Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:47, 11 November 2006

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

9 November 2006

File:Ottl ima 010805.jpg

File:Ottl ima 010805.jpg (]|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

The discussion for deletion can be foundhere.

There are many reasons why this image should be restored. First of all, this was a bad faith nomination by the nominating user. I will not go into detail over that on this page. You can go here to see details over that. This means that this image shouldn't have been up for deletion to begin with. There was one vote in the discussion and the vote was strong keep. This image was properly labeled, properly attributed, and correctly used. I tagged this photo as coming from a press kit which is the case. The administrator that deleted the photo said I should go to one of his games to take the photo. How can I go to one of his soccer games to take a photo considering that I'm across the Atlantic Ocean and would have to take time off of school to do this and I am technically bankrupt. So that's not going to happen with me unless he's willing to buy me a plane ticket and a ticket to the game. Kingjeff 16:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion It was somewhat unhelpfull to suggest that you should go to a match and take a photo. However the fact is someone could fairly easily do so, and therefore it fails one of the Misplaced Pages fair use criterea (spesificaly criterea #1) and would in fact have qualified for speedy deletion under criterea #7 for images if it had not been listed on IFD instead. --Sherool (talk) 17:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment:I totally disagree. If it comes from a press kit. Then it can't be disputed, unless it didn't come from a press kit. It's fact one way or the other. Kingjeff 20:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn - I don't see how that photo was against Misplaced Pages policy. Surely, it is possible to create a free alternative, but I think that the immediate deletion of properly attributed, used and labelled images is a clear case of copyright paranoia. The fair use clause in the United States copyright law is not violated when one correctly uses an image for critical commentary of its subject. As much as Misplaced Pages policy states that images should be free, it does not, to my opinion, outright state that images that can be free should be deleted. It would be most helpful to our encyclopedia to keep on using an image that has no technical shortcomings, and delete it when a free alternative is created. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 19:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • PS: it should be clear that I'm a bit more laissez-faire than the rest of the community when it comes to fair use (and I actually have little faith in this image being restored), but I hope you will at least see my point. I'm all for what's most helpful to our encyclopedia within legal reason, and I feel that keeping this image is just that. —msikma <user_talk:msikma> 19:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Is it really so hard to source a free image of a still-active player? Per policy, unfree claimed fair use image replaceable by a free one. Seems reasonable to me. Guy 19:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment:As far as I'm concerned, images from press kits are free images. Kingjeff 20:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: If only it where so, unfortunately images from press kits are just as copyright protected as anyting else, so unless the press kit was explicitly released under terms that qualify as actual free content (wich was not the case here) it is by definition unfree. Personal opinion doesn't rely enter into it. But by all means, contact them and ask them to verify that they intend to let theyr press images be freely distributed, edited and used by anyone for any purpose without any restrictions (other than requiering attribution). If they agree then the problem is solved. --Sherool (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: If you were right then there would be no point in a press kit. Kingjeff 21:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Do you have any idea how complex the law, and Misplaced Pages policy, on copyright actually is? We have had endless trouble with the issue of unfree images, and people ignorantly stating that images released for no charge are therefore free (which is the essence of your statements here) are a major part of that problem. You have to understand the difference between free as in speech and free as in beer. Guy 23:27, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• I imagine the copyright holder would get downright pissy if you were to sell this photo on a stock-image CD, or incorporate it into a music video, or draw a mustache on it and give copies to all and sundary. You can do all of the above with a truly free image. --Carnildo 00:51, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• But there is no intention to do any of that other stuff. I don't plan on selling any stock image CDs or to have any music videos or draw or doodle anything on the photo. Kingjeff 01:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

How do you know there is no such intention? You do not want to do that, but other people may, and they should be able to do that to our free images. -- Eugène van der Pijll 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't have much experience with images in Misplaced Pages, but it appears the relevant guide is Misplaced Pages:Publicity photos; it seems to me that the suggestion there is that the use is acceptable until a free alternative is available. I believe that "available" means that someone has already added such an image to Misplaced Pages, and that in its absence, the use of this one is acceptable; "available" doesn't simply mean that it's possible for someone to take such a photo (true of virtually all active public figures), and that the photo can't be used. If that were true, than press photos of figures from countries with few Misplaced Pages editors would be almost impossible to use. It's certainly possible for someone to take a photo of an athlete in China, for instance, but I wouldn't hold out for a Chinese Wikipedian to add one before using a press photo. MisfitToys 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  I am sorry, but Misplaced Pages:Publicity photos is not relevant at all, being just an essay, and not, as written in that same page, a policy or guideline. The policy that is relevant here, as written also in Misplaced Pages:Publicity photos, is Misplaced Pages:Fair Use, which requires fair use images (as this was) to be unreplaceable. As the guy depicted regularly plays in front of a lot of people, free pictures of him could be taken. Note that this issue was raised for a lot of pictures of footballers, among whom Totti and Zidane, and after their "fair use" images were deleted, free alternatives came out.--Panarjedde 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  And I don't believe this one can be replaced. You're into to much of the technical side of things. This is the spirit of the fair use policy speaking. Which apparently does have some influence since you bringing it up is the fourth time in this case alone.Kingjeff 23:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  Well, it's obviously relevant even if it isn't definitive, and there's certainly a long discussion on its talk page. Ultimately, I have to disagree with you; the basic nature of such a publicity photo is that its owner actively hopes that it will be generously reproduced by other sources - it's the only reason the photo was taken and provided in the first place. Why would the provider of a publicity photo complain when someone actually uses it? If compensation were expected, most players wouldn't agree to have their picture taken without getting a cut of the proceeds. MisfitToys 00:04, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  (1) You can't compare an essay to policy. Even if you agree with his pov on publicity photos, you must abide to Misplaced Pages policies

  (2) Apart the fact that the issuer of a press kit does not implicitly allow its commercial use (and this fact would require to obtain an explicit permission to use this image for commercial uses), the problem is not the provider of the photo, but Misplaced Pages policy, which requires unreplaceability. If the image is replaceable it must be deleted, even if no free image is available; and this is an official policy.--Panarjedde 00:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You that this photo was deleted before it should have been. That policy was violated. Irregardless of what was said or done before that, it should have stayed up longer. Kingjeff 00:49, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are not you going to address the points in favour of this image deletion, you won't have it restored.--Panarjedde 17:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion per Sherool. In addition, de:Andreas Ottl doesn't have a picture, so we can do without one too. Also, while the advice to "get on a plane" is a bit silly, there's nothing to keep you from checking out message boards and ask other members if they have pictures they want to donate for a good cause. ~ trialsanderrors 07:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: So, what you're saying is just because German Misplaced Pages doesn't have a photo then English Misplaced Pages can't have one? Kingjeff 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    He wrote "in addition". --Panarjedde 17:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, replaceable. Eugène van der Pijll 11:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Are you willing to replace it? Kingjeff 17:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

    That is not the point obviously. If nobody wants/can get a picture of this guy, we will do without it.--Panarjedde 17:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Could not be uploaded, because against condition #1 for fair use of images in WP.--Panarjedde 17:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This has been discussed on WP:AN (in several different places, I think) and various user talk pages. Kingjeff has moaned about bad faith enough .The image is clearly replaceable. -- Steel 17:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Can you replace it then. I know I certainly can't. Kingjeff 17:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • That's not all that relevant here. -- Steel 17:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Don't tell me that. Tell everyone who is saying that this photo is replaceble. Kingjeff 17:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

      Jeff, please answer the following questions. (1) Do you understand that the reason why the image was deleted is that it is replaceable, that is it could be replaced? (2) Do you understand that the fact that a free image does not currently exists is irrelevant? (3) Do you understand that the fact you can't take the photo, or that you found nobody who is willing to/who can take this picture is also irrelevant? I will wait for your answers.--Panarjedde 18:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, as per virtually all the comments above, e.g. those of Eugène van der Pijll and Panarjedde - fchd 19:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiFur

WikiFur (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links) - Non-admin visible copy

The deletion debate is at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/WikiFur (2nd nomination) and I count 14 votes to delete and 10 votes to keep. That's only a 58% result in favor of deletion, which doesn't look like much of a consensus to me. Bryan 01:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• I think I heard something about AfD not being a vote. Anyway... not really seeing any evidence this meets WP:WEB, the 1 media reference says it's just a mention, and the link is an error 404 anyway. I can only assume the AfD was closed as a delete due to this more or less, so endorse, looks like an okay close. --W.marsh 01:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Not sure what you mean about the 404. Were you talking about this, or this?
  • Even ignoring the numbers completely it still doesn't look like a consensus to me. There were lots of people on both sides of the debate and both groups declined to concede their main points of argument. Bryan 05:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The link given in the article was an error 404 for me... thanks for the link, but one mention in one source... that's not really meeting WP:WEB (and SA isn't very useful for verification purposes, being primarilly a satire site). It would be nice to hear something from the closer still, but getting X number of people to agree to something somewhere doesn't mean it's set in stone. If myself and several others had seen this AfD, we'd have voted delete... would there then be a consensus to delete just because we'd happened to show up? The idea that we should include some sites we really like even though they don't meet WP:WEB... well that's pretty basic bias, it's the exact same argument everyone uses when any random site they've heard of is nominated for deletion. --W.marsh 13:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
      • As mentioned below, I don't really believe that WP:WEB is a good idea. I think the quality of the article should be the sole criterion. We have no restriction on space. There is a limited number of editors for the purpose of fact-checking, but that's why I provided all the references. SA was being used as verification for the fact that SA had mentioned us, which seems fairly basic to me. As for consensus, I can't say what would have happened if you showed up, but I suspect we'd still have disagreed over using notability as a criteria for not having an article. GreenReaper 16:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn the deletion. "AfD is not a vote" seems to be invoked these days as meaning "AfD is a discussion forum in which both sides attempt to persuade the closing admin; numbers are irrelevant". Here's the actual rule: "Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment, attempting to be as impartial as is possible for a fallible human, to determine when rough consensus has been reached." (from Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus) I agree with Bryan that there was no such consensus here. JamesMLane t c 03:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

So it's not a vote, but it has to be closed like a vote... you should read the section you cite more carefully though, some arguments overule others. An argument was made that the topic didn't meet a key guideline, no one really bothered disproving that. --W.marsh 04:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

We weren't trying to disprove it. We knew that it did not meet the criteria specified in the guideline. Frankly, most furry communities tend to avoid media coverage, because it's been sensational in the past. Instead, we were arguing that the guideline should not be used as criteria for deletion in this particular circumstance, because the material was easily verified through other means. There did not appear to be any argument over OR or NPOV, the question was whether or not the material was verifiable or not. As the section says, those policies are key; the guidelines are not. GreenReaper 07:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like special pleading. The best result is probably a link from furry fandom. That way you can document your history on your wiki, which works for YTMND. You can't assert that you are a notable web forum / site but only when not measured by the criteria we use to measure notability for web forums / sites, it just doesn't work that way. Guy 14:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's more like general pleading for there to be an option for editors to actually look at the article if the automatic criteria aren't met. Such articles should simply be subject to higher scrutiny for accuracy, and if there is doubt about a fact then the person who put it in should be required to prove it on the talk page to the satisfaction of the editors, just as for biographies. I disagree in principle with the idea of notability as a criteria for inclusion. I don't think the criteria you use to measure notability for web forums / sites are good, because they preclude articles that are entirely true and can be confirmed as such by any viewer. I do indeed think there should be a lot more such articles, not just WikiFur, because regardless of whether or not Misplaced Pages is intended for use as a web directory, people want to use it as such - indeed, they want to use it to look up everything - and I think it's better to give them something than nothing. GreenReaper 16:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, no one not involved with the site has any way of knowing that's true. An encyclopedia can't take quality assessments in relation to notability or anything else on the word of a site's creator. Miltopia 17:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And that's what good references are for - so that people can look and satisfy themselves as to its truth. Even the verifiability criteria say that it's possible to use the site as a primary source for information about itself, as long as there is no contention about the truth of this information. Referring to a secondary source is a way of avoiding having to do all the referencing, because you assume that the third party has done the legwork, but I believe it should be possible to replace such sources with sufficiently detailed referencing, for topics that do not require specialist knowledge where no contentious claims are made about third parties. For example, no expert knowledge is needed to confirm that a site contains various articles on a particular topic if you link to the category. The question I'd have is whether or not that counts as original research, but even there it allows "descriptive claims that can be checked by anyone without specialist knowledge". GreenReaper 18:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's just bootstrapping. We can't use your site as a source for the significance of your site. We can use your site as a source for factual data such as date of foundation, but that is only relevant once we have found sufficient reliable secondary sources to verify both the significance and the neutrality of the content. 80.176.82.42 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Before citing that section, I read it very carefully. You contend, "An argument was made that the topic didn't meet a key guideline, no one really bothered disproving that." If the "key guideline" you refer to is WP:WEB, then please note that Misplaced Pages:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Rough consensus does not allow the overruling of a consensus based on a guideline. You're correct that "some arguments overule others" -- specifically, a consensus can't overrule one of the key policies (not guidelines) cited. If the "key guideline" you refer to is the WP:V policy, then the allegation of noncompliance was disputed. When the subject of one of the key policies is addressed in the AfD debate, and there's no consensus among participants as to whether the policy is violated, then there's no reason that one person's opinion on the dispute should prevail merely because that person happens to be the closing admin. JamesMLane t c 10:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn, because none of them answered my question - what information was in the article that was not verifiable. All but one of the votes for delete were based on notability criteria. The objective of notability is to try to ensure that an article is verifiable. I don't think it should be the only way to do that. The stated objective of third-party coverage is because Wikipedians are not generally qualified to confirm facts, but I don't see what facts they couldn't confirm themselves in this particular case.

When constructing the article, I was careful to say only those things that I felt could be said without a doubt from the sources available to me, and which I felt could also be seen by the average Wikipedian from the references given. No, it does not meet the guideline criteria of WP:WEB. But I submit that there are at least 24 people who read the article and looked at the references, and none of them claimed that any of it was actually wrong. Is having an article that's easily confirmed to be true from the references but just hasn't been written about much elsewhere really that much of a problem? I think Misplaced Pages is better with such articles than without them. GreenReaper 05:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn. In addition to what's been mentioned, and the project's status as one of the larger and more active wikis, I'm given to understand that a paper on its creation was presented at Wikimania 2006. That would seem to me to be a reliable source, though it might well have gone unremarked in the mainstream press. Shimeru 05:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It is something that may not have been considered by the early voters - one reference I added during the AfD process was to A Tale of Two Wikis, a paper I wrote about the process of creating and building up WikiFur and which was presented at Wikimania 2006. I'm not sure if the Wikimania conference committee counts as verifiable, but they are my peers and they did decide that it was a worthy topic. Indeed, it got a small amount of attention on its own in The Phoenix (see "Day 2." on that page), and in Polish Wikinews. GreenReaper 05:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion for now - Looks like it fails WP:V still, one of the core policies of Misplaced Pages. I'm inclined to not consider Wikimania internal coverage to be independent of the subject. If anyone can provide something more substantial than the Phoenix article, I'll gladly turn this around. Wickethewok 07:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  I can give you furry fandom coverage of it which would provide some measure of its notability within the fandom. For example, Califur (Californian furry convention) seems to think we're a reliable source for its history, and Fur Affinity (second biggest furry art site) has considered us good enough to put a link to us on their front page for the last six months (to my knowledge, none of the people involved in either site is an admin on WikiFur). For that matter, we're the first link on the furry fandom article itself, and I know I didn't put us in that position, and nobody seems to be complaining about it.

  I am however not sure I can provide what you would consider "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy," because I don't know if you'd consider anything within the fandom itself reliable to that level. Most of the fandom communicates online through forums, chats, and LiveJournal and other blogs. People make comments like this, this and this quite often, but they don't carry the weight of a news report. But what can you do when the closest thing to a news service is PHP-Nuke boards? We're a subculture, and when the cameras do roll they're too busy focusing on the fursuits to care about an encyclopedia. We've have several furry experts involved since the beginning, but the only way you could confirm them as experts would be to look at what they have done within the fandom - and of course, the best record you have for that is their personal sites and Wikifur, because no biographer has covered their lives. GreenReaper 08:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

That's great, but Misplaced Pages is not a web directory. There's this out of control trend that for every single pop culture phenomenon or subculture phenomenon - be it a TV show, a video game, or dressing up in costumes or whatever - that someone gets the idea that Misplaced Pages should have a separate article on each of the top 10 or whatever fan websites about the phenomenon. These articles typically go: "This website was founded in 200? to celebrate X cultural phenomenon thing. It is one of the most popular X websites out there. Here is a list of the 4 forums and 12 sub forums on the site. It has been a featured link on these other websites. Here are some fun things forum members like to get up to.". This not encyclopedic content, its stuff for a web directory. It's fine if these sites are external links on the main subject articles but having separate articles for external links themselves needs greater justification Bwithh 08:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC).

All I can really suggest that would be of general interest rather than furry interest is that WikiFur has been notably successful as a wiki, given the size of the community it serves (as compared to other fan groups, which have literally millions of fans out there), and that this is due in part to the actions taken in advertising and promoting the wiki, and to other factors such as the unlooked-for "promotion" from other sites, which relates in part to the topic. I know there's quite a bit that could be written about how that was done - I've already written it, after all. The trouble with that is that it runs the risk of being both original research (given the feeling that Wikimania publication is not sufficiently third-party) and potentially NPOV (since I am largely responsible for said promotion and advertising, and could be overstating the effect it's had). GreenReaper 09:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion Well-judged decision by closing admin. Lack of clear vote consensus does not overrule failure of WP:V, which the article fails. Plus, I don't see any arguments for encyclopedic notability from the keep voters - just a general sense that Misplaced Pages should be treated as a web directory rather than an encyclopedia, and the suggestion that if there's an article on this other fanwiki, why not this one; plus the idea that being featured on the Something Awful forum for a day merits an article etc. So even going by just weighing the vote comments, the delete votes are clearly framing their arguments within policies and guidelines, while the keep comments do not seem to be Bwithh 08:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, fails WP:V. Wikia and papers presented at a con do not constitute reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Nor do any of the links presented apart from The Phoenix, which is a passing mention. "But what can you do when the closest thing to a news service is PHP-Nuke boards?" - the answer is realise that little about the 'subculture' apart from its existence hasn't attracted mainstream attention and doesn't merit coverage in an encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning 09:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  I guess we'll just have to work towards changing that. See you in five years. :-) GreenReaper 09:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Calling Wikimania a "con" may be misleading. It's a conference, not a convention. More importantly, it's not primarily a fan event, but an academic/professional one. Shimeru 11:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, lack of substantive verifiability of anything much beyond mere existence, from any source even approaching reliable, means that we cannot ensure neutrality; since the last is non-negotiable we can't have an article. Sorry. Procedurally we should probably never have had the article in the first place, it was speedied in August 2005, deleted by consensus in September 2005, unilaterally recreated by Pookey (talk · contribs) at Wikifur (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in Feb 2006 and moved to WikiFur the same day. Guy 13:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse per the first AFD debate. >Radiant< 14:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  I too endorse (see below) but I just wanna point out that the first version was, as is my understanding, deleted because it was significantly less notable at the time. It's more so now. Also, it was more spamming and less encyclopedic during the first deletion debate or whatever it's called. Miltopia 17:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  Yes. I myself voted delete that time, because it was a bad article, the site was still not well known within the fandom, and it hadn't yet got to what I'd call a "stable state". GreenReaper 17:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted, most of the "keep" votes pointed to notability among the furry fandom, not notability as a whole. I think "notability" is a pretty ridiculous guideline here in the first place, "relative" notability is definitely a defunct reason for keeping. There are already so few legit articles in Category:Furry already that WikiFur is not really up to par. I mean, the furry fandom in itself is of pretty small notability anyway, you don't hear about it much off the internet. If I were more experienced here I'd probably nominate many Category:Furry articles for deletion myself. People who are Misplaced Pages vterans: I encourage all of you to go through that category and delete as needed. Miltopia 17:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• You are not wrong. Guy 00:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
• You are, however, encouraging people to comment here because ED doesn't have an article. "Plz help to keep the furfags down" makes me question your objective here just a little. :-) GreenReaper 09:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Just as your sudden, unwelcome stalking me all over the internets back to my LIVEJOURNAL makes me doubt yours. Lucky for both of us, then, that our motives aren't relevant here, only the content of the discussion. And if you think I want Misplaced Pages article about Encyclopedia Dramatica to exist, you need only stalk me on Misplaced Pages, not on my online journal that I don't link to, to find that that's incorrect. Miltopia 11:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I know you don't want ED to have an article. That's fine with me, though personally I think it is notable enough to have one. I just have a problem with the way you advertised this review. I didn't ask for WikiFur users to come and support this. GreenReaper 11:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, you'll be glad to know that only 10, taken from the number of people that have me friended, people read my livejournal on a regular basis, although occassionally someone who I get into a deletion disagreement with will hunt it down and post it on a top 15 international website for all the world to see. Miltopia 11:42, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't even looking for you. I was doing a regular LJSeek search for WikiFur. You just happened to have proudly mentioned on someone else's LiveJournal that you helped get the WikiFur article deleted. It's at that point that I started to wonder. GreenReaper 12:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is moot. I just need to say this all, since it feels like I'm being passive-aggressively "cornered" into looking suspicious when it's clearly not. Was there a problem with my comments? I re-read them, both here and on the AfD page. Here's the run-down: I was happy WikiFur was deleted. I do not think WikiFur deserves an article on notability terms if ED apparently doesn't. BUt I kept my personal opinions out of these comments. I only talked about verifiability and notability, not about what I think of furries or WikiFur. No one could tell from my comments alone that I'm not a huge fan of furries. That means that when arguing for this deletion, I left my personal crap at the door and focused on policies and guidelines. You can see that in the comments, again, re-read them, there's nothing personal in there. So my "objectives" aren't an issue. Maybe you've dropped that, but I'm making it clear for you and anyone else considering this deletion anyway. There was no problem with the approach I took to my reasoning during these deletion debates; if there was or if I was arguing "delete" because I didn't like furries, I assume you or someone would've noted that at some point, here or on my talk page. You took it upon yourself without reason, given the impersonal tone I would say I achieved in my comments here, to post a link to my livejournal that I'm still not sure how you came to discover.

I read over the recent MONGO arbitration case at the suggestion of a now banned buddy of mine before editing, since it provided some guidelines for ED editors. Well, here: except for some friendly messages on other editor's talk pages, I've "worn my Misplaced Pages hat" pretty well. And that very same case, if I remember right, strongly discouraged "outing" people for their off-wiki internet attacks. Yes, I will frequently use my online journal as a tool of self-expression. That will not always be to the liking of every Wikipedian. Sometimes, I might even talk about something on Misplaced Pages that I have an opinion about. Well, I realize not every sentiment I have to share is going to be liked by anyone who visits a top 15 website. That's why I don't link to it there, or anywhere else. I'd appreciate if you did (or didn't do, I guess) the same. If the fact that I find this deletion funny bothers you, don't read my livejournal. And if you're worried about the RfA being contaminated, don't; no one takes my livejournal seriously. Miltopia 12:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, none of the keep arguments pointed to notability beyond the one special-interest group that the article concerns. Arguments for deletion all seemed better than ones against deletion. (Note that I, myself, voted delete; I'm trying to be neutral but some of my bias might be showing.) Voretus 18:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Idea - I have to wonder if mass spamming this AfD is not a good idea. I'd guess by, frankly, the formality and unencyclopedic (as far as WP is concerned, such as articles about people - not criticizing WikiFur's quality of writing) essence of many WikiFur articles that there are few people who edit both there and here. I think the keep votes were over-represented by furries, especially due to the fact that so many called to its notability in terms of relative to the fandom. Maybe a more widely-advertised AfD should be ran, since its unlikely to be compromised by WikiFurrians (read a couple sentences back) and would probably result in a stronger consensus OR a firmer judgement of "no consensus". Miltopia 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

    I don't really see the point. The arguments have already been made, and that is the basis that the deletion was made on, and the basis on which it is getting endorsed here. I deliberately did not mention the AfD on WikiFur's site itself until it had completed. If there were a lot of furries at AfD . . . well, geez, you think maybe they happened to be looking for information on furry fandom or WikiFur specifically and found a big delete notice on there? :-) I know we got an average of 30 hits a day referred from "Wikifur", and another 25 from "WikiFur". That is case-sensitive, and most links use the proper capitalization, so it suggests people were typing in "wikifur" to get to that page. I assume a lot of them were furries. GreenReaper 00:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion From Rough consensus: "Note that 51% of the working group does not qualify as "rough consensus" and 99% is better than rough." So even the numbers line up, not to mention the arguments. "The majority of the current references are to wikia.com because that is where most of the information is." Uh-huh. ~ trialsanderrors 20:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  To put that statement in context, you have to look at the information I was talking about - the information that was actually extracted from the references to put in the article. I think it is perfectly justified to say things like "Wiki X is dedicated to this purpose" if such is stated in the site's mission statement. If we had gone on to take information like "Wiki X was attacked by members of Wiki E" from a claim on the same page, then that would be a problem, since it becomes a tale of the interaction between us and them, on which we are not a reliable source. Similarly, it would be a mistake to use information from one of our articles as a reference for a Misplaced Pages article. But that's not what I was talking about there. GreenReaper 22:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

  I didn't use your quote as the crux of the argument but as exemplary for the general tenor of the discussion. ~ trialsanderrors 07:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  I don't understand your argument. DRV was sought on the basis that deletion was supported by only 58% of the participants. Are you disputing that computation, or do you believe that, although 51% is not a rough consensus, 58% is? JamesMLane t c 10:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  58% can perfectly be rough consensus if the closing admin sees strength of argument weighing in on one side. There is no pinpoint where a "no consensus" turns into a "delete". And as most other commenters here see it strength of argument was clearly in favor of delete (roughly the debate looked like this: Delete Where are the sources? — Keep Sources?!?), and really, nomination for review that is based solely on numbers is rarely overturned, per the ubiquitous "AfD is not a vote". ~ trialsanderrors 16:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  The strength of the arguments and whether there's a rough consensus are two completely different concepts. As for the pinpoint, at one time people discussed the line as being somewhere around three-fourths or four-fifths. I agree with your final observation as to actual current practice, however. There seems to be an increasing tendency for AfD closes to pay only lip service to consensus, with the actual basis for decision being the closing admin's personal opinion about the strength of the arguments. If that's to be our decision rule, we should be honest about it and replace "rough consensus" with "simple majority" (or perhaps even "simple majority of whichever comments the closing admin deems worthy of consideration"). JamesMLane t c 17:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

  Well in the Byzantine world of Misplaced Pages deletion policy, WP:DP points to WP:DGFA, which cites rough consensus, which quotes the IETF guideline I quoted above, and allows "the Chair to determine if rough consensus has been reached". In the voluminous case law at WP:DRV (the de-facto XFD court of appeals) this has recently been interpreted as "admin discretion", as long as a good-faith effort seems to have been made to follow the debate and weigh the arguments. Pure headcounts, as in this nomination, have clearly fallen out of favor. Maybe all this should be streamlined and the policies be updated to reflect this, but if our policies were so clear that we can't have debates over them Misplaced Pages would only be half the fun... ~ trialsanderrors 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Abstain For reasons listed below I will be abstaining from voting in this critical deletion review that lays the foundation of one of the more crucially needed articles in some time for the Misplaced Pages family of websites. On October 3^rd I came to realize that there is more to life than just the trivial nonsense spattered by local news pundits such as CNN and FOX News. It is apparent to me that this article falls in the line between sanity and discompressionable disaster. This Tuesday night led be to believe that the numerous fallacies of daily life are nothing more than a crowded house of delusionary thoughts and unnecessary hindering chicanery. The next day, October 4^th , I awoke with a peculiar lump just below my lower left thigh within the junction of my upper and lower knee. It seemed rather plausible that this was nothing more than a sprain caused by my high cholesterol and rather large knees. Now, I am not saying that I make up the increasing number of the population classified as overweight, but I do enjoy the rather uplifting taste of a delicious “Big Mac” from the popular restaurant Mac Donald’s. However, I have noticed in recent times that the more I eat this forbidden fruit of cow ridden filth that I tend to have watery bowel movements. You may call this diarrhea, I call it “the runs.” Suffice to say, my health is still in stable condition and I feel that my well-being is in excellent shape. This article allows me to applaud the numerous actions taken by myself and others like me in the hope that tomorrow is remains a better today and that yesterday is a step ahead into the future. The venture continues onward into the distant sky towards a new horizon of plentiful thought and splendid aroma. For these reasons and these reasons alone I must ‘’’abstain’’’ from voting and I encourage others to follow suit as it is the only choice of action. I welcome all comments and criticisms.CarlosMenciaSuperFunny 20:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the above is a form of vandalism. And Mencia isn't even funny anyway. Bwithh 03:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Redeemer (album)

Redeemer (album) (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

An album for a band, Machinae Supremacy signed to a major record label set for worldwide re-release (indy version released in March 06) soon . It was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G11. However, it was hard to get a proper reason why he considered it spam out of the mod who deleted it. I'd like to see this overturned, or at least give it a chance listed, as I cirtainly feel it shouldn't fall under the criteria for speedy deletion. ¬rehevkor¬ 15:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Relist at the very least, perhaps recreate; G11 looks mis-applied at this point. --humblefool® 18:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
• Perish the thought that we actually wait until it's released... Guy 23:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • You mean until yesterday? ~ trialsanderrors 08:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• So, a few more weeks and we'll have the critical reviews and non-trivial coverage we need for an article. At which point there will be no problem. What's the rush? I don't think the publication deadline is looming... Guy 09:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• . ~ trialsanderrors 17:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn I don't see anything in the talk page discussion that this was a content issue. No one has challenged the notability of Machinae Supremacy yet, so per WP:MUSIC I don't see a valid reason to delete their album subpages. ~ trialsanderrors 08:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

• Exactly.. unless someone challenges Machinae Supremacy's notability it's a open shut case (as per WP:MUSIC#Albums) ¬rehevkor¬ 03:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tse Chi-yung

Tse Chi-yung (discussion|history|protect|delete|undelete|logs|links)

AFDs:

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tse Chi-yung

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Tse Chi-yung (2nd nomination)

Person in question has recently gained publicity due to recent employment by Google. Covered by multiple local press: . See also and . John Seward 16:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion From what I can find in English sources, this is a 24-year-old who just got a job as a software engineer with Google. I'm sure his family (and apparently his school) are very proud of him, but I don't see the local press references as non-trivial. Do you have any idea how many software engineers work for Google? Fan-1967 17:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • But then how many Google engineers got full press attention for their recruitment? You may disagree with the editorial choice of the Hongkong press, but all three press articles are full-fledged features on this recruitment and can hardly be said to be trivial mentions. Multiple non-trivial mentions by the press is a valid ground to establish notability if I understand it correctly. Unfortunately they are all in Chinese, but they all come from established local press: Apple Daily, Wen Wei Po and Sing Tao. --John Seward 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
    • But it is local press, and clearly material that would not be considered notable elsewhere. Comparable situation I've noticed numerous times lately in my local papers: Local soldier is killed in Iraq. He gets a big write-up in the Chicago Tribune and the Chicago Sun-Times. Those are clearly notable press sources. Does that make him notable enough to have an article here? Lots of people may be considered notable in their home town. We're not their home town. Fan-1967
• Endorse deletion, valid closure per policy and per process. As Fan-1967 says, there is no substantive evidence that this person's significance extends beyond his home town. Guy 19:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)