Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 4

< July 3	Deletion review archives: 2007 July	July 5 >

4 July 2007

Template:Dated episode notability

Completely inappropriate closure. By "votes" alone, consensus was not established in any way. The vast majority of the deletion support was based on misleading comments by the nom that the template was used to delete articles. Deletion admin also cites WP:CREEP, despite that it is common to have individual cleanup tags such as this (see Category:Notability and importance templates). The template was also being used to date and track articles for a new review process being developed. We date maintenance tags all the time, and we give individual messages regarding specific cleanup tags all the time.

Regardless of how you feel about the situation, there was anything but a consensus to delete. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also WP:EPISODE

Endorse closure — There was a very clear consensus established at the TfD, that was to delete and redirect. I'm saddened that you feel that consensus was not established, and that you had to resort to canvassing to advance your POV (now, why does that feel odd?). Frankly the reason given to keep are extremely weak. Matthew 07:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I have done no canvassing, and POV is not a factor here at all. Matthew here is the user who nominated the template in an attempt to snipe the developing process, and is also the one who presented the misleading claims that the template was for a deletion process. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, and Endorse Deletion There was not a consensus, even numbers alone hardly had a majority. Ned Scott's original speedy keep was correct, people just didn't like it since he wrote it. That is irrelevent. Please don't make accusations of canvassing, as you canvassed in the deletion as well. I feel, however, that deleting the template (technically redirect) should be left. It was a lenglthy discussion, and although consensus was not established, people wanted it deleted, and its deletion makes the review less complicated, and an alternative is being discussed. I ^{(said) (did)} 07:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- So it's ok to screw the users who wanted to keep the template, wanting to improve such articles, because some other users wanted it deleted? You said yourself, there was no consensus. -- Ned Scott 07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. Just incase there is confusion, I am user:Alcemáe, this is a new name. If you would look here for the discussion as to what should happen now. I ^{(said) (did)} 07:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Deleting this template also removed a notice stating that episode articles were under review, as well as the link to said review, and links to our guidelines regarding TV episodes. It is inappropriate to single out the template being used by guidelines and review processes for these very reasons, and says so on WP:TFD directly. -- Ned Scott 07:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If a template is part of (the functioning of) a Wikipedia policy or guideline, the template cannot be listed for deletion on TfD separately, the template should be discussed where the discussion for that guideline is taking place."

The deletion of the template made it quite clear that the guideline and process carries no weight and has no consensus to support it. Those two issues will be addressed shortly. Matthew 07:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion and do something else. I see a lot of opposition to some sort of deadline, but no real opposition to having an episode-specific notability template. Why not add a parameter to {{notability}} or make a new cleanup template? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:51, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Enhancing {{Notability}} is a fine idea from my perspective -- I believe I supported something similar at the TfD. Matthew 07:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't delete a template that is to be merged. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't think of anything that would need to be merged. I'm actually thinking of (when I say enhanced)

"The subject of this article may not satisfy the notability guideline or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines."

being changed to something like

"The subject of this article may not satisfy the episode notability guideline."

It could be called with something like {{Notability|episode}}. Matthew 08:15, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the template was made directly from {{notability}}, obviously. However, deleting and redirecting the template like this does not preserve the message, links, or categorization, and makes a mess of the pages that were previously using the template. This deletion is not how you merge templates. -- Ned Scott 08:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, but it makes the deletion a technical issue. If all you wanted was to remove the message that said "14 days" that would be one thing, allowing time to plan to merge this (and all the other) templates to one. -- Ned Scott 08:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing how including a category is beneficial, there's no rush to fix the issue (if there is one). Remember that the introduction of these templates is purely based on opinion, that may not be shared, anybody may remove these templates if they disagree -- even if you've created some arbitrary discussion forum. If you still feel that an article should be deleted after the template is removed then AfD it. Matthew 08:31, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understood me. I would not oppose removing the deadline and review features of the template, returning it to it's original state (an episode-specific copy of {{notability}}). Merging the two templates would be for technical reasons, and if we are doing that we should so the same for the other notability templates. There would be no reason to delete the template in that case, and we then lose the links to WP:EPISODE for however long it takes to update the protected-{{notability}}. If the opposition is not to the message or link, then why delete it before merging? -- Ned Scott 08:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I would be all for that, as long as it could still be date-stamped just like all of our other cleanup tags. The "deadline" was another part of the misconception, as it was just an arbitrary time frame so people could easily remove the tag before a review process started when it wasn't needed. The deletion and redirection does not preserve any categorization or individual message, however. Removing the "deadline" did not require deletion, whatsoever. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse strongly a specialized template for one Wikiproject telling the world "this tv show isn't good enough" is just somehow offensive. -N 07:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not one WikiProject, it's the consensus of WP:EPISODE. -- Ned Scott 07:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's quite apparent that guideline has no consensus, as has been show to you. You need to accept this, Ned. Matthew 08:04, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Cut the bullshit matthew. -- Ned Scott 08:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:EPISODE is not what we're discussing here, Matt, please stop beating that particular dead horse. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:26, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't anything is arguing that tagging unreferenced episode articles as such is a bad idea. The main objections in the old TFD seemed to be over the implication of a deadline and the appearance resembling that of a deletion tag. Thus, I propose, instead of going through all the DRV bureaucracy, we instead make a new template, along the lines of {{unreferenced}}, to fill the same task but in a different way. This template would clearly be a cleanup template (unlike the very prod-like {{notability}} or this template), but would allow for the management and cleanup of episode articles.

I've started work on this template at User:A Man In Black/epref, and I encourage any help from the participants in this DRV.

I haven't bulleted this comment because it's an alternate proposal from undeleting or endorsing. If this sounds good to everyone, we can just say "Let's do AMIB's thing" and forget all about the old template, deleting or merging or restoring or whatever. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that is that, like all other cleanup tags, they almost never get worked on. And, technically, they dont need to be cleaned up usually, they violate policy, and need to be removed. That happened, people got mad, so a timeline was set up. Removing the timeline just lets it exist indefinently. I ^{(said) (did)} 08:40, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm planning on retaining the 14-day functionality. It just won't be so in-your-face. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VíaVienté

After an AfD dicussion in which I closed delete, the author of the page asked if the page could be made better. I improved on it a bit here, and I think this marginally meets guidelines now. Sr 13 07:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who listen to video game music

This was closed as keep. However, none of the arguments to keep were really much of an argument at all, just that the existence of users in it means that it should exist, which cannot be the case. Furthermore, two of the keep arguments were refuted, such as by stating that Category:WikiProject Video games members is superior in terms of encyclopedia-building. This left a stronger argument for deletion, so overturn and delete. Core desat 05:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse your argument presents a false dilemma. Nowhere does it say we can't have both the category and the Wikiproject. Plus every "delete" was "per nom" with one "pointless". Yes, all user categories are pointless from certin point of view. Only the "keep"s had rationale arguments. -N 07:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brunokirby2.jpg

Complete misinterpretation of Wikipedia standards, policies Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_June_26#Image:Brunokirby2.jpg, closing admin argues:

The result was delete. I don't think there is any doubt that the image was provided by CBS to the media outlets referenced, however, we do not know the circumstances surrounding the conditions on which the image was provided. It could be part of a press kit or could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to. Also, there is no claim the uploader got the image from a press kit, which means the image was possibly copied from another website with possible violation of that website's terms and conditions of use.

I certainly disagree that the consensus opinion was to delete. I certainly take issue with the idea that CBS provides press kit photos to only a few media outlets, not to all legitimate media outlets. I cannot image a situation which requires me to physically be in possesion of a photograph from a "press kit," which these days, is usually electronic and/or on-line, in order for an image to be useable on Wikipedia. It makes no difference if the uploader "claims" the image comes from a press kit; the image DOES come from press material, and therefore, its deletion on grounds that "it doesn't come from a press kit" is not valid. And if an image comes from another website, so what? We know who the copyright holder OF THE IMAGE is! It doesn't make a difference whether or not it was downloaded from CBS.com, NPR.org, SeattleTimes.com, photos.ap.com, whatever -- that's a delivery method. The image itself, it should be noted, is clearly and unambiguosly the copyrighted property of CBS. Its resolution was reduced, and it was being used in full compliance with all ten points of WP:NFCC. The argument we do not know the circumstances surrounding the conditions on which the image was provided could (and perhaps someday will) be applied to EVERY press-kit style photo. But in fact, we do know that this image was provided to multiple media outlets (links were provided), with no indication anywhere that there is any standard or practice that CBS promtional images are limited to only a few select websites. To buy the argument that this is a promotional image, as the closing admin seems to do, but then to delete it anyway doesn't make any sense. Finally, the argument that this could be an exclusive image these media outlets pay to get rights to might make some sense, if there was ever any example or indication given that this has ever happened. This is so contrary to the standard practice in the promotional photo world that's it's difficult to understand how anyone could allege this with a straight face. As pointed out in the original deletion discussion, the image was used on NPR.org, which, as far as I know, is a part of the non-profit NPR radio network. The "fear" that this image is somehow exclusive, paid content being used by all of the example sites given in the deletion should be put to rest by its inclusion there. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 04:32, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that there was a consensus to delete. However, if you review the discussion Jenolen ^{speak it!} was the only voice in support of keeping the image, so there appears to be no broad consensus to keep the image. Jenolen ^{speak it!} is making assumptions about the pedigree of the image just as I am, but per current Wikipedia non-free content criteria we err on the side of caution. We have many cases of where promotional images were properly taken from the electronic press kit and this standard will be applied to all such images over time. -Nv8200p talk 04:59, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However, if you review the discussion Jenolen ^{speak it!} was the only voice in support of keeping the image...

Then how come no other editor bothered to put a "DELETE" in front of their comments? There's only a "SPEEDY KEEP" from me...Yes, yes, I know this is not a vote, but NO ONE, other than the original nominator, made a cogent argument for deleting the image, they only replied to my initial evidence as to why it should be kept.

Also: A consensus isn't required to delete an image? Just to keep it? If an editor nominates something for deletion, and one other editor thinks it should be kept, isn't this usually considered a "no consensus" situation? Since when does "no consensus" default to "delete"?

What happened to actually taking a look at the evidence, and making a rational decision? I think it takes more than just the allegation of misuse -- the image nominator offered NO support to his claim that the image was, somehow, maybe exclusive content. And I offered several pieces of evidence that the image was NOT some kind of heretofore unheard of "paid promotional material". Again, there was zero evidence offered by the nominator -- just a nomination that talks about how this "might" be something we can't use. Well, I'd like to think our standards are a little higher than that.

And, I hate to bring this up, but what if the editor is nominating images uploaded by a particular user out of spite? That certainly could be what's happening here. I should point out that I'm no flagrant abuser of our image policy -- every single image I've every uploaded has been completely legal and within policy at the time I uploaded it. Sure, I know policies change, requiring subsequent deletion of previously acceptable material, but c'mon... This is way, way out of whack. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 06:05, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, copyright is copyright. Get a release. And please WP:AGF, and stop violating WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Corvus cornix 06:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletion. Image was verifiably promotional in nature and thus its use does not pose any problems. There was, equally verifiably, no consensus to delete. This continued behavior on the part of closing admins seriously undermines the faith and trust we should be able to have in individuals holding such positions. Badagnani 07:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and speedy close. Obviously valid deletion. No evidence of "promotional" nature; obviously invalid fair use rationale (basically, any fair use rationale that just copies that infamous bogus template "...how the event depicted was very historically significant to the general public." is invalid and shows the uploader didn't do their homework.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Joint

Page was changed to eliminate bias and simply served to be informative in regards to a new invention but was still deleted. I have nothing to do with the product but feel that it is useful knowledge for anyone, especially amputees. I only wrote it for the public benefit -- including several acquaintences of mine who are interested in the invention. Bronco allan 03:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion but allow for recreation if reliable sources are provided about the product's notability. But note that Wikipedia is not here to provide free publicity for any product. Corvus cornix 06:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Murakumo: Renegade Mech Pursuit

I don't understand this. This was speedy closed, having been open for less than a day, by a user who has no indication on his user page that he is an admin with the reason given WP:IAR??. The review states "one of the worst games to come out for the Xbox this year." How is that sufficiently notable to warrant a speedy keep? I think this AfD should run its course. Bridgeplayer 03:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse keep Extremely unlikely that this Ubi Soft game would be closed as delete. Apparently it sucked, but that isn't a deletion criterion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable" doesn't necessarily mean "good". This is a game developed by a noteworthy developer, published by a noteworthy publisher, and covered in major game publications. I can understand the AFD, since the article wasn't anything but an incomplete infobox when it was put on AFD, but I don't understand why there's this DRV. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]