Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 May 19

19 May 2007

Image:Mert_Özel_.jpg

Http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mert_Özel_.jpg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This picture is taken by me and I hold the rights to it. I do not want this picture to be published in wikipedia at this time. Berk Sirman Berkbs 19:39, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg (closed)

Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg – deletion speedily endorsed, nominator provided no arguments as to why deletion was improper. – Picaroon (Talk) 19:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Underwood Carrie.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) Image was improperly orphaned and deleted as unused fair use image. Proper deletion procedures were not followed per WP:IFD and instructions for administrators. Uploader User:Eqdoktor was not served a deletion notice to contest the deletion. Said image has already passed an earlier IFD test. Admin User:Nick has unilaterally refused to undo the admin error. Eqdoktor 18:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Contrary to the statement by Eqdoktor, the image was correctly orphaned and listed for 7 days for deletion. The image in question was in contravention of Unacceptable Use, Section 8 of our Non Free Content policy "# An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like. The rationale is that this is potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph" and was deleted correctly in accordance with Speedy Deletion criteria CSD-I5 and CSD-I7 (take your pick, it could have been deleted under either). The image should not have been uploaded to Wikipedia and indeed, a free photograph was found which would have rendered this image surplus to requirements if it's use had been sanctioned by policy anyway (which of course, it isn't). The uploader simply refuses to understand that this photograph should not be used in any Wikipedia articles and that discussion cannot overrule foundation policy and local non free image policy regarding the use of this image, despite spending a substantial amount of time trying to explain why this image was deleted. I also refuse to undelete the image in order to tag it for deletion again, this time informing this user,just for it to be deleted again in 7 days as it has to be. Administrators have better things to do than defend ourselves from this sort of over zealous process wonkery. Nick 19:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Keep deleted - as a staunch supporter of appropriate fair use, I fully support taking inappropriate fair use out and having it shot. Foundation policy is pretty clear on this. Procedural grounds won't do here, IMO - you need to detail why the image actually doesn't violate Foundation policy - David Gerard 19:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] What's the problem? The image was used under fair use. Our non-free content policies only allow that if the image can't be replaced. The image has been replaced by this one, which is a perfectly fine image of her. There's nothing that could save the other image short of fox suddenly releasing the copyright under a new license. All procedures were followed and notification wouldn't have made any difference. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Qian Zhijun (closed)

Qian Zhijun – The result was wait until ArbCom does something about the current case. Introducing another debate is dangerous; we should just let it go for a bit and let the tempers cool down. – Sean William 16:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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) After the last DRV closed TODAY as restore article since the last AFD was open for only 45 minutes, the newest AFD was re-opened for a mere 12 hours before it was closed and locked. I am re-listing this for the same reason as the previous DRV, the discussion was open for insufficient time to allow a full consensus to be reached. See also related ANI report Nardman1 16:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] This is currently on WP:RFAr --W.marsh 16:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Because this is now listed at RFAR, I think we should hold off on having any more deates until Arbcom either accepts or rejects the case. Frankly, the issue of whether to keep or not keep the article has blown FAR out of all reasonable proportion: the subject is covered at List of Internet phenomena#Images. In the meantime, I think we should just redirect there, and start up a new debate when either the Arbcom case is finished, or when it becomes clear that Arbcom is not going to take up the case. Mangojuicetalk 16:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Withdraw nom without prejudice, Arbcom is probably needed at this point. Nardman1 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

WMLZ-LP

WMLZ-LP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Previously deleted and protected from recreation by User:David.Monniaux, I gained permission to recreate the article in a way that it would not cause the same problems originally brought to m:OTRS (at least, in my understanding). It has since been speedy deleted by User:Cryptic, citing the original complaint to m:OTRS (though, as stated, it no longer caused said issue) and citing A7:nngroup, despite the fact that the station is licensed by the FCC, making it notable JPG-GR 04:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Being covered in nontrivial sources makes it notable. We're not just a station catalogue. Being licensed by the FCC makes sources more likely to exist, but this is only a low power station, and whether anything exists is dubious. A7 at this point is probably the wrong way to go about it, but it won't (or at least shouldn't) survive AfD without any sources besides station directories. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 07:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you point me to the notability guidelines which say FCC licensed means it is automatically considered notable. Most notability is determined by coverage in reliable sources, which also nicely helps meet out verifiability standards. --pgk 08:00, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I'm aware of one. I guess I went ahead and assumed that if the FCC licenses a station, that makes it notable in and of itself. JPG-GR 17:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not every FCC licensee is a notable entity. Any individual with a HAM radio license is one, after all. In this case, it just seems like part of the school and better off merged into the school's article for a mention. I'd support merging it to Bedford High School (Michigan) if someone would bother to write that. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have no issue with that... but I'm no expert on that school. Far from it... JPG-GR 18:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But, for completeness sake, I'm gonna give it a try. JPG-GR 18:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bedford Senior High School JPG-GR 19:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yorkshire Derby

Yorkshire Derby (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Though no consensus was reasonable on the balance of the discussion, the article, that was totally unsourced, should have been deleted on policy grounds as failing WP:RS and WP:V. Lacking any criteria for inclusion, it is also indiscriminate information and potentially unlimited with any two teams in Yorkshire, in any sport, qualifying for inclusion. I asked the closing admin on 13 May to reconsider but there has been no reply. Overturn and delete. BlueValour 02:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete, it was pointed out that the article was unverified and the keep side failed to demonstrate verifiability by finding some reliable sources. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 14:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not endorse closure, but I'm leaning toward keep and expand with sources. A quick Google search indicates the term all over the place, but I have absolutely no knowledge of footy whatsoever, so I think we should be aware that this may actually be able to be a properly sourced article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist this was a hard one to close. Although WP:A/WP:V was mentioned, it wasn't hashed out to the point of clearly showing a verifiable article couldn't exist here. If people want this article to stay they should cite published sources showing more people than just Wikipedia editors call these events "Yorkshire Derby". And if these are merely alternate terms maybe this should be a dab page. but these are all things DRV isn't really suited to determining. --W.marsh 15:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist seeking attributable sources specific to this point (among the hundreds of hits Google gives for "Yorkshire Derby"+football [1] ). I agree with W.marsh on all points. There are many fans of the sport on this language's Wikipedia and we need them to make clear whether this topic is too local-interest-only (under WP:LOCAL) or too indiscriminate ("no criteria for inclusion" was asserted above) to be verifiable through reliable sources. Barno 16:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete if no reliable sources are brought here or added to the article in the next five days (before this DRV closes). If these reliable sources do not appear, the subject does not meet WP:V, and the article should be deleted. --Coredesat 17:15, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North American NF-Board football teams (closed)

Category:North American NF-Board football teams – probably a mistake, no reason seen for deletion – Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:North American NF-Board football teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD) This category was deleted on March 6th. According to the deletion log, it was deleted per User:Betacommand/Datadump/To be Deleted, but I can't find a reason why it was listed there and why it qualified for deletion. It contained at least one article, Greenland national football team. None of the other subcategories of Category:NF-Board football teams was deleted. AecisBrievenbus 01:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply] Can't find any reason for it to be deleted, so I'm going to restore it as a probable mistake. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 01:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.