Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 27: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 03:46, 29 August 2006 editMangojuice (talk | contribs)19,969 edits →Publicgirluk's images← Previous edit Revision as of 04:22, 29 August 2006 edit undoRossami (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users25,096 edits →Publicgirluk's imagesNext edit →
Line 113: Line 113:
*'''Strong restore images''' Deleted out of process without consensus; there is no evidence for the "boyfriend revenge" theory other than certain editors' apparent difficulty in believing that a woman would voluntarily submit such self-photos. The problem there is in editors' perceptions, and Publicgirl_uk has ''done nothing'' to deserve the '''shabby''' treatment she has had at WP's hands thus far. There have been serious failures to observe ] and ]. This flap over her (might I note ''high quality'') images may well have cost us a patient, capable, and positive editor because we ''lost our heads'' over some sexually explicit photos. We should restore the images, take a chill pill, and build a consensus on what to do to make sure this disaster never happens again. ] 23:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong restore images''' Deleted out of process without consensus; there is no evidence for the "boyfriend revenge" theory other than certain editors' apparent difficulty in believing that a woman would voluntarily submit such self-photos. The problem there is in editors' perceptions, and Publicgirl_uk has ''done nothing'' to deserve the '''shabby''' treatment she has had at WP's hands thus far. There have been serious failures to observe ] and ]. This flap over her (might I note ''high quality'') images may well have cost us a patient, capable, and positive editor because we ''lost our heads'' over some sexually explicit photos. We should restore the images, take a chill pill, and build a consensus on what to do to make sure this disaster never happens again. ] 23:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Strong restore''' per Kasreyn. Let me add I think it's totally unacceptable how publicgirluk has been treated so far. Suspicions of copyright violation should be discussed with the uploader, but ultimately, how can we EVER accept ANY self-made pictures if we don't ] in our Misplaced Pages contributors? I think it's particularly disgusting and troublesome that the harassment publicgirluk has received is because the images are sexually explicit. ] censored, but it might as well be if sexually explicit images are held up to a vastly higher standard of copyright scrutiny than non-explicit ones. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC) *'''Strong restore''' per Kasreyn. Let me add I think it's totally unacceptable how publicgirluk has been treated so far. Suspicions of copyright violation should be discussed with the uploader, but ultimately, how can we EVER accept ANY self-made pictures if we don't ] in our Misplaced Pages contributors? I think it's particularly disgusting and troublesome that the harassment publicgirluk has received is because the images are sexually explicit. ] censored, but it might as well be if sexually explicit images are held up to a vastly higher standard of copyright scrutiny than non-explicit ones. ]]<sup>]</sup> 03:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
*'''Endorse speedy-deletion''' pending a definitive and authoritative confirmation of copyright release. Unlike most of the other sexual-related images, the subject is clearly and personally identifiable in these images. We should try to ] but that good faith ahs limits. Given Misplaced Pages's long experience with inappropriate and too-often fraudulent copyright tagging of images and given the real possibility that this was intended as an attack, the project is much better off with a conservative approach. The encyclopedia is not damaged by waiting for positive confirmation of release. On the other hand, the reputation of the project could be badly harmed if we are the unwitting accomplices to an attack. ] <small>]</small> 04:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


====]==== ====]====

Revision as of 04:22, 29 August 2006

< August 26 August 28 >
Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

27 August 2006

Publicgirluk's images

Note: Please refrain from personal attacks and accusations without evidence here and everywhere else on wikipedia. HighInBC 00:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Voice of All speedy deleted Image:Womaninspandex.jpg, Image:Woman Pearl Necklace.jpg, Image:Facial.png, Image:Girlinteddy.jpg, Image:Womaninlatex.jpg.

All were labeled GFDL-self, and deleted under the reason: "Deleted mass bad faith or copyright violating image uploads by a single user"

These images were a persistent topic of discussion at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Publicgirluk (moved to Misplaced Pages:Publicgirluk photo debate). They each depict the same woman in sexually suggestive or explicit images. It is generally agreed that they are of good quality (with some arguing they are too good to be personal photos). Other than the images, the uploader has made a small number of other contributions and is not generally accused of being a troll.

All five of these were used in articles (though their appropriateness may be debatable), and the only evidence that they violated copyright was that they were too high quality. When asked, she responded with , where she expresses frustration with how people have reacted to her images. She has not responded to further requests to "prove" her identity (usually the requests ask that she upload an image holding an "I like Misplaced Pages" sign, or something similar).

I don't believe these images should be speedied. The legal questions that some feel they raise should be referred to WP:OFFICE, for an official opinion on whether they are legally dangerous (personally I don't believe they are). The issue of whether they are encyclopedic can be addressed to the relevant article talk pages and IFD (and again I note they were all being used). Given that our policies don't generally require proof of GFDL-self claims, I see no reason to assume bad faith in this case (unless it is somehow decided to be required by law).

There are many other sexual images uploaded to Misplaced Pages and Commons under GFDL-self and similar claims and I see no particular reason to treat Publicgirluk's as requiring an exceptional degree of proof. (Examples on commons: Bondage, Nude women, Skinny dipping, Erotic). Dragons flight 01:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. I note that Voice of All has undeleted Image:Womaninspandex.jpg, which seems a very strange action if he really believes images of this woman are a copyright concern. Dragons flight 01:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Not a "copyright concern", an information reporting for pornography concern per US laws. This was discussed on IRC. User:Brad Patrick will address the concerns, our foundation lawyer. The age of the person could also be a separate, worse, legal problem is <18, which is not clear at the moment. Finally, it is quite possible, given the suspicious editing, that the user is not who she/he claims to be. The script deleted all the images, but I noticed that that one image did not appear to be clearly meant for sexual arousal under US law, so there would be no issue there, so I restored it.Voice-of-All 02:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment It says above She has not responded to further requests to "prove" her identity, I would like to point out she has note made a singal edit since this incident and we may have lost a good editor over the way this was handled. HighInBC 02:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment It may be that WP:BITE is less of an overriding issue when that newcomer posts an image of a woman with semen all over her face. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
She doesn't edit Misplaced Pages frequently anyways, maybe 5-8 times a week. I don't think we have to worry about WP:BITE until a larger time span between her edits occur. — The Future 02:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
My post was a response to the comment above. I fail to see the relevance of your observation in that context.As you say, BITE may not be a real issue until the 'time away' exceeds the usual interval between his/her edits. I'm happy to drop it, since it's so tangential to anything encyclopedic (which, after all, is why we're here, right?). -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, I meant to post it earlier, but never found the opportune time say it and I thought the WP:BITE link could have opened it up for me, but I guess we can just let it drop now. :) — The Future 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment I will say this for the last time, the images where deleted use a script since there were several, and I don't really like the summary used. See my talk page for the reasons. At any rate, if IfD is needed, then so be it, depending on what Brad Patrick says, as one of those images may have more use than vandalism. Also image deletion are not permanent, and the issues are serious and the images had little to no use, so I'd rather they be hidden.Voice-of-All 02:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Comment Those people claiming that this is a professional job with skilled use of Photoshop should really not ask for verification by means of holding up a sign, as this is something a skilled Photoshop operator could manufacture. (I don't think it's a professional job, so that form of verification would be fine with me.)

Comment I am so glad this is not a vote, and that the one who closes this will be weighing the tally according to the arguements made. HighInBC 15:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Restore and refer legal questions to OFFICE. Dragons flight 01:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore until the matter on WP:AN/I is resloved or WP:OFFICE has anything to say on the matter. — The Future 02:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore. Images under active discussion should not be deleted unless WP:OFFICE advises to do so. exolon 02:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn Per WP:Assume good faith: Assume that others are trying to help Misplaced Pages rather than harm it, unless there is clear and present evidence to the contrary. Also, they illustrate the articles very well. These images were deleted without consensus during a discussion about what should be done. That discussion is not done and I hope User:Voice of All was unaware of that. HighInBC 02:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted Images do not provide any encyclopedic content, their only purpose is shock value. Joelito (talk) 02:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted these images' content is clearly prurient and unencyclopedic, licensing is unverifiable, subject is unidentified. The encyclopedia is not improved by their presence - although the 'Womaninspandex' image might be very useful for a 'Cameltoe' article. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, but since when in the hell has "prurient" ever been a reason to delete anything?! That adjective is about as objective as "freedom fighter". --Cyde Weys 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Cyde, I'm entitled to my vote and opinion - and the definition of 'prurient' is 'encouraging excessive interest in sexual matters'. I meant it exactly that way... that the images are intended to encourage 'excessive' interest - 'excessive' in this case being 'beyond the scope of what is encyclopedic on WP'. I hope that clues you 'the hell' in to my POV. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 02:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn; deletion during discussion is out of process. ~ PseudoSudo 02:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted pending stronger verification that the uploader does, in fact, have the right to share them (and that it's not just some ex-boyfriend getting even). --Cyde Weys 02:23, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Excuse me, but I find it hard to believe a boyfriend getting even would contribute significantly to wikipedia and respond to lewd suggestions in a measured and restrained manner. HighInBC 02:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Well, I don't think so either, but I think this has serious enough implications to hold out for formal substantiation. Tyrenius 02:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • Personally, after reviewing 'publicgirluk's contributions, I don't see anything close to 'significant contributions'. A few posts to 'Concorde'-related articles, and the vast majority on topics of a purely sexual interest. If I had to guess, I'd say 'publicgirluk' was a man in his mid-thirties at least. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
          • I'm beginning to suspect that your "opinion" is better known as assumption of bad faith. No new editor deserves this sort of treatment or abuse, even in absentia. So Publicgirl_uk's contributions have not been as "significant" as yours; that doesn't give you a right to look down your nose and make snide and insulting comments. She has cogently and civilly responded to the objections raised (and seems wise enough to realize she gains nothing by rehashing, as she has already said everything she needs to in one edit); these are in marked contrast to your condescending and insulting comments here. Somehow I wonder, if the subject matter of the images were unverifiable scientific images from electron scanning microscopes, or unverifiable scans of unearthed manuscripts, whether this discussion would even be ocurring, or if you would still find the images "unencyclopedic". I am truly disgusted. Kasreyn 00:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I don't think it is appropriate to accuse somebody of lying about their gender without some sort of evidence. HighInBC 00:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Deleted images showing sexuality or nudity purely as a precautionary measure and request verification. I suggest this should be a standard procedure from now on. Restore the others. They are definitely not professional quality. I work with professional photography regularly. Tyrenius 02:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted for all of the reasons I enumerated on the endless AN/I thread. Admins do not (and should not) leave all potential copyright violations to the back office to deal with. We should use our judgment where appropriate. My judgment says that it strains credulity to ask me to believe that it is unreasonable to think there's just maybe some smoke when a (1) attractive person (2) took exceedingly hardcore pictures of herself (3) of professional quality (I disagree with Tyrenius' evaluation) (4) and photoshopped them (5) to upload to Misplaced Pages (6) anonymously ("I won't prove that I own the copyright of these pictures, but you can look at my semen-covered face!"). Given all the risks of redistributing pornographic content in the US, I think we owe a higher standard of care to the Foundation in that case than we do over, say, a picture of a tree in a forest. Nandesuka 03:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted. FWIW, I have zero confidence that Publicgirluk is a female, let alone the subject of these photos. From my experience, girls such as the one in the picture don't post pictures of themselves in explicit sexual situaitons on encyclopedias and then proceed to make edits concerning prototype aircraft and transfer fees for football transactions . Aren't I Obscure? 03:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
You think she is a man becuase she edited a football article? HighInBC 03:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
No. From reviewing Publicgirluk's contributions, she makes at least three types of edits rarely made by women. Women are not normally known to upload explicit picture of themselves to encyclopedias. This has been discussed at length, so I will comment no further on the images themselves. The second type of edit concerned details on the history of the Concorde. Again, this is an article edited predominantly by males. The third edit was about rather trivial details concerning a transaction involving a footballer. I hardly consider this any type of "proof". However, these three unlikely events together lead me to have very serious doubts about the identity of Publicgirluk. Aren't I Obscure? 03:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Males and females do tend to have different editing patterns. I don't consider recognizing that such differences exist to be sexist. As I stated above, this user made three types of edits that I believe to rare among women. That doesn't mean that women shouldn't or can't make such types of edits. It's just that they usually don't (I won't speculate why). Aren't I Obscure? 04:04, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
So have you performed an extensive study on the gender of the average editor of those types of pages, or are you, in fact, making an assumption about editing patterns based on sexist stereotypes?-Polotet 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you assuming that Publicgirluk is female because of the "girl" in the username? I'm making some assumptions based on observed editing patterns of Misplaced Pages. I've made no attempt to present my beliefs as proof. Given that there's no proof right now about who owns these images, we're all making assumptions at this point. Aren't I Obscure? 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
We are assuming that Publicgirluk is female because she has written that she is, on the multiple photographs. That's an assumption with quite a bit more evidence behind it than your assumption of the reverse. AnonEMouse 18:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
First, I've only been explaining why I believe something (that Publicgirluk isn't female). Yes, it's little more than an assumption based on what I've observed over several years on Misplaced Pages (my time here far exceeds this account). I've never claimed that it was evidence or proof of anything. Second, many people are assuming that not only is Publicgirluk a she, but is also the subject of the photo because she said so. If "her" claims are true, it would have been quite easy for her to prove it. No verification whatsoever has been provided. Aren't I Obscure? 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
That is the opposite of assuming good faith. You seem to be saying that you don't have any evidence against her but she should provide evidence of her innocence. HighInBC 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore speedy deleting images during discussion is out of process. Dionyseus 03:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • speedy restore, completely out of process. --Golbez 05:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • (Edit conflict) More important than process is the need to avoid negative situations on wikipedia concerning living people. We have no verification that the uploader is the subject, as claimed. If it turns out that it has been uploaded illicitly, this could be very offensive and upsetting to the subject, and could also cause bad publicity for Misplaced Pages if it found its way into the media. Jimbo Wales has been emphatic about the need for caution with living people. The insistence on process in this instance is misplaced and irresponsible. Please reconsider the possible wider implications, not just the immediate hothouse of this debate. Tyrenius 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted: Unverifiable that the subject of photos is the same as the uploader. Since a question has been raised, it is the burden of the uploader to prove that s/he is the subject. If s/he is, I don't see any reason why s/he can't provide the proof. --Ragib 05:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted This isn't myspace, it's an encyclopedia project.--MONGO 09:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore and wait for OFFICE direction, or send to IfD. We have a figurative ton of free-use images of people on Misplaced Pages, and as far as I know, we accept on good faith that each of them is indeed free use, without subjecting the uploader to the sort of treatment Publicgirluk has had to endure. Image:Male breast.jpg, Image:Breastsincontext.jpg, Image:Sarahvulva crop.jpg, and Image:Nacktreiten.JPG are among the many comparable examples. Powers 12:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore. The images were relevant to the articles in which they appeared. A light question on their source despite a strong claim otherwise by the author isn't close to enough justification to remove them. I also find it quite unfortunate how the author has been treated (driven away?) from Misplaced Pages by these acts. It's unfortunate to see our community acting that way. --Improv 13:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore The deletions don't meet the criteria for speedy deletion - I agree that there are some reasons to suspect copyright violation, but it's not conclusive enough for speedy. TheronJ 16:06, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore The images added encyclopaedic value to the respective pages, there was no proof of copyright violation and they should be restored, and the user should get a huge apology. As for the suggestion by User:RyanFreisling that publicgirlUK isn't a useful editor because she contributes little other than images "a woman with semen all over her face", i would say that if i was an active wikipedia editor, and i thought that pearl necklace and other pages needed an image, then what i'd do is make myself an account specifcally for the purposes of those images, so that other edits wouldn't be linked to them. We may well have lost a prolific editor. Spute 16:55, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If a user chooses to create a sockpuppet in order to post sexually explicit images, one might well question their motives - after all, if it's encyclopedic, shouldn't a user be proud of such uploads?. And I utterly reject your suggestion that, for example, the picture illustrating a 'pearl necklace' was of encyclopedic value. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Should we lack an article on the topic then? If not, if the image makes the topic clearer, then it is encyclopedic. I believe the idea that we should have less coverage of things that might make some people uncomfortable has been rejected. --Improv 17:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • As I have already said, I have no problem with either the concept or even the private practice of a 'pearl necklace' and hence have no problem with an article. I might not even have a problem with an image of said practice if it is posted with clear licensing, model identification and other clearance. As it stands, the user is highly suspicious, the license statuses of the posted images are unclear, and the user has walked away claiming to 'not have to prove anything'. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Since when have we ever had model identification requirements? Point to a policy which even hints at such a thing. The user has identified the image as herself, and has indicated a license status which not a single one of us has come up with the slightest scintilla of evidence to refute. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore, and apologise to the user, AGAIN, for massive violation of Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith, which was still an official policy, last time I checked. AnonEMouse 17:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Has it been verified that Publicgirluk is the subject of the photos? I think that apologies are a bit premature if we've yet to positively identify the copyright owner. Also, it's necessary to balance AGF with copyright concerns and avoiding possibly posting explicit pictures of a minor. Aren't I Obscure? 17:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • To quote from a rather prominent part of Misplaced Pages:Assume good faith: Assume that others are trying to help Misplaced Pages rather than harm it, unless there is clear and present evidence to the contrary. So far, the best statement we have to the contrary is that "from my experience, girls ". That's hardly clear and present evidence. Present better evidence of the contrary, apologise to her, or amend the policy. There isn't a fourth choice. AnonEMouse 17:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • WP:IAR. It is incumbent on each of us to exercise some judgment, and not say 'I was only following orders'. In the context of the user's contributions, and the subject matter of the images (combined with the user's inability or unwillingness to demonstrate the veracity of his/her claims), the fourth choice has been made. Judgment. -- User:RyanFreisling @ 17:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore. I think this whole thing has had an extremely chilling effect on an already stunted-in-the-sex-department Misplaced Pages. If this removal stands, Misplaced Pages should abandon its "I created the image myself" image-upload tag option if it's going to be selectively distrusted. wikipediatrix 18:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Its an issue with age/info reporting per US law for pornagraphic images, and most sex related images here are not. Also, it may turn out that as an non-comercial organization, they may turn out not to apply (Brad knows the answer we assume) in wich case such junk images can go to IfD instead. Either way, this will have no affect on PDs in general and non-pornagraphic sex images. Even those that do raise some questions probably will not be as suspicious as these.Voice-of-All 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Disagree. "Non-pornographic" is defined by being the opposite of "pornographic", which is entirely subjective (see Miller Test). Therefore WP has no control over which among its sex-related images may someday be declared "pornographic" and attacked. Therefore this will have an effect on all sex-related images, as well as an unknown number of other images yet to be deemed "obscene" by stuck-up people. Therefore Wikipediatrix is right; the "self-created" tag is actually lying to editors, by letting them believe that their statement of origination is going to be believed and trusted, when we apparently can't guarantee that trust. A disclaimer at least should be added, something like: "Please note: due to obscenity laws in some countries, if the image you are uploading is of a sexual nature, you may be requested to provide further verification that you hold the rights to its publication and/or originated the image." With such a warning, Publicgirl_uk might not have bothered to upload her images. Kasreyn 00:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore, improper speedy deletion, the images themselves are proper images for the articles they are added to. Take it to IfD and/or Brad Patrick. User:Zoe|(talk) 18:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. I regret that Misplaced Pages, and Wikipedians as a group, are not ready to accept publicgirluk's generous offerings. The controversy has outweighed any possible benefit that these (overall very good) images could provide to Misplaced Pages. I wish to record my gratitude to publicgirluk for her donations and my apologies for the unmerited discomfort and trouble the controversy has clearly caused her. The fault lies with Misplaced Pages's immaturity as an organisation and as a set of individuals. There may be legitimate concerns about the acceptability of some of these images, much as it pains me to admit it. In the circumstances I have deleted one derivative image that I created from the spandex picture, intending it to be used on cameltoe. --Tony Sidaway 19:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    You are endorsing the delete because it caused controversy? Do you have any complaints based on the merits of the images? I would like to point out the speedy deletion of the images also caused controversy. HighInBC 19:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
    Yes I absolutely endorse deletion as in the best interests of publicgirluk (who generously gave these images and has made it plain that she does not welcome the controversy). I also think it's the best thing for us as a community. We should consider what we're doing and why we treated this apparently generous and selfless offer with such hostility. It isn't fair to offload that kind of uncertainty and worry onto a contributor who seems to have done her best to help Misplaced Pages. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per Tony Sidaway. Bastique▼ voir 19:16, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Restore, since WP:NOT censored. Failing that, let's delete everything related to sex since you guys are obviously scared to death of it. - ulayiti (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong restore images Deleted out of process without consensus; there is no evidence for the "boyfriend revenge" theory other than certain editors' apparent difficulty in believing that a woman would voluntarily submit such self-photos. The problem there is in editors' perceptions, and Publicgirl_uk has done nothing to deserve the shabby treatment she has had at WP's hands thus far. There have been serious failures to observe WP:AGF and WP:BITE. This flap over her (might I note high quality) images may well have cost us a patient, capable, and positive editor because we lost our heads over some sexually explicit photos. We should restore the images, take a chill pill, and build a consensus on what to do to make sure this disaster never happens again. Kasreyn 23:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong restore per Kasreyn. Let me add I think it's totally unacceptable how publicgirluk has been treated so far. Suspicions of copyright violation should be discussed with the uploader, but ultimately, how can we EVER accept ANY self-made pictures if we don't assume good faith in our Misplaced Pages contributors? I think it's particularly disgusting and troublesome that the harassment publicgirluk has received is because the images are sexually explicit. WP:NOT censored, but it might as well be if sexually explicit images are held up to a vastly higher standard of copyright scrutiny than non-explicit ones. Mangojuice 03:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse speedy-deletion pending a definitive and authoritative confirmation of copyright release. Unlike most of the other sexual-related images, the subject is clearly and personally identifiable in these images. We should try to assume good faith but that good faith ahs limits. Given Misplaced Pages's long experience with inappropriate and too-often fraudulent copyright tagging of images and given the real possibility that this was intended as an attack, the project is much better off with a conservative approach. The encyclopedia is not damaged by waiting for positive confirmation of release. On the other hand, the reputation of the project could be badly harmed if we are the unwitting accomplices to an attack. Rossami (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Trustafarian

Okay, this one was deleted by a relatively quiet AfD 7 months ago. The arguments used for deletion were problematic and not challenged sufficiently (IMO). First, there was the argument that it's a pejorative term. That's true, but that's simply not grounds for deletion, we still routinely include articles on pejorative terms, we just try to make them neutral (e.g. McMansion, Flip-flop (politics), Faggot (epithet) ad nauseum). Second, there was the argument that the term is a neologism, which is true, it's first use in print (in The Washington Times) was in 1992. But solely being a neologism isn't a good reason to delete, having little or no meaningful use in reliable sources is, and I think this term clearly has been used in plenty of reliable sources (, , , etc). Third, there was the argument that this is a dicdef... but I think the article that was deleted, at 5 paragraphs, still had room for expansion so it clearly wasn't a dicdef. I'd like this to be relisted with this new evidence, or alternatively, the article just kept outright. --W.marsh 01:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion, it's a neologism and a dicdef. No prejudice against creation of a proper article on the term if one can be written, I guess, although "proper" articles on neologistic slang dicdefs are few and far between. Just zis Guy you know? 09:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that anything under this title is getting deleted as G4... even though it really isn't a recreation. --W.marsh 14:52, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Axe Murder Boyz

This article was speedily deleted as a "nn band" on August 9 by User:King of Hearts. this qualifies as an A7, and he claims the article had no assertion of notability. As the userfied version shows, the assertion notability was clearly established by the noting of a national tour, and the hangon tag either ignored or never followed up on, having been there for two hours. Upon bringing up at the talk page of KoH, the page was userfied and has not been acted on since I attempted to cooperate even though the CSD policy didn't require it (A7: "If the assertion is disputed or controversial, it should be taken to AfD instead."). The assertion isn't disputed, or controversial, so this should certainly be undeleted, but I'm not opposed to a relist to put this to bed. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Leave deleted: A national tour has never been a claim of notability in the past, and for good reason. Touring is difficult, but it's a thing everyone does. "National" can mean different things in different places, too. A national tour of Australia is hard. A national tour of the US is difficult. A national tour of Luxemborg...not so difficult. The point is that touring is gigging, and it's a fine thing and necessary, but it's something that thousands of club bands are doing at any given moment. This is not "should keep delete" that I'm arguing, but "is not an assertion of notability": I don't think saying you've toured nationally is even a claim. Geogre 13:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If it's not a claim of notability, why is it considered one at WP:MUSIC, which is what said claim to notability would be predicated on. It's absolutely a claim, and even if it isn't, this is still an invalid A7 due to what I quoted. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • undelete: I've not seen the original content before it was deleted but this seems like a reasonable topic to have content in Misplaced Pages for. This band is currently opening for well known acts Insane Clown Posse and Shaggy 2 Dope both of which are well covered in Misplaced Pages. -- rtphokie 13:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Assert notability or leave deleted. If an article doesn't really make it clear that the subject is notable, then it doesn't belong. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, if undeleted take straight to AfD. Not on Allmusic, and the article is barely intelligible. Just zis Guy you know? 18:54, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Isn't the standard for disputed A7s to take to AfD already? --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Prior to deletion, yes. Once deleted the judgment may be that restoring and AfDing is a waste of time since the result is a foregone conclusion. Sometimes the speedy is simply an error, and then no AfD is necessary. The theory is that we are intelligent people and have no need to slavishly follow process when a result is obvious. In this case it's not obvious. Just zis Guy you know? 09:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
        • So why was the hangon tag ignored in that case? This was also a challenged prod a number of months ago. In this case, as you adit, the result is not obvious, so why are we endorsing a speedy where an AfD makes more sense given the assertion of nobility was ignored by the speedying admin? --badlydrawnjeff talk 10:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

rec.sport.football.college

Note. I have now restored Talk:Rec.sport.football.college and added to it two versions of the article. Also in the deleted history is a long article by user:Drjudsjr discussing the sociology of the group. It is assumed that the contributors below are referring to the short version of the article. (I was asked to comment on my speedy deletion. Given the evidence, I consider I was toally justified in deleting it as "repost") -- RHaworth 06:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

deletion of rec.sport.football.college should be reviewed as it was deleted to hastily. The deletion discussion of this page was not very complete and attempts to improve the content of this article are being twarted by repeated deletion.

Rec.sport.football.college is one of the longest running USENET groups and set itself appart from the thousands of other groups not only because of it's longevity but because of the culture that has developed in the group itself as well as it's reflection of collegiate cultures as well as southern cultures. It is truely a diverse discussion group with a long history that could be well covered in Misplaced Pages if administrators would allow it.

Personal feelings and rivalries should not contribute to whether an article is deleted or not. -- Rtphokie 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Overturn This group has contributed to the life and culture of the Internet in a number of ways. The original deleted article was poorly written, but a new article was being created when the page was deleted. It's really annoying when someone tries to make a good faith effort to fix a problem article only to have someone else wipe their work out. --D Wilbanks 03:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Deletion at AFD is not automatically a ban on creation of a new article on the same topic and unless your article was substantially identical to the one deleted at AFD, it should not have been speedied. However, that said, are there any verifiable sources of information about the group? I can't imagine an article on a newsgroup being very useful. BigDT 03:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If I start again, it will be the third time in 24 hours the article will have been recreated. And that's starting to drive me nuts. Right now, we're working on digging out every verifiable source we can find. The article was substantially different from the version sent to AFD -- that version was original research. I was in the process of reworking the article when it got deleted. As for whether articles about newsgroups are useful or not, a number them have articles, e.g. Alt.sex.stories and Alt.tv.game-shows. --D Wilbanks 04:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Suggestion: work on it in someone's user space. That way it is safely away from a speedy deletion. Seek input from WP:CFB. When it is done and filled with verifiable sources, move it to article space. BigDT 04:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • An interesting suggestion, but why should this be necessary? This can be of interest to non-college football fans. It reflects a culture. I've never seen something so non-controversial deleted so quickly. rtphokie 04:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • sources? We could start with what I'd venture to say is one of the oldest continually maintained pages on the internet: this page. It has a treasure trove of history, records, and information about college football. Much of that information was culled from the RSFC newsgroup. this other page chronicals the lighter side of the newsgroup including the yearly "RUTSies" contest, a parody award system which is entertaining but also sees college athletics in the harsh light of reality. RSFC reflects life on Saturdays in much of the United States, particularly in the south. While I agree that are USENET news groups with wikipedia entries that add nothing to the overall content of Misplaced Pages, this isn't one of them. How can we provide useful content if it keeps getting deleted? rtphokie 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • While those are interesting ... keep in mind, if it doesn't have non-self-generated sources, it isn't likely to survive an AFD. By the way, GO HOKIES! BigDT 04:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Self generated or not, those sources are refernced by many, particularly the first one (which is referenced by numerous other sources inside of college football, college athletics, sports and in general). I assume that what the administrators want to see here is that recognition of the subject of the article extending outside that subject's sphere of influence. RSFC is referenced in Misplaced Pages itself in the article on which itself is referenced as an African American topic. Are you going to find an article in Newsweek about RSFC, probably not, will you find it referenced in blogs, discussion boards, and even here in other Misplaced Pages articles? Yes. Isn't that the purpose of Misplaced Pages, to provide a hyperlinked path of information on a wide variety of topics rtphokie 04:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
      • A quick comparison with other newsgroups that are included in the WIKIPEDIA shows notability insomuch as Rec.sport.college.football has very high user volume virtually all generated spam free without moderation. The unique sub culture that has developed includes almost an entirely separate language. The contributors include persons of notoriety in the public at various levels. Many users are individually cited in their fields of notoriety and the newsgroup content has been sourced elsewhere several times. While the source links that are included to support the newsgroups inclusion may be self generated by the users this is actually a defense of the uniqueness of this group in that the same sources have been cited elsewhere on the Misplaced Pages.
  • Weak keep deleted. Does not really establish why it is more notable than hundreds of other newsgroups. There are more than enough edit wars in Misplaced Pages without inviting an edit war over this newsgroup. -- RHaworth 06:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'd like to know by what criteria we should judge articles on Usenet groups, and whether we should have such articles at all. Many have thousands of participants (more than the average deleted webforum) but often lack even the possibility of external sources, since even the homepages wich are occasionally set up for such groups are entirely self-referential. I don't know how we can cover Usenet groups. Just zis Guy you know? 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Well I do know that off-Usenet, published sources do exist for some newsgroups (usually but not always the most popular ones). In those cases, where there's been meaningful coverage and even academic studies... I think there's a strong argument for inclusion. Some examples of the coverage I am talking about: , , just off the top of my head. I am going to need to review this specific article further... --W.marsh 18:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
  • weak keep deleted on the particular version that was deleted. I have looked at it and it does not assert importance, or any kind of independent, off-usenet coverage. However, my gut feeling is that an inclusion-worthy article probably could be written on this group. I might try to do so myself at some point. But if there are no off-usenet sources to be found on why the group is so important... sorry, Misplaced Pages isn't really the place to do original studies like that. --W.marsh 18:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
    • If you were to write an article yourself, what would you include? Would you include the sociology information in the original article? Also, I'd like to understand why Rec.sport.pro-wrestling is also not subject to deletion and is even protected from further edits. How is it different from rec.sport.football.college or a USENET group like Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated which is notable in it's popularity and the fact that it receives contributions from regular people as well as people known off-usenet (I was starting this section the last time this article was deleted)? What in this article asserts importants of coverage of the topic outside of USENET? Rec.sport.soccer, Talk.bizarre, Rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc, Talk.origins, Alt.sex, Rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs and many many others were created for an by regulars to these USENET groups and are of no value to anyone else. These are all a dictionary entries at best and vanity at worst yet they remain here. Something like Alt.atheism identify the existence of a USENET group for a topic which is already well covered by USENET and offers nothing on it's own. I guess what I'm looking for is a definition of the standards used in determining which USENET newsgroups are worthy and which aren't. Rtphokie 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Some of them have claims of notability outside of just existing and having a lot of posts. The Babylon 5 newsgroup, for instance, included the creator of the show, and the newsgroup feedback actually affected the show's developement. I agree with you that some of those newsgroups probably should not have articles however, if there's no evidence that they have relevence outside the forum itself. --Fang Aili 14:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep deleted. I deleted this twice per a recent AfD. I also did not see any claim of notability other than that lots of people post. I'm not convinced that 10000 posts/month = notability. If there was evidence that this newsgroup actually affected college football in some way, then I would say keep. --Fang Aili 14:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Overturn The deletion was arbitrary and unnecessarily speedy - and the comments supporting deletion attempt to substitute repetition for actual argument, as with the previous one. --Mdahmus 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)