be consistent. That is to say, where an issue has been decided one particular way, other issues of the same kind usually follow the established pattern—which isn't quite the same thing as establishing a precedent, but does have a similar effect. I think that's because the population of DRV regulars is relatively small and our views tend to crystallise more and more each time a similar discussion is repeated.

      So I do think that needed saying. Others will disagree, and quite rightly, they will disregard me.  :)—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

      • Good point about DRV being the highest court, or just about. There's always a content RfC (which I've been advocating, anyone here not yet realise I think one on this topic to clarify and firm up the NFCC would be a good idea??? :) ) but it's not exactly the same, is it? ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• I think having the text is the wrong thing, but our policies don't address this. Per IAR I think this should be deleted. But if that's not going to happen, I think we should update polices and guidelines and _then_ delete this. That's what this close suggested, so endorse. Though I'd certainly have closed it as delete, I think that no consensus is also a reasonable close. It also pushes us to fix our polices ASAP. Hobit (talk) 23:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Indeed. Or we could just spend lots of time on the DRV. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• endorse The consensus was right, that it does not violate reasonable fair use. If this particular use is not specified in NFCC, we can still accept it via IAR. Contra S Marshall, IAR runs both ways. DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

IAR may allow us to ignore our own, internal rules, but it does not allow us to ignore directives from the Wikimedia Foundation, especially one which says, quite bluntly, that it "may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. (italics in original, boldface/emphasis added by me) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

that we have a policy limiting the fair use of material is a directive from the foundation; what precisely it says within broad limits is up to us. How we interpret it is up to us. If the foundation thinks we are blatantly wrong, they have the tools of office actions and instructions pr advice from the foundation attorney. And, more specifically, the Foundation does allow IAR: "Their use, with limited exception. must be..." Note the: "with limited exception". DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The trouble with IAR, DGG, is that it does hinge on "things that prevent you improving the encyclopaedia". I think it's a bit hard to apply that to a userspace page, because I do not think it would be possible to show that the said page was improving the encyclopaedia in any way.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that the truth of "the said page was" [or wasn't] "improving the encyclopaedia in any way" is a matter of opinion, and I suspect that opinion may not be universally shared. ++Lar: t/c 20:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That's true. Fortunately, we have ways of resolving matters of opinion.

In the case of copyright, our way of resolving it is to place a burden on the editor wishing to use copyrighted material. That editor must produce a rationale for the community to discuss. In this case, I do not believe it possible to produce a rationale that would satisfy DRV that a userspace page that is not intended to become mainspace material contributes significantly to the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that unless you say that NO user page contributes significantly, you're making a value judgment. But I think some user pages in fact DO. Consider this pretty bauble: User:CatherineMunro/Bright Places, a wonderful commentary and inspiration, or this work page User:Lar/Liberal Semi... these pages contribute significantly, at least IMHO. Jack has advanced the theory that his quoting from that work is important commentary on the encyclopedia itself, commentary he wants folk to heed, and apparently commentary that can't be made as effectively without the quote itself. Others may not agree. I'm not sure I do myself, in fact, but to agree or disagree is a value judgment. So yes, the burden is on Jack to show that this quote, much larger than what is routinely accepted, is necessary. And that's what the MfD was supposed to address. Not to belabor the point, but we shouldn't revisit the MfD and the arguments... we should be deciding if the no consensus outcome should stand, or should be overturned because the NFCC and the EDB (and by extension upwards, the actions of the WMF board) override consensus in this case, despite precedent for smaller quotes. ++Lar: t/c 21:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

(←) I'm entirely with you up until you get to "We shouldn't revisit the MfD and the arguments". Before that point, I agree with every word you say, and I would add that the various essays in S Marshall's userspace are models of enlightened thought that would instantly bring perfection to the encyclopaedia if only users would adhere to them religiously.

But when you say "We shouldn't revisit the MfD and the arguments", I start to disagree. Please look again at the nomination statement we are considering. How on Earth could we do that if we did not evaluate the strength of the arguments? And how could we discuss the matter without saying which arguments we think have greater weight, and why?

DRV closers typically allow wide latitude for such discussions for precisely this reason, and they usually allow discussion of which arguments should have been presented as well. In fact, I think any argument is permissible here providing its good faith purpose is to improve the encyclopaedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

First, on your user page, why no "edit of the year 2006"? Couldn't top Jimbo and ClueBot blocks?... Second, well I suppose you're right about what's arguable at DRV, to a point. But there are conflicting forces here. One being that what you say makes sense... IAR says we don't play moot court and say one can't advance certain arguments because it's too late, but the other side of that is that DRV isn't supposed to be MFD II... you need to advance something new not just re-re-re-rehash (which, truth be told, this DRV seems to be doing some of, as does any conversation of any length here, it seems). I wouldn't be dumping most of my free edit time today into this topic if I didn't think it was important and interesting... but the actual important question to me now is not the substance of the argument itself, but rather the meta one... how do you tell when (fiat based) policy must trump consensus (or the clear lack of it, as in this case, which is a special kind of consensus, the consensus to do nothing), which is one I've delved into before. Oddly, it was on the other side, arguing that a policy needed to trump consensus, and trying to show why. However I think that hasn't happened here, those saying trumping is needed haven't made their case clearly and unassailably in my view. ++Lar: t/c 22:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I think it best if I reply on your talk page, since the questions you raise are interesting and I would like to discuss them, but they do not seem immediately relevant to this DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse. Clearly no consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endrose closure per Lar. As much as I feel that the page should be deleted (see my comments in the MfD), a "No Consensus" close was within admin discretion. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Regretfully endorse I think that the page fails WP:NFCC#9 big time (non-free content is only allowed in articles, see also #7 and #8), but, regretfully, this is not MfD part 2. The commenters in the MfD really didn't agree on how to interpret the policy and they thought that "fair use" applied here, so the admin had the possibility of closing like this.

Editors pointed to the intro of WP:NFCC "Articles may in accordance with the guideline use brief verbatim textual excerpts from copyrighted media, properly attributed or cited to its original source or author. Other non-free content (...) may be used (...) only where all 10 of the following criteria are met." arguing that WP:NFCC#9 didn't cover merridew's page because it's a verbatim quote. I think that "Articles may" clearly excludes non-article pages, but, then again, this was also discussed there, and this is not MfD part 2.

The main argument was that brief text quotes are covered by "fair use", which meant that they were automatically not covered by WP:NFCC#9, even if the policy didn't specify it. In other words, the WP:FAIRUSE policy does not invalidate the editor's right to apply the Fair Use doctrine to copyrighted text. Others said that, by the de minimis rule, this appliesonly to quotes of one or two sentences, and not to Merridew's quoting of several paragraphs (about 617 words). Others said that many users had quotes in userspace, so it was a de facto practice, with other saying that this went against the spirit of the Wikimedia's foundations policy in licensing policy which says that exemptions for non-free content must be minimal. I find the references to WP:CC-BY-SA to be a red herring, since the text is clearly quoted and attributed to the copyright holder so Merridew is not erroneously releasing this copyrighted text as his own.

IMO, the root problem here is that US law allows "fair use" of brief quotes, and our copyright policy doesn't explicitly allow or disallow them outside of articles. Wikipedia, as a private website, can decide to forbid all copyrighted material outside of articles including fair use material, but the current policy does not do that. Policy needs to clarify if it's allowing "fair use" brief quotes outside of articles, or these discussions will keep closing as "no consensus". (Good luck getting consensus for the change, mind you) --Enric Naval (talk) 10:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment; it's got a speedy tag on it, now.^[11] Seems out-of-process, to me. Cheers, Jack Merridew 14:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Regretful endorse It's a shame that people can read NFCC 9 and somehow miss that userspace==/== articlespace, but that's what happened. There is no point in coming by for another bite at the apple and obviously no point in getting folks to understand our non-free content policy. Protonk (talk) 00:31, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I think it's more of a rules-lawyer problem. Our non-free content policy doesn't seem to address text in user space. I think it's painfully obvious that anything not acceptable for article space isn't acceptable for user space (and in fact we'd be much more conservative in user space), but it is a loophole that people are driving a truck through. Hobit (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Whatever else the NFCC may be, they are not bright line rules with no ambiguity. Applying them requires judgment, and it is completely possible for reasonable editors to disagree on whether or not a given piece of content satisfies the criteria as used in a particular context. Accordingly, arguments asserting that content does not meet those criteria are not the sort of arguments that trump consensus. And it is transparently obvious that there was not a consensus in the MFD. So "no consensus" was the only viable closure of the MFD. GRBerry 14:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, in the hopes that this will force an improvement to the non-free content policy, that makes it address non-free text in user space more clearly. If everyone who argued to keep were misinterpreting the NFCC, then the effort should be put into improving the policy, not reversing the "no consensus" closure, which was correct. decltype (talk) 22:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

:File:ShaikhChandScan.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Also see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2009 June 14#File:Copy of 12062009755.jpg

This picture was deleted even after relevant license was produced to justfy its authenticity. No one can determine the authenticity of the image unless and untill they are experts of the subject. An administrator and a stray editor assumed that the image was possibly not a free image, proposed speedy deletion. I do not endorse such a careless act by any editor or an administrator who delete an image without taking into account its credibility. Even after quoting the sources an image is deleted for some silly reasons. I also proposed that some administrator from Wikipedia:India look into the matter, cause a person naive about the picture and the subject cannot determine if the picture is to be deleted or to be restored. Nefirious (talk) 05:32, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• I stand by what I said at the PUF from the 20th, I believe that the image is still a copyright violation and that sufficient evidence exists to prove it (I refer to my statement there and the images for such evidence). As has been explained to Nefirious before, the crux of the issue is that, while he is correct that the original black-and-white painting photo of Malik Ambar is in the public domain, the color version he has been uploading is a much more recent artist's rendition of the original, and as such is still copyrighted. The problem with ShaikhChandScan.jpg specifically is that it is not a scan of the original painting photo, but is instead the color version passed through a black-and-white digital filter. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • As a non-admin, I can't see anything at all that would make this discussion intelligible to me. It seems inappropriate to request a temporary undeletion of a copyright-violating file, though. Could someone please explain exactly what licence was produced and what justification was used for this image?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • The license claimed is {{PD-old}}, which is true only of the original painting photo; in its original incarnation it had been claimed as {{PD-self}}. I've seen nothing indicating that the colored version is public domain, or licensed under a compatible license; if this can be shown I'd be happy to undelete any of the images (just one, to avoid duplication). The PD-self claim is rather silly, as is explained at this PUF thread. To summarize, File:Malik Ambar is a small portion of File:Copy of 12062009755.jpg, the front page of a newspaper (Copy of 12062009755.jpg is in no way low resolution enough to qualify for the nonfree use itself, as much of the text can be clearly read), which fails to cite where the image came from. The information that it is a colored copy an old black-and-white photograph (corrected above, I remembered incorrectly) comes from a previous DRV, where Exit2DOS2000 did some research. The solution there was the upload of this image, which was later disputed. I hope that between what I've said and the additional background linked, you can make some sense of this, and I apologize that this DRV requires admin tools as much as it does. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:17, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Thank you. On reviewing that, I have two questions.

        1) I presume from what you say that the date on the newspaper is visible. What is it?

        2) Would I be right in thinking the newspaper is a normal tabloid or broadsheet, published by a private publisher (as opposed to a government organisation of some kind)?

        Thanks in advance—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:59, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

        • 1) I hadn't checked previously, but no, it is not. I assume it's cut off on the side, but I can't be certain. From the color of ink and paper, I assume it isn't too old, but don't count this as anything but an uninformed opinion.
          2) The paper is the "Aurangabad Plus", which is "Complimentary to the readers of the Times of India...". The Times of India is privately owned, so you are correct. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Times of India is the most reliable newspaper from India and it has a lot of credibility. I think the biggest mistake I made while uploading the first picture of Malik Ambar was tagging it with the wrong license. The picture itself was a colored version of the original image, which appeared in the Times of India's supplement. I guess it was your presumption that the image I uploaded again, went through the color filter. You are not sure, and unless one is not sure, he/she cannot delete the image I reckon. Nefirious (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• • Nobody's doubting that Times of India is a reliable source. The question is whether we can legitimately use the content.

    The date on the newspaper appears to be the single question that would decide this matter, and before we can proceed, we need to know what it is. If you do not know the exact date, Nefirious, can you confirm whether it appeared (a) before 1911, (b) between 1911 and 1947, or (c) later?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

    • Malik Ambar cites the paper as from 1999 in older versions (diff of removal of that info). Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• Assuming that the newspaper is from after 1947, the matter seems simple enough.

  Just to sum things up for the nominator: Nobody doubts that the Times of India is a reliable source, and nobody doubts that the image is authentic. The question is of copyright.

  Copyright on Wikipedia is governed by the laws of the American state of Florida, which is where the servers are situated; and the relationship between an Indian copyright and use of it in America is governed by a treaty called the Berne Convention, which both India and the United States have signed.

  The only alternative will be to obtain a version of this image that is not protected by copyright. Unfortunately, a newspaper scan will not do.

  I hope this explains why my recommendation to DRV is endorse closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 16:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The image has not alone been used in the Times of India but separate posters have been printed out and used during festivals in Aurangabad, thus I think that the image qualifies under the free license. The image has been published, not in the main supplement, which could have been subjected to copyright, but it was published in Aurangabad Plus, a weekly supplement which uses free images from the internet as well as research papers and other sources. I myself am a contributor of Auranghabad Plus. Nefirious (talk) 11:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

• I hear that, but who owns the copyright in the image?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (article|XfD|restore)2

The closing Admin preferred to count votes instead of considering policy based arguments. The nomination raised the question of why the Military History of New Zealand article would need an ordinary image of showing "soldiers doing minor engineering works" (i.e. WP:NFCC#8). One keep voter said the image was "historically significant", committing the usual fallacy of mistaking a "photo of a historically significant moment" by a "historically significant photo" (as can be seen by his line of argumentation in the vote), and argued about the image being "irreplaceable", committing the usual fallacy of believing irrepleceability is a sufficient criteria for justifying the use of non-free content (when it's just one of the 10 criteria that can bar the use of it). Two other editors voted keep talking about the image being "irreplaceable", repeating the mistakes, and the closing admin counted the votes and first closed it as keep, and when asked about his reasoning (after even trying to compare this image with the Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima!), he closed it again no consensus - keep, later deleted it anyway and later restored it. Votes like "me too", "this photo is irreplaceable", "this photo is useful" and "this photo is historical" (when it isn't) are always discarded by experienced admins when closing deletion discussion about an image's suitability in regard to WP:NFCC#8. Damiens.rf 22:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Closing admin: "Votes like ... (when it isn't)" (emphasis added) - How can you be so sure it isn't? I think that we should just let the RfC take place. "It's decorative" is as weak as "it's useful." Therefore, I could not have closed it as anything other than "no consensus." Whether it ends up being kept or deleted is subject to debate. The image doesn't violate the legal definition of fair use, so there is WP:NODEADLINE for deciding the outcome. I am willing to delete it if there is consensus to do so in the RfC. Moreover, Damiens has referred this to another user, J Milburn, who then posted on my talk page about it. At that point, the RfC looked like a strong consensus to delete no-consensus non-free images, so I deleted it per WP:SNOW. However, consensus is no longer so clear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Moreover, I do not object to deleting it per the burden of proof clause in WP:NFCC. However, the RfC shows that what it exactly means is in dispute. Therefore, I think the issue should be put on hold until the RfC clears. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Regardless of what we do with non-free content which there is no consensus to include, this image should have been deleted. None of the keep arguments are at all valid, as they do not address the main point- no one has explained what this image actually adds to the article. I would be willing to debate the point, as with any image, but I actually chose not to reply to some of those posts when I first saw them simply because I thought it was obvious that what they were saying was not at all related to our NFCC, so would be discounted by a closing admin. J Milburn (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  The first part of Nick-D's !vote is indeed unrelated (NFCC #1), but the second part shows what it adds to the article. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse I still think that this image meets both NFCC #1 and #8 - the image can't be replaced with a free equivalent and its use in the Military history of New Zealand article helps readers understand what the Kiwi engineers were doing there. I do agree that it may be better to put this on ice until the RFC is completed though. Nick-D (talk) 00:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse It is clearly both irriplaceable with a free equiv (NFCC #1) and is historically significant (NFCC #8) and this article, like many others, would be worse off without it. Equally the copyright holder has clearly released the image for use in just such circumstances—see the fair use rationale. If we are going to delete such content then we need to be prepared to delete thousands of similar ones and for the consequences of doing exactly that, i.e. a lot of articles with no illustration at all. Anotherclown (talk) 00:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• The keep voters did not provide any reason why a picture of non-distinctive servicemen doing nothing important is necessary for understanding. The readers of the article do not need to see this picture to comprehend the subject, as no unique information is being imparted—it is merely several humans in uniform doing something that isn't even that clear. As such, the image is decorative, and fails the NFCC; overturn and delete. ÷seresin 04:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• I don't really want another bite of the apple, but come on. How did we keep what is effectively an example of unacceptable non-free image use (#4)? The policy is literally talking about pictures like this and the decision came down to keep it. Am I going to have to start hanging out at FFD again and commenting in each close debate so that we can get the right answer on this kind of thing? Protonk (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete Looks deciorative to me, I'm not getting any real sense that the image is adding some that text can't. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:20, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse keeping the image: even though I know that my opinion obviously doesn't matter and won't be counted as apparently every keep argument is invalid. Clearly an example of why no one should bother uploading any images to Wikipedia at all, because even when concensus showed the people wanted to keep it, those that nominate get their way in the end. Anyway, at the risk of wasting my time, here are my interpretations of the 10 criteria for non free content and why this image satisfies all of them. No doubt they will be picked apart and all found to be invalid.
  • 1. Non free equivalent: image is of soldiers in a combat zone. There are a number of reasons why no free equivalent would be available. Firstly, it is unlikely any civilians would be there taking photos and uploading to Wiki due to issues of safety. Secondly, I doubt if the Kiwis just let anyone take happy snaps while carrying out operations (its called operational security, hence the reason governments provide certain images to the public/media). Thirdly, the Kiwis were deployed in an area where the US wasn't operating so it is unlikely that any public domain photos were taken by US servicemen.
  • 2. Respect for commerical opportunities: The copyright holder has released the image for use and is not seeking to obtain money by selling it.
  • 3. Minimal usage and extent of use: Only used on the Military of History of New Zealand article.
  • 4. Previous publication: previously published on the NZDF site from which it was obtained.
  • 5. Content: Content is encyclopedic - it depicts something that readers might be interested in and does not show anything that is silly, frivolous, non notable etc.
  • 6. Media specific policy: the article is appropriately tagged, specifies its source, there is a description of the image and it has a clear, detailed title and appropriate tags.
  • 7. One article minimum: image was used in Military History of New Zealand article.
  • 8. Significance: The image helps to illustrate what the New Zealand engineers were doing while deployed to Iraq. There are thousands of images depicting what US forces are doing there, but not that many of NZ's deployment (indeed this is the only one I've seen). Also, despite what one editor believes, the building of a bridge seems important to me (but then I used to a be combat engineer myself and know how much hard work goes into actually putting one together). Surely reconstruction is as important as warfighting? But that is an aside point.
  • 9. Restrictions on location: The image was used in an article (allowed), and not on any disambig pages or other pages where it is not allowed.
  • 10. Image description page: a). Identifies source, information about copyright holder. b). There is an appropriate copyright tag. c). The name of the article in which it was used (Military History of New Zealand) is mentioned in the Summary section.

Also, I'd like to point out that deleting images like this, which do not breach copyright and for which no free equivalent can reasonably be expected to be found damages the encyclopedia. How is anyone meant to meet the criteria of the higher article ratings (which require supporting materials such as photos), if such images are not allowed?

Finally, as for arguments that the image is decorative, well you may as well delete 99% of the non free images on the encyclopedia, because there are unlikely to be many images that show things that text can't in some way illustrate (maybe a technical animation of how a complex piece of machinery works, or something like that, but even then text could probably explain that adequately too if written by someone that knows how to write technical information in a way that is easily understood by laymen). — AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• I'll focus on your interpretation of #8 above since that was the criteria that actualy mattered in the deletion: The gist of your argument seems to be that they did important (significant) work that that they presense was important and such. Unfortunately this completely misses the point. The question is not if the event or work was significant, the question is if this image significantly increase the understanding of the article. If it's possible to understand that the event was significant without seeing an image of it the image fail this test. You do assert that it helps illustrate the article but there is a significant difference between "help illustrate" and "significantly increse the understanding". Also a word of advice: Throwing up a wall of text explaining how the image satisfy all sorts of criteria that where never disputed in the first place doesn't nessesarily give you argument added weight, quite the opposite in most cases (no offence intended, but it can easily give others the impression that you are just flailing about fighting straw men instead trying to refute whatever relevant arguments where given to delete). --Sherool (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• • The reason for the long "wall of text" was that last time I voted I was accused of only seletectively discussing the ten criteria. As indeed was mentioned above. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse keep. My default position on non-free images of living people is "delete", because I think such images pose a significant threat to Wikipedia. However, in this case the image is subject to crown copyright, a matter that few non-Commonwealth residents understand, and upon which I shall at some point produce an essay, because I think it should have its own treatment in Wikipedia's rules.

  Suffice it to say that there is no risk of harm to Wikipedia, no risk of harm to any living person, and no damage to anyone's livelihood or rights from hosting this image. At that point, the benefits of retaining the image outweigh the drawbacks and it would be correct to keep it.

  Because Wikipedia does not have good rules governing the use of crown copyright at the moment, my !vote is an explicit invocation of WP:IAR.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:35, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• The result was not keep and BLP has nothing to do with this image. Please respond to the points raised. ÷seresin 09:01, 22 August 2009 (UTC)re

• The original result was keep and I did not remark on BLP. I spoke about non-free images of living people, which is what this is.

  I gave my reasons why I think the result should not be overturned to delete as the nominator wishes. This is not a response to the points raised, but instead a raising of counterarguments. I do not think there is anything wrong with that, so on reviewing my remark I shall let it stand.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• When you comment about the effects an image has on a living person, that's referring to BLP, whether you name it or not. Your arguments consist partly of saying that this is under a special type of copyright that nobody understands. If it is anything other than a free license, it's the same thing WRT our policy. Your other argument is that there is no harm to Wikipedia. This is wrong: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia, and hosting any non-free content other than that which is absolutely necessary is antithetical to our mission. ÷seresin 10:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• (←)On BLP: BLP policy refers to biographies of living people, and primarily concerns unsourced negative information about a living person. With all due respect for your ingenious arguments about it, it is clearly of very limited relevance to an image and I have specifically disavowed referring to BLP.

  On crown copyright: It is a special type of copyright, and very few non-Commonwealth contributors understand it. With all due respect for your well-phrased attempts to dismiss them, these facts are highly relevant to its use on Wikipedia.

  On Wikipedia's mission: We're here to produce an encyclopaedia. Promotion of free image content is Wikimedia commons' mission, not ours.

  So I'm afraid that while I recognise that you wish to exclude my comments because they do not suit the way you wish to frame the debate, I shall not defer to that desire in this instance.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Crown copyright is still non-free for our purposes and that's all that matter for use on Wikipedia. We do not differenciate between degrees of non-freenes, even when a copyright holder have explicitly given permission to use an image on Wikipedia, all the non-free criteria still apply if he didn't actualy release the image under a free license. Crown Copyright is no different in this regard, it's not a free license, so WP:NFCC must be applied fully, regardles of how liberal the law may be. --Sherool (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is very little point in criticising my view for not complying with Wikipedian rules when I specifically invoked IAR in my very first remark. I am well aware of NFCC 8 and I think there are good reasons not to apply it.

  My position, which I have stated quite explicitly, is that NFCC 8 is baselessly obstructing an improvement to the encyclopaedia, because it is aimed at protecting commercial copyright users rather than crown copyright. NFCC 8 should therefore be ignored.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:16, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Right... good luck with that. --Sherool (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Out of interest, please could you cite any example of a fair-use image in which you believe NFCC8 does not apply?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Your question is puzzeling since I can't recall giving the impression that I believe there are cases where the criteria don't apply (well there are some legitimate exceptions to NFCC 9 for administrative purposes and such). If you intended to ask me for examples of images I believe satisfy the criteria however there are numerous examples. Most logos and cover art are significant enough when used in the primary articles about the organization or work they serve to identify. Same for images of most fictional characters that are notable enugh to have articles. Images used to illustrate a style of art and such will generaly pass the significance test (though people sometimes go overgoard and forget about minimal use), images that are notable in their own right with articles that are to a large degree about the image itself pass for use in those articles at least (File:Sharbat Gula on National Geographic cover.jpg, File:Nguyen.jpg, File:Tianasquare.jpg, and such). You know basicaly any kind of image you need to actualy see to get a good understanding of the article, I'm rely not that "hard core" on the issue as I might come across as in this debate, but since I do believe this particular image fail the criteria that will obviously be the focus of my arguments here. --Sherool (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Overturn to delete Very poor close with obvious head-counting and no consideration of strength of arguments. It was plausibly asserted that the image did not satisfy NFCC 8 and not one of the keep rationales even attempted to refute this. To keep this image, somebody needed to explain how this image significantly increase readers' understanding of some aspect of the Military History of New Zealand; no-one did at the AfD or in the FUR and no-one has in this deletion review. CIreland (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Tons of people have. For example, "The image helps to illustrate what the New Zealand engineers were doing while deployed to Iraq. There are thousands of images depicting what US forces are doing there, but not that many of NZ's deployment (indeed this is the only one I've seen)." You might not think this does the job, but I don't see how you can claim this doesn't attempt to explain how NFCC8 was met. Hobit (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Well the stuff about the number of images of US forces is completely irrelevant naturally, those images are public domain and not subject to the same rules. As for illustrating what the forces where doing while in Iraq it is indeed a point, but not a particularly strong one. The test is not whether or not the image illustrate something, most do. The question is if that illustration is necessary for understanding the article (or secion). In this case the relevant section has the following to say about the troops role in Iraq: "New Zealand contributed a small engineering and support force to assist in post-war reconstruction and provision of humanitarian aid.". Does this fact rely become any harder to understand without seeing a photo of NZ troops building a bridge? --Sherool (talk) 17:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Again, I'm not arguing that it does the job (though I feel it does), I'm merely saying that people have attempted to refute the claim. Quite a lot actually. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
        • I for one made a number of arguments attempting to refute that the image didn't satisfy NFCC # 8, as I know a number of other people did. Whether or not they were valid or not does not change the fact that a number of people "attempted" to refute the point that you said that no one even attempt to do. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete per Protonk. Hobit (talk) 18:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete per nom and my varoius comments injected at various points above. Based on how the image was used, the provided non-free use rationale and the comments so far in the FFD and this review I don't see any convincing explanation of how this image significalty increase the understanding of the article it was used in. The article says they where there doing reconstruction and humanitarian aid, we don't need a photo of soldiers building stuff to understand this. It would look good in the article, and I would not have removed it if it was free licensed. However because of Wikipedia's free content focus there is a much higher bar for including non-free content, and having the article look better is not a strong enough reason to just ignore that policy as S Marshall advocate above. --Sherool (talk) 19:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The question of whether an image meets NFCC#8 or not is a question of fact for each image, to be determined by consensus, and I think there was consensus that the image did meet the criterion. It's becoming difficult, possibly unduly so, to defend a claim that an image fails NFCC#8, and overturning this decision would make that problem worse. Stifle (talk) 20:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Which of the keep rationales at the original FFD do you believe explained how the image satisfied NFCC 8? I'm not unsympathetic to the your point about the difficulties NFCC 8 can cause but I don't think we should go so far as to permit retention of images at FFD when the chief deletion rationale, NFCC 8, has been credibly raised yet not addressed by those advocating retention. CIreland (talk) 21:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
    • NickD and AustralianRupert. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse keep The discussion on whether the image is appropriate for the article belongs at the article. I can see this being used in various inappropriate ways, or in appropriate ones. If consensus there is that it is appropriate, then it can be used. This is the wrong forum. If they use it, and it meets the other requirements, the proper course is a RfC on the content there. The purpose of XfD is not to review the detailed content decisions in individual articles. If we do consider XfD an appropriate place, then the interpretation of the rule has to go by what the community thinks, and consensus is the only way to determine that. It's irrational to say that the consensus is against policy, when it is consensus that determines the specifics of policy. I see this is one of the relatively rare times I and Stifle agree. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Even though I agree with DGG in this instance, I want to challenge one sentence of his response. DGG says "It's irrational to say that the consensus is against policy, when it is consensus that determines the specifics of policy". I feel this is overly general and open to misunderstanding, and I want to clarify that I think there are times when policy can and should overrule a local consensus—though this is not one of them.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:17, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, S.M, I did oversimplify. T On the one hand, there's no point in general consensus unless it has some controlling influence, but the interpretation in any one specific case will inevitably be local. The way to get local and general consensus to conform better is increased participation in processes. Alternatively, some means of highlighting the important discussions for a broader consensus. To some extent, Del Rev does serve for that. But IAR seems to say that one can always override any general consensus for a particular instance. I agree we need some such rule, but there should be a more precise way of applying it. Alternatively, we could change IAR, and that's one of the really basic policies. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

• DGG, I'd like to ask for your response to Protonk's argument above. I understand why S Marshall would not find that compelling (crown copyright), but I'd like to understand your view on that. Hobit (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

which argument? His argument seems to be that his own interpretation is necessarily right. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

That it is literally an example of the type of non-free images not to be used here [12] Image#4. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I often disagree with DGG in XfD discussions, but I fully endorse their above post. From my recent experience with this and related discussions, it seems that some editors believe that only they understand how the fair use policy should be applied, and anyone who has a different interpretation is so wrong that their views should be dismissed. Nick-D (talk) 00:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

But DGG, this is the problem, not the solution. The reason so many NFCC centered deletion discussions are heated and involved isn't because editors and admins aren't properly applying the policy to their arguments. Rather it is because the policy and consensus are in conflict. If we had a vote tomorrow and could somehow summon and compel all registered users to vote on completely overturning NFC and allowing non-free media to be used in the same fashion that we allow free media, the outcome would not bode well for the NFC. The prevailing reaction to edits which reduce the number of non-free images on a page or reduce the use of non-free images is hostility. Not because the folks opposing the change are foolish or stupid but because the removal of the non-free images tends to diminish the article. If we had license to use a non-free image for identification of living persons, our biographies would be improved (Dramatically, if the NYT is to be believed), so the removal of a non-free image from those page, though necessary, generates resentment. The sentiment behind that resentment and the sentiment behind opposition to the NFC is noble. Wikipedia would be a dramatically better resource if the NFC were dispensed with tomorrow, but it would be a resource which could no longer be shared freely and without fear of legal issues. As such, the foundation has directed (And the community have built a policy around) that non-free content be limited, even in the presence of disagreement. And it is that disagreement which is the font of these sorts of discussions. It isn't, as Nick-D presumes, that I think those with a different interpretation are wrong by definition. They just happen to be wrong here. They are pushing for the inclusion of an image which is 'specifically proscribed by the NFCC because they want to improve the article. They wish that we could include images of troops taken under crown copyright just as we include images of american troops. That's not inherently wrong or foolish, but it is in conflict with the NFC and we need to acknowledge that. Protonk (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

again, IAR gives us not merely permission to do so, but instructions to do so, in exactly that situation. "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." What could be plainer? (I interpret "you" as us collectively; not an individual according to whim, because that's a suicide pact, but an individual backed by consensus for that action.) DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it is time to reinterpret the policy so that Crown copyright images can be used. As another user has pointed out they are 'safe' to use and do not have the same potential legal problems of other categories of non-free images. Similar images are used extensively in American articles because they are clearly PD, but articles subject to Commonwealth crown copyright are not due to a technicality. Lets be practical. Anotherclown (talk) 03:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not a technicality. Crown copyright is incompatible w/ the GFDL (or CC-by-sa). We don't control the license the materials are released under. Protonk (talk) 03:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It is and you're just being difficult if you cannot accept that. My point is that US images taken in exactly the same circumstances are PD whilst commonwealth images are copyright... and whilst this makes them suspect under the non-free image policy it is clearly a 'technicality' given the rationale behind attempting to exclude them. Anotherclown (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Protonk's "just being difficult", Anotherclown. From my experience with him, that isn't his practice at all. I think he's genuinely missed the point about crown copyright, likely based on a failure to understand its purpose, scope and intent, and I would like to think that if approached correctly, he is one of the "endorse" camp who would be open to re-examining his !vote.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm open to being told what makes crown copyrighted images different from images held by any other copyright, with respect to the encyclopedia. I'm absolutely certain, however, that 'crown copyright' isn't being used as a cover for some unspoken nefarious purpose like ridding the encyclopedia of pictures from New Zealand. Protonk (talk) 17:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• (←) Okay, crown copyright's a complex subject that it's hard to sum up in a short paragraph. Its provisions range from the extremely restrictive (as with for example maps from the Ordnance Survey, which may not be reproduced without a licencing agreement that I am positive neither Wikipedia nor the Wikimedia Foundation possess) to the extremely permissive (as with for example material taken from a government website, which is reproducible unless otherwise stated).

  My position is that in general, crown copyright material should be freely reusable on Wikipedia provided it is one of the types of material on this list (which does not cover the image, but keep reading).

  In the specific case of images of armed forces personnel, material "may be reproduced for the purposes of non-commercial research or private study and for the purposes of reporting current events only". In my opinion use on Wikipedia for recent conflicts (i.e. in the 21st Century) would be covered under "for the purposes of reporting current events" and viewed as "non-commercial"; and further, in my opinion the relevant government agencies will tacitly approve of this use, though they will be enjoined from approving it formally if asked.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Ok. Here's where I feel there may be a misunderstanding. It is insufficient that an image be available for non-commercial reuse (See CSD F3). The image, in order to be considered 'free' for our purposes, has to be free for anyone to use, modify, profit from, etc. Something that is free only for us can't be used in an unrestricted fashion here. The section of our article on crown copyright describing its incompatibility with the GFDL does a reasonable job of explaining it (IMO). Protonk (talk) 04:29, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Sure, and I accept that the image is not "considered 'free' for our purposes". What I'm challenging is these people who're doing the "considering", because they've managed to come up with a rule that prevents us from improving the encyclopaedia by using crown copyright material that is, in fact, available for us to reuse.

      My position is that this is why the current Wikipedian rules on crown copyright are dumb and need to be disregarded for the moment, and revised in time, in the encyclopaedia's best interests.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

      • Well the people doing the considering are the foundation. The reason we can't use it like it is a free image is because it can't be reused like the rest of the encyclopedia--this is the reason fair use images were only accepted grudgingly. If the encyclopedia goes to print, that image won't be in it. If it gets packaged on a OLPC laptop and sent to a school somewhere, that image won't be on it. If I want to write a book about NZ's participation in the Iraq war, I can't use that image without permission. Etc. These aren't reasons why the image can't be included as a non-free image w/ a fair use rationale. These are just reasons why it would be inappropriate to include the image as though it were free just because it is free for us. Protonk (talk) 18:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
        • It's not a fair use image, though, Protonk. It's an image where copyright has been waived for Wikipedia's purposes—which I think is an important distinction. Further, it's uncontroversial that relevant images improve the encyclopaedia.

          This is precisely the kind of situation IAR considers. It's an exact case in point. All these arguments about whether this is a "non-free image with a fair use rationale", alphabet soup about NFCC8, etc., are subordinate to our basic purpose of building an online encyclopaedia and IAR specifically enjoins us to disregard them.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

          • • It is a fair use image. See CSD F3, please. Even though images say "can be used on wikiepdia" they are "non-free" as in they are not Free and open source. As a matter of fact, try uploading an image to wikipedia by selecting "I have permission to place this on wikipedia" from the dropdown menu. The image will automatically show up in the speedy deletion queue. I'm willing to say, based on the response here, that we can IAR and accept it as fair use, despite the fact that it is the poster child for what is not fair use. But it is wrong to say that it is a "free" image. Protonk (talk) 20:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• (←)

• • There is no shame in taking up space with constructive dialogue. I understand the point you are trying to make that crown copyright is neither fish nor fowl in terms of "copyrighted images". But the image policy and the foundation principles on copyright are pretty clear. the closest analogy we have to crown copyright is "free for non commercial use licenses" which are clearly not to be treated as free images. It isn't a matter of mischaracterisation on my part. Wikipedia:Crown copy indicates that the images are copyrighted until expiry. this email from a foundation board member spells things out. Protonk (talk) 00:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Okay then, I won't hat myself again.  :) However, we seem to be no further forward. To sum up our respective positions:

      You have explained what the rules are, and you have explained the reasons for the rules. Your position appears to be that the rules should be enforced because they are rules.

      My position is as it always has been: that crown copyright is the poster child for IAR. In other words, our rules in this case are needlessly presenting obstacles to improving the encyclopaedia. My position is that it's frankly silly to delete this image that we have permission to use and require someone else to go out and take a different photograph of substantially the same subject if an image is to be included.

      Before I try to build a bridge between these two viewpoints, have I misrepresented your position in any way?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

      • Well, there are rules and there are rules. You are pretty much free to ignore anything except Wikipedia:Five pillars (note that IAR is among them). Ignoring the rules on the use of free content doesn't improve the encyclopedia, it makes it ethically and legally hazardous for reusers, a distinct net negative. I think it is an egregious misrepresentation of my position to say that I think rules should be enforced because they are rules. That's actually fairly insulting. I haven't been carrying on this conversation to do so. I've been attempting to provide a justification, grounded in the very purpose for the encyclopedia. Our goal, the end goal, is to provide a free resource (in every way) to the rest of the world. If we include non-free media as free media (even media that allows for non commercial use without permission) we foreclose the opportunity for derivative works, commercial ventures, or whatever someone can dream up 10-20 years down the road. Declaring that content limits don't exist for crown copyrighted works does just that. I'm open to (generally) the notion that a strong fair use rationale can be generated from this discussion, but I don't agree that crown copyrighted images should be treated as 'pseudo-free images'. Protonk (talk) 00:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • It certainly wasn't my intention to be insulting, and I apologise for any offence I might have inadvertently caused.

          My position is that Wikipedia's goal is to be an encyclopaedia. It is Wikimedia Commons' mission to be a repository of free image content. Personally, I see myself as an encyclopaedia editor first, and a free content provider as an incidental byproduct.

          I am emphatically not suggesting that crown copyrighted images should be treated as 'pseudo-free images'. That would be disastrous (for example, it could lead to someone scanning and uploading an Ordnance Survey map, which could quite possibly lead to real world problems for Wikipedia).

          I do think, however, that in the case of this particular image, the situation goes beyond a "fair use rationale". A "fair use rationale" in this case means "delete me per NFCC8" because NFCC8 (which is designed to protect commercial copyright holders) is very strongly-worded and includes a fundamental presumption to remove content. That presumption is not appropriate given the crown copyright status.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

          • Well we may not be able to bridge that gap. I see folks here as editors of a free encyclopedia, equal stress on both words. As for the NFCC, NFCC 8 is not designed to help copyright holders (Look to 2,3,4 for that). NFCC 8 is there to provide a deliberately high bar for non-free content. NFCC 8 isn't about them, it is about us. It's there to make it hard for us to use crown copyrighted images of soldiers, even when we want to. The result is directly and deliberately in conflict with our goal to build an encyclopedia, because without NFCC 8, we would not be forced to find or make free content for images and files and downstream users of the encyclopedia would suffer. I'm not sure I understand you reasoning about why turning crown copyrighted images into 'pseudo-free' files would be dangerous. Surely the limiting factor in folks obtaining ordinance maps or what have you isn't their copyright status. US Navy reactor plant manuals are in the public domain (As they are written by DNR), but they certainly aren't publicly available--because they are classified. Protonk (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
            • Well, let's see whether the gap can be bridged. My logic runs as follows:

              1) IAR tells us to ignore rules that prevent us improving the encyclopaedia.

              2) Using relevant images where possible improves the encyclopaedia.

              3) The image in question is available for us to use.

              4) The current rules on crown copyright are, as you correctly say, "in conflict with our goal to build an encyclopaedia".

              5) These rules are the only obstacle to using that image.

              I think this is the exact situation for which IAR was written, and I have rarely seen a clearer example. Policy says that rules and technicalities are not allowed to stop us improving the encyclopaedia.

              Where in my logic do you see a flaw?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

            • The flaw is that, regardless of our rules, using crown copyright images where possible conflict with our goal to build a free encyclopaedia. You stated it like it was the rule's fault, but the decision to block non-free content (e.g.: crown stuff) is not an arbitrary capricious rule. --Damiens.rf 12:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• (←) Using images that we have permission to use doesn't conflict with that goal at all, Damiens.rf. What it conflicts with is a totally different goal, i.e. to supply material that other people can freely reuse.

  Whether or not it's the rule's fault, we have a core policy that any rule that prevents us from enhancing the encyclopaedia is to be disregarded.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Exactly what damiens said. The rule doesn't just incidentally block the free use of nfc. If intentionally blocks it because widespread use of non-free images damages downstream use and wikipedia is built for downstream use. Because there is a picture of NZ combat engineers, no one has any incentive to go out and get one themselves, which means that any reuser for the next 50 years will get a redlink instead of an image. Protonk (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
    • More to the point, it isn't a technicality. The reason that people like Spartaz and Fut Perf and Damiens and me and Stifle all demand that images meet NFCC 8 isn't because we are bureaucratic jerks who hate images. It is because we believe that the foundation's goal to build a free encyclopedia rests on the use of free media. And that someone has to be "that guy" because using primarily free media sucks. The pictures aren't as good, they aren't up to the minute, professional shots are usually much better. If there were no bar set, non-free media would force out free media. How many free pictures of actors/actresses would we have if we could use headshots from publicists? It would be great for us, the immediate users, but if there was a content dispute with the subject, they could use (illegitimately) copyright law to force the image off their page in retaliation for page content problems. Any reuser would have to negotiate a second contract with the publicist. If you want a good example of why free is a guiding principle, go to Austrailia or NZ and watch south park or hulu on your computer. Tell me how that goes. Freeing ourselves from that morass is a guiding light for the encyclopedia. And limiting fair use pictures, especially when we wish we had them is part of it. Protonk (talk) 16:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I would characterise the above arguments as follows:-

        1) Treating crown copyright as you would a fair use image swiped from a publicist, when in fact I thought we had established that a crown copyright image used under a waiver is an entirely different matter; and

        2) Treating downstream re-users as more important than encyclopaedia browsers, when in fact I thought we had established that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia first and foremost, and providing a repository of free image content is really Wikimedia Commons' mission, not ours.

        I can't help thinking that both Protonk and Damiens.rf have not yet fully appreciated the difference between crown copyright and fair use, and I suspect we shall make no more progress in this discussion until the said difference is acknowledged.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

        • 1st, yes, Crown Copyright is different from Fair use, that is different from Creative Commons Non-Commercial, that is different of "All Rights Reserved" that is different from a lot of other non-free licenses. What they all have in common is that they forbid at-least one of a) Use for any purpose, b) Unrestricted distribution, c) Unrestricted modification, d) Distribution of modification. (and all that should be provided irrevocably and for anyone). Nobody is claiming that Crowns Copyright is the same as fair use. We're just following the Foundation determination of splitting all content in only two well defined categories, Free and Non-free. I'm affraid Crown's fits the second. 2nd Yes, downstream users are as important (or even more important) than encyclopaedia browsers. We're not building a website, for god's sake. We're building a freely available encyclopedia. We want it printed and sent to Africa among other goals, and these goals are not going to be corrupted for the benefit of web surfers. --Damiens.rf 18:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
        • Fair use describes our justification for the picture. We have a fair use rationale for File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg despite the fact that we have explicit permission from the AP to use the photo on wikipedia. There are fair use justifications for CC-BY-NC pictures just as there are for all rights reserved pictures. Fair use is a right of re-use allowed to us by copyright law. The distinction between the two is immaterial for our use. Also, the bifurcation you have created between commons and wikipedia is a red herring. It is the wikimedia foundation that wants to create free content for the rest of the world to use without restriction. Images happen to be hosted on commons, whose job it is to be an image repository, but they are used in articles here. Mine and damiens' point is that the encyclopedia itself suffers when non-free images are treated as free images, that is used without fair use rationales and limitations, because non-free content displaces free content and downstream reusers of the encyclopedia will either have to renegotiate the rights or forgo use of the images. I'm getting good and tired of being told how rule bound and ignorant I am and I really would like to be able to engage in this debate without laboring under that characterization. Protonk (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
          • I think we'll have to agree to disagree, because each side is simply restating its position without moving in the slightest, each side is convinced the other is wrong, and we're starting to irritate each other. I don't want to go any further down that route, so it behoves me to disengage.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:06, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
            • You'll have to agree that you're showing a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's goal when you say web-readers are more important than re-users. One have to understand what Wikipedia's really goals are before trying to implement the "improving or maintaining Wikipedia" part of IAR. --Damiens.rf 19:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
              • I don't have to agree that at all. That's what "agree to disagree" means, you see.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep as per Nick-D. Buckshot06(prof) 02:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • • • • • • • • Of course you have the option to keep defending your understanding that web-readers are more important than re-users. If your whole argumentation above is somewhat dependent on that, let's see how much weight your opinion will be given. --Damiens.rf 20:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I have serious qualms about the entire series of events. People on both sides have apparently assumed a self-righteous position. For instance, Nick Thorne's labeling of the FfD as a "spurious nomination" did not address the issue at hand; Damiens' nomination was highly valid. Then, on my talk page, Damiens has assumed that I counted the votes, and J Milburn even thought (above) that it was unnecessary to reply to the keep !votes (which were pertinent to NFCC #1 and #8 and no less valid than the arguments for deletion). Now Damiens is attempting to get it deleted by orphaning it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
• Question: For anyone arguing that the image is irreplaceable, has the New Zealand army been disbanded in the past five years? If it hasn't, it's quite possible to replace this image with a free-content image of soldiers doing work. --Carnildo (talk) 06:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
  • What in a combat zone overseas? That was the point. It would not be a valid use of an image of NZ soldiers putting across a bridge in NZ and using it to illustrate what they were doing in Iraq. As I stated above, there are a number of reasons why it is not replaceable in the circumstances. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
    • It's certainly replaceable by text, for the same reason that we don't use non-free images of folks being interviewed on TV just to show that they were on TV. With all respect to the arduousness of deployment, it is trivial to take a free image of combat engineers and then say "combat engineers like these were in a place with loads more sand". Protonk (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • Having tried that before, I disagree as I was told by many editors at peer review that unless the image was specifically related to the topic it should not be there. The fact of the matter remains, however, that I doubt there are "free" images of NZ engineers doing their job in NZ, let alone Iraq. In the Australian Army we don't let just anyone take photos of us doing our job. Where possible they are strictly controlled, hence most images of Australian Army personnel on operations or even training are subject to Crown Copyright. I doubt (but admit to not knowing) that it is any different in NZ. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
        • From digging around in the Australian Navy/Army pages, it appears that most of our photos of them were taken by American service-members (and therefore pd). Haven't checked the NZ pages yet. Protonk (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
          • That's right, most of the photos for Australian military articles after the Korean War have to rely mainly upon photos taken by US service personnel, because the majority of photos taken about these conflicts are governed by Crown Copyright. Thus by not accepting Crown Copyright photos as fair use contributors are constrained to finding the few US-PD photos that exist, thus creating the illusion that it is easy to illustrate such topics with US-PD images. As NZ does not excercise with the US, there are even less (if not none) that would be taken by US personnel. — AustralianRupert (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Remember: The original nomination did not find fault with replaceability; it questioned whether the image added significantly to the reader's understanding. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't think that we are constrained by the text of the original nomination. My point above (way above) was to express incredulity that we had reached a decision in a deletion discussion that was the opposite of the 'examples' offered in the non-free image guideline. Why the decision was wrong (or merely unfortunate, depending on your view of consensus vs. policy) involves more than just NFCC 8. Protonk (talk) 18:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
              • On the topic of replacability, the NZ soldiers in Iraq operated in the British occupation zone, and hence are unlikely to have been photographed by US military personnel. There are a few photos of Australians as they tend to operate alongside Americans. As a result of NZ being suspended from the ANZUS treaty its very rare for NZ and US forces to train together, much less operate together, with the result that PD-US photos aren't available to anywhere near the same (limited) extent as they are for Australian military topics. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse keeping of the image. Basically, it seems to me that most people who have read and understood the arguments here agree that it is not replaceable by a free image, and that if it meets NFCC #8 "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." then in the case of this specific image, it can be used on Wikipedia. Like DGG, S Marshall, Australian Rupert and others, it is my belief that this does meet the criteria. The reason I believe this is because consensus time and time again at places like peer review, good article discussions and featured article discussions is that an article cannot be considered "good" or any higher standard without an image, even if that image conveys nothing that the text doesn't. Furthermore I will introduce into this discussion issues of systematic bias, namely that without allowing this type of fair use image, the only articles about the activity of 21st century militaries that can have "good" or "featured" status are (a) those about the United States military and (b) organisations the United States military has taken PD photographs of (and even these will not necessarily be representative, as discussed by Australian Rupert above). As has been noted, this typically does not include the New Zealand military, nor will it include other militaries the US does not come into contact with. I forget who it was who said it now, but I would endorse the call for separate treatment for Crown Copyright. The existing NFCC are designed for and generally doing a good job regarding non-free commercial works, are not suited for the qualitatively different non-commercial Crown Copyright works - this isn't about different degrees of non-free but about different types of non-free. Thryduulf (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment could you be a bit more spesific as to exactly how the image significantly increase the readers understanding (of the three sentence section it was used in or for the whole article in general), I can respect your opinion that it does, but the policy require a bit more than people saying "yes it's significant", there is supposed to be a convincing rationale justifying the use of non-free images presicely so that it doesn't just turn into a "shouting match" between "yes it does" and "no it doesn't". As for the issue of Crown Copyright, systemic bias and good harticles beeing "required" to have images of some kind please, please don't turn this DRV into some kind of RfC on the validity of the current policy. The question here is (supposed to be) wether or not this deletion debate was closed in line with policy, not wehter or not the policy is valid. Those who wish to change the policy should start a seperate RfC at WP:CENT or WP:VPP, and if the consensus is to change the policy with regard to treatment of Crown Copyright we can revisit this and other images in light of that after the fact, but deletion debates should focus on policy as is and not try to overturn the policy itself in order to have something kept. --Sherool (talk) 11:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
    • My comments regarding NFCC and Crown Copyright were intended to support whoeveritwas's proposed application of IAR in this case rather than start an RFC about current policy here (although I would endorse someone who does start one in the proper place), and I generally agree with the current consensuses regarding photos in good and featured articles. As for the reasons I believe the image illustrates the role the NZ engineers were doing by showing the work, conditions, location and activity they were undertaking. It also adds value to the entire article by being an example illustration of this type of work that the forces do. I know this latter is possibly not a reason on its own that is valid for using non-free images, but given that its primary purpose is valid there is nothing wrong with it also being used in this manner. I say "possibly", because if it is not replaceable by a free image of the NZ engineers at work in a different combat zone (I do not know, but it has been established it is not replaceable by one of them working in this combat zone) then it might be a valid use, but this is not relevant to this discussion. I also endorse the better expressed statements of others regarding its value - indeed there seems to be consensus among the editors of the article that it does, and they are the ones who should know best. Thryduulf (talk) 12:49, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete I do not think anyone contributing to the deletion discussion explained how the omission of the image would be detrimental to the understanding of the topic. No one made clear how the reader's understanding would be lessened. Guest9999 (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and change venue At the time the XfD was closed, the consensus was to keep, the image was in use, and there was not an argument from overriding policy for deletion. My personal opinion is that the article it was being used in suffers in no way from the lack of this image - but that is an issue that is properly resolved at the talk page of the article, not at DRV. I appreciate that editors have chosen not to edit war over the use of the image during this DRV, so I take its current use/non-use status as not relevant. Editors should use Talk:Military history of New Zealand to reach a consensus on whether or not the image actually improves the article - and that discussion should focus on the article, not the NFCC. If there is consensus that it doesn't, then it will become an unused non-free image, and its fate will be clear. If there is consensus that it does, then it clearly should be kept. DRV is not the right venue for the discussion, given that the actual XfD discussion was properly closed given the discussion it contained and our policies. GRBerry 14:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure that's such a great idea. Since it appears in this DRV that the implicit argument is that the image improves the article, I don't know what good a recapitulation of that debate on the talk page would do. Beyond that, knowledge that removal of the image will lead to deletion will cause people to argue strategically. It appears, from my rough look above, that this DRV will be closed as endorse or no consensus to overturn. At that point the right answer is probably to leave the image and the page alone for a while. Protonk (talk) 19:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

@icon sushi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|cache|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article has been sourced and significantly improved during the AFD, and it's not clear whether these improvements have been taken into consideration or not. Most of the "Delete" votes (but one) apply to the version as of 04/08, whereas the article has been improved between 05/08 and 10/08 (when the AFD was closed). In particular, the ZDNet, Official Windows Magazine and the two Softonic sources are articles where the app is actually reviewed and not simply mentioned. For information, the latest version of the article can be seen here.—Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiLaurent (talk • contribs)

• Relist the closing statement by the admin says "That several sources simply mention the topic is not usually enough to establish notability". This is false, the sources provided are not 'mentions', they are reviews and articles on the software itself.--Otterathome (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

*Request can we get a history only undelete? The cached version I'm seeing is from the 6th. Hobit (talk) 17:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - page was userfied.  Frank  |  talk  17:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse. Seems like a correct interpretation of the discussion consensus. An improved article on the topic that allays these concerns can always be worked on elsewhere and moved into place. Vicenarian ^{(Said · Done)} 19:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
  • If there are concerns, we need to know what they are so that we can work on them. The closing admin wrote that the app is only mentioned in the sources, but that's not true as there are at least three actual reviews. Also it's not clear whether the consensus to delete was based on an old version of the article, or on the latest. It seems to me that it was based on the old one since most of the comments where made before the 5th. Laurent (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Overturn or relist I really hate going against consensus as counted by !votes, but frankly the delete arguments either turned out to be wrong (no RSes) or were useless from the start "not notable". The closer's comments would lead me to believe that they didn't personally review the sources, but I can't really tell. One could imagine that the sources provided aren't acceptable for some reason but I don't see how. Hobit (talk) 21:10, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Allow recreation. If consensus is that the new version is OK, then restore the history. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
• Allow recreation - I'm still confident the original decision was correct, but if the concerns raised during the discussion have been addressed, I see no problem with allowing recreation. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
• I shall not fault Juliancolton for closing in accordance with the consensus, which is after all his job, but I agree that the consensus was simply wrong in this instance.

  "Allow recreation" is not appropriate because of Wikipedia's content licencing provisions: the article's contributors must receive due credit for the material they wrote. This material must be restored with the contribution history intact.

  Therefore I wish to endorse Juliancolton's accurate reading of the consensus, but overturn the consensus itself to keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

• Well, the deleted revision history was restored and moved to User:Hm2k/@icon sushi a while ago, so that needs to be moved to @icon sushi to retain the history. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse, but allow recreation without prejudice to renomination at AfD updated Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC); the poor sourcing was directly addressed by Pgallert at the AfD, and the newer sources are no better. Please excuse the AfD-like analysis, but my intent is to validate the delete rationales based on sourcing. The Official Windows Magazine ref is a how-to, in which icon sushi fills a prominent role, but it is not a product review. The four new sources:
  • The AllBusiness.com ref is one has only one relevant clarified Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC) sentence: "PC users can use Icon Sushi 1.19 to create and Iconoid 3.8.4 to manage their desktop icons; both popular programs are free and available by searching at www.download.com."
  • The VnExpress ref is a brief review and a download link.
  • The last two refs are Softonic.com download pages (.br, .fr), again with blurbs and download links.

    Flatscan (talk) 05:03, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

    • I wouldn't say Pgallert directly addressed the sourcing since he didn't even mention what source he was talking about. Which source is a "download link"? Which one is a "product discussion"? (or does he mean a review? - if so, why is not relevant?) The two Softonic sources are not just "download pages" but actual reviews. The ZDNet and VnExpress reviews are reliable. Also I fail to understand why it matters whether these reviews include a download link or not. Actually, it must be very hard to find a software review on the internet that doesn't include a download link. Laurent (talk) 07:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure which is which. The ZDNet ref (translation) has commentary, while the WinFuture one (translation) is one descriptive paragraph, a features list, and a change log. Summary of my main points:
        1. Some guy, Dennisthe2, and Pgallert all wrote rationales indicating examination of the sources and referencing specific weaknesses. I disagree that they should be discounted entirely.
        2. The newer sources are not substantial improvements, except perhaps in numbers. You're right that I overemphasized the download links; my intended point was that the new reviews are very brief, at best comparable to the ZDNet source. Further, Softonic.com is a primarily a download portal. I could not find a description of their editorial standards, and the search results for the editors of the references return over 900 total reviews each. I don't see enough here to justify relisting the AfD for missing pertinent information.

           Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

        • I agree that most of these reviews are short, however it's a very simple application so we can't expect to find long articles about it. The Softonic sources are frequently used on Wikipedia and, in my opinion, can be considered reliable. At least, I've never read a review from them which seemed blatantly wrong. How exactly do we establish what their editorial standards are? I've only found that on their FAQ: "Insightful reviews by our in-house editors available in Spanish, English and German. (...) The editors at Softonic take the time to evaluate the best software and each program is assigned a star rating." Overall, if we remove the weakest sources, these four remain:
          • ZDNet - I think everybody agree that it is reliable;
          • Clubic - (I've just added it) Reliable too;
          • VnExpress - seems reliable to me and it's apparently a rather big website in Vietnam;
          • Softonic - reliable? Also note that they wrote three different reviews about the app (French, English and Spanish) by three different editors.
        • Laurent (talk) 09:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
          • Since I do not have experience with the sourcing norms in this topic area, and some of the deletes seemed partially satisfied with the ZDNet source, I have updated my recommendation above. Flatscan (talk) 04:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)