Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 18: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 16:46, 18 May 2007 editBdj (talk \| contribs)19,739 edits →[]: o← Previous edit		Revision as of 16:49, 18 May 2007 edit undoTony Sidaway (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers81,722 edits →[]: SillyNext edit →
Line 12:		Line 12:
	ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev\|pg=ARTICLE_NAME\|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} --~~~~ -->		ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: {{subst:Newdelrev\|pg=ARTICLE_NAME\|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} --~~~~ -->

	====]====
	:{{la\|Qian Zhijun}} <tt>(</tt>]<tt>\|</tt><span class="plainlinks"></span><tt>\|</tt>]<tt>)</tt>

	This was listed at AfD after being on here with a fairly contentious discussion which was closed with the decision to undeleted and list of AfD. The afd was then closed as a delete less than '''one hour''' after it was opened, this completely ignoring the decision reached here (I'm not sure I can call it a true consensus, given the degree of contention). IMO this was '''completely inappropriate'''. A discussion here resulted in a decision to list on AfD in an attempt to achieve consensus, and the discussion was reclosed without there being enough time for even those who were known to be interested to express a view, much less for consensus to emerge. I am appalled. I call for this to be '''overturned''' and '''not relisted'''. See ]. ] ] 16:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
	*'''Overturn''' as before. --] <small>]</small> 16:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Revision as of 16:49, 18 May 2007

< May 17	Deletion review archives: 2007 May	May 19 >

18 May 2007

"Z"

not notable Gerhard1 16:17, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: pertinent discussion at User_talk:Majorly#.22Z.22. The Evil Spartan 16:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Overturn, possibly move to Lost City of Z. The New Yorker ran a huge piece on this in September 2005, so even if possible hoaxes could be speedied (they can't), some research prior to pulling the trigger should have saved this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:26, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Another pertinent page by this user: Torca Island. The Evil Spartan 16:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Overturn, there are 2 book references, and cities (even probably fictional ones) don't fall under A7 anyway. Possibly merge to Percy Fawcett or somewhere appropriate but that's an editorial decision. --W.marsh 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:drmmt

This was speedy deleted by Radiant! because it "misrepresents policy" (see here). However, this was referring to {{drmmt3}}, and not {{drmmt}}, which did not make any threat to block anyone. What's more, while the discussion was open, people claimed it was "too easy to abuse in POV disputes" and the like - as if other templates weren't often similarly abused (*cough* bv for this unending edit war*cough*) - and as if WP:TEMPLAR didn't cover such a situation. However, this template can be very useful when an newish user comes along and removes a template without comment or edit summary (as often happens) - such as removing a {{trivia}} notice from a trivia section, or similarly removing {{NPOV}} without even explaining why. --The Evil Spartan 16:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Tpv

I'm not sure why this page was deleted by Resurgent insurgent in the first place. We have all the other tpv's still sitting around: see . And I believe that TFD has agreed that we're not deleting the old user warning system. I certainly don't see how it falls under "non-controversial housekeeping" when other templates have been similarly kept.

(note: the original template may also have been located at Template:tpv1, but I think that was a redirect. However, I can't tell without administrator rights: only by looking at the deletion logs) The Evil Spartan 15:46, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Endorse deletion when there's still template:tpv0 (which this was originally moved to); they're almost the same in wording but tpv0 is milder and is the one that should be kept if we've to choose one or the other. Resurgent insurgent 16:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, the kind of opinion that should not be enforced by g6-speedy deletion, but by TFD (though, in fact, I think that decision would be wrong as well). The Evil Spartan 16:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun (closed)

Qian Zhijun – Close made ot perfectly plain that the procedural grounds for relisting was flawed, and that the content violates policy. A fight not worth having. – Guy (Help!) 15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Qian Zhijun (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD\|2nd AfD`)` Okay. Page originally AfD'd and relisted by User:Daniel Bryant, and then User:Drini (I think) reversed that closure and deleted it. The DRV occurred 5 days ago and the decision was to overturn the deletion. The AfD was then closed by User:Thebainer as delete, pointing at the discussions that already showed a lack of consensus. This article meets every relevant guideline and policy, the subject is not a BLP issue given his role in the proceedings, and this needs to be undeleted. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Qian Zhijun – Close made ot perfectly plain that the procedural grounds for relisting was flawed, and that the content violates policy. A fight not worth having. – Guy (Help!) 15:00, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Okay. Page originally AfD'd and relisted by User:Daniel Bryant, and then User:Drini (I think) reversed that closure and deleted it. The DRV occurred 5 days ago and the decision was to overturn the deletion. The AfD was then closed by User:Thebainer as delete, pointing at the discussions that already showed a lack of consensus. This article meets every relevant guideline and policy, the subject is not a BLP issue given his role in the proceedings, and this needs to be undeleted. badlydrawnjeff talk 14:55, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Template:Fur (closed)

Template:Fur – solution agreed - now moot/withdrawn --Doc 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Fur (edit \| ] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`TfD`)` The template listed provides for a user-friendly legitimate fair use rationale for albums and books listed at Amazon.com. This template was speedily deleted by User:JzG on the grounds that it didn't do so. Not that it should matter - that's an issue for TfD if at all, and this certainly didn't meet any speedy criteria. This affects probably 100 images at this point, so it needs to be undeleted. Keep in mind, the redirect that I changed it from has been restored, this is not what was deleted. badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Why did you take a useful template and replace it with this nonsense? Please write proper fair-use rationales for your images. --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC) I didn't do anything to a useful template, and they were proper fair use rationales. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC) This template was a redirect to another template. Jeff hijacked it to create a supposed fair-use rationale which did not actually include the fair-use rationale, and referenced a single retailer. Jeff's version was syntactically equivalent to "this was scalped form Amazon so it's obviously fine". But it isn't. And even if it was, we would not, I hope, have a template referencing a single retailer. Plus some of the uses were decidedly dubious, such as posters. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC) One of the uses was a poster, which I fixed. Second, I didn't "hijack" anything, as the redirect was not being used on anything other than two archived talk pages. Third, it referenced a single retailer that provides images that are good for fair use. Which is where these come from. Fourth, note that we're now endorsing the speedy of a non-divisive and non-inflammatory template because someone doesn't like it. That's problematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC) All online retailers provide images that are good for fair use, and very often the same or similar images are also available from the publishers' websites, which is obviously better as it does not endorse a particular vendor. And yes, you're right, some of us don't like it. Some of us don't like it because boilerplate fair use templates that don't include the fair use rationale and also endorse a single retailer don't seem to be that good an idea. Call it a quirk. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC) No particular vendor is being "endorsed" by accurately stating where an image comes from. That's what people want to know, right? And it's not a "boilerplate" fair use, as this isn't a boilerplate and it includes an actual rationale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Why is it named FUR if it applies to only one retailer? And if it's a timesaver for you, why not keep something in your userspace and subst it as needed? Transcluded templates are subject to being changed out from under you. No comment on whether deleting was the right thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Can I do that? I didn't think I could transclude out of my userspace (I don't work with templates often). If so, then I'll simply do that, but I'll need the text of it to do so, and for the template to be restored temporarily so I can make the fix, since the redirect has broken about 100 image pages. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Text now on your userpage as hinted at. Do you want to continue with this now? (No opinion personally)--Doc 15:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC) If I can get it to work through the subst'ing, then this becomes moot - I would have created it in userspace in the first place had I been aware that it was okay to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Keep deleted. The template was fine in acknowledging the source and why the effect on their rights was minimal - low quality etc. but it wasn't a full fair use rationale. In particular, it lacked the "why this image is necessary in this article" component. Its not enough just to show than an image cannot be replaced and that the effect on the copyright owner has been reduced, a fair use rationale must assert why the article requires the pictures in each case. WjBscribe 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC) Again, it really wasn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Template:Fur – solution agreed - now moot/withdrawn --Doc 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

The template listed provides for a user-friendly legitimate fair use rationale for albums and books listed at Amazon.com. This template was speedily deleted by User:JzG on the grounds that it didn't do so. Not that it should matter - that's an issue for TfD if at all, and this certainly didn't meet any speedy criteria. This affects probably 100 images at this point, so it needs to be undeleted. Keep in mind, the redirect that I changed it from has been restored, this is not what was deleted. badlydrawnjeff talk 13:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why did you take a useful template and replace it with this nonsense? Please write proper fair-use rationales for your images. --Tony Sidaway 13:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- I didn't do anything to a useful template, and they were proper fair use rationales. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
This template was a redirect to another template. Jeff hijacked it to create a supposed fair-use rationale which did not actually include the fair-use rationale, and referenced a single retailer. Jeff's version was syntactically equivalent to "this was scalped form Amazon so it's obviously fine". But it isn't. And even if it was, we would not, I hope, have a template referencing a single retailer. Plus some of the uses were decidedly dubious, such as posters. Guy (Help!) 13:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- One of the uses was a poster, which I fixed. Second, I didn't "hijack" anything, as the redirect was not being used on anything other than two archived talk pages. Third, it referenced a single retailer that provides images that are good for fair use. Which is where these come from. Fourth, note that we're now endorsing the speedy of a non-divisive and non-inflammatory template because someone doesn't like it. That's problematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  - All online retailers provide images that are good for fair use, and very often the same or similar images are also available from the publishers' websites, which is obviously better as it does not endorse a particular vendor. And yes, you're right, some of us don't like it. Some of us don't like it because boilerplate fair use templates that don't include the fair use rationale and also endorse a single retailer don't seem to be that good an idea. Call it a quirk. Guy (Help!) 14:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
    - No particular vendor is being "endorsed" by accurately stating where an image comes from. That's what people want to know, right? And it's not a "boilerplate" fair use, as this isn't a boilerplate and it includes an actual rationale. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
      - Why is it named FUR if it applies to only one retailer? And if it's a timesaver for you, why not keep something in your userspace and subst it as needed? Transcluded templates are subject to being changed out from under you. No comment on whether deleting was the right thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 15:15, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        Can I do that? I didn't think I could transclude out of my userspace (I don't work with templates often). If so, then I'll simply do that, but I'll need the text of it to do so, and for the template to be restored temporarily so I can make the fix, since the redirect has broken about 100 image pages. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        Text now on your userpage as hinted at. Do you want to continue with this now? (No opinion personally)--Doc 15:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
        If I can get it to work through the subst'ing, then this becomes moot - I would have created it in userspace in the first place had I been aware that it was okay to do so. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Keep deleted. The template was fine in acknowledging the source and why the effect on their rights was minimal - low quality etc. but it wasn't a full fair use rationale. In particular, it lacked the "why this image is necessary in this article" component. Its not enough just to show than an image cannot be replaced and that the effect on the copyright owner has been reduced, a fair use rationale must assert why the article requires the pictures in each case. WjBscribe 15:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
- Again, it really wasn't. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Category:Settlements in Kurdistan

Categorization still suffers from a lack of verifiability. Kurdistan as a region is undefined and too controversial. WP:V demands its removal from articles. In addition as per the "2007 March 15" cfd we categorize places by country and not by region. Comments on that particular CfD mentions that only the Kurdistan one was an issue and that it "should be deleted as Kurdistan has no clearly defined borders". -- Cat 06:13, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Leave alone Obvious categorization criteria, despite lack of clear boundaries: the issue shouldn't be the category, but whether individual members belong and/or what geographic areas are covered, which are not issues for this forum. I'm sensing a wee bit of political axe-grinding here. --Calton | Talk 12:22, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:V is not a "political axe-grinding". Any categorization with this is an endorsement of Kurdistans official borders with source being wikipedia editors such as User:Diyarbakir, User:Diyako and etc. There isn't a single other example of this kind of categorization as demonstrated in 2007 March 15 link. -- Cat 14:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
A reverse variation of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, then? --Calton | Talk 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Enough This Kurdistan thing has gone too far. Rather than all the interminable deletion discussons - I suggest you stary a general RfC on the issue - have a debate get a general consensus, and then abide by it. Me, I don't care.--Doc 14:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I have tried two general rfcs (one kinda ongoing with me being the only participant), 2 mediation cases and countless other discussion attempts. All of which was ignored. No one even cared to comment for two months on that well advertised discussion for instance. I have even taken it to arbitration committee which they declined to even hear the case. RfCs and etc is simply not working. There isn't a process I haven't used. Kurdistan thing has gone too far indeed. I have tried my best to find a solution without escalating the matter. Point me to a process I haven't used and I'll take it. -- Cat 14:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
CoolCat - there are 1.5 million wikipedians or something - and you can't get a debate up? Could be that no-one but you cares?--Doc 14:41, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Thats exactly correct. Out of the 1.5 million wikipedians no one is bothering to comment (people are however revert waring). "Could be that no-one but you cares?" comment is not a cfd criteria. Please avoid idle and useless comments as that one. -- Cat 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
"Could be that no-one but you cares?" comment is not a cfd criteria - No, it's an explanation as to why out of the 1.5 million wikipedians no one is bothering to comment. --Calton | Talk 15:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
If it was completely uncontroversial and non-problematic I am sure people would be more than willing to comment on this. -- Cat 15:47, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment If a widely accepted and verifiable definition of the area's boundaries does not exist, we should not be categorizing places as being there. By categorizing, say, specific cities as part of Kurdistan, we are endorsing certain definitions at the expense of others. I have not seen an uncontroversial definition of the area (I'm not terribly familiar with the Kurdistan issue, though). We do need to find some kind of solution to this dispute. --KFP (talk | contribs) 15:33, 18 May 2007 (UTC)