Misplaced Pages

Wayne Crookes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A WP:BLP delete. I understand that this article is a sensitive one, but it seems to be a clearly notable subject. If WP:OFFICE action should be taken, so be it, but otherwise I'd like to see a process. Rjm656s 17:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm on the fence, actually. If memory serves it was stubbed after Crookes sued WP, Google, and one other site. He's probably notable, and the stub isn't hurting. Have you discussed with the deleting administrator? Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The article was created as an attack page and was sourced to a wiki, a blog, and some government statistics (original research). If it were re-created with the newspaper stories about the lawsuit, it would be a trivial news report. See also OTRS # 2006072110015911 and . —Centrx→talk • 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• He may well be notable, but Centrx is certainly correct in that the article was created (and edited after that) as an attack page. On the other hand, could the article not simply be rewritten from scratch (so we can stop faffing about at DRV, just rewrite) citing proper reliable sources in a version that is compliant with BLP? This article does seem to have a history of BLP problems, but could not a valid article be written? Certainly several of the deleted revisions were pretty useless. Moreschi 18:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is possible that a new non-inflammatory page about this person that is cited to some reliable newspaper articles could be created, but I think it unlikely that it would be anything more than a news report with undue weight. —Centrx→talk • 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• I don't see why this has to come to DR... just recreate the article with some sources. Voila, problem solved. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • can't be recreated, deleting admin salted it. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Ah, sure enough. As that's the case, yes, Overturn. If we've got a chance to create a not shitty article, we should embrace it. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Unsalting it is not the same as overturning the deletion and restoring the page with all its history. —Centrx→talk • 18:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Yup, and some balance, as is required, so the article is not a coatrack. Moreschi 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, article as deleted was not a valid G10, and at least unsalt so that it can be replaced with a neutral stub. This man has gotten a lot of press, we can't allow his legal threats to shut down the writing of a valid article. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Legal threats are the context which warrant care, but I deleted it because it is not and could not be made into an encyclopedia article. Also, "lots of press" does not make for an encyclopedia article, usually the opposite. —Centrx→talk • 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and restore the stub version in the cache. At least allow a restore, Night Gyr nailed it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why not start from scratch at least, rather than restoring the attack pages in the history? —Centrx→talk • 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've recreated as a one-sentence stub and have unsalted, but in my opinion there's no good reason for the world and his wife to be able to see the history, which contained some pretty awful stuff. Moreschi 18:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• At this point I think we can just close this, the disliked revisions are deleted and there's a stub waiting to be improved. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Is this a joke? The article contains one sentence - "Wayne Crookes is a person", a stub tag, and a "not verified" tag. I don't have an opinion now on whether or not an article can/should exist, but in no way, shape, or form, is "Wayne Crooks is a person" acceptable content for an article. I'm inclined, unless someone wants to put something in there, to speedy it A7 (but leave it unsalted). Again, I don't care if an article on the topic exists, but we shouldn't mock the guy that sued us by having such silliness. --BigDT 18:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not being silly. Jimbo, no less, did just this once, creating a BLP stub that said "X is a person". You don't like it {{sofixit}}. The current version is neutral, accurate, and has the virtue of brevity. Moreschi 18:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • And it's being expanded, with sources, as I speak. Excellent. Now, can someone close this? Moreschi 18:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy close as moot - article has been recreated as a stub. From what I can see the history contains possible libels, and certainly violated WP:BLP. Rather than blow hot air here - go and create a good article from the stub--Doc 18:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

A properly referenced article that probably warrants existence but at the very least should go through AfD. Deleting administrator states "No assertion of notability, article in poor taste, BLP by spirit, if not letter" - if it is not by the letter of BLP then it should certainly not be deleted using that (given the conflicted opinions about BLP deletions). Notability must be assumed at least to a basic degree because of the references. violet/riga (t) 17:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment by closing admin. BLP is about protecting the dignity of people. The fact that the child in question is dead does not remove the fundamental BLP issues - her family, including her brother mentioned by name in the article, still have every bit as much potential to be hurt by this article as she would be. BLP is our policy about being ethical citizens. This article has clear ethical issues - this is an ephemral case where we do not add meaningfully to the world and we substantively take away. It should remain deleted. Phil Sandifer 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted We are not a newspaper, nor a shrine to the dead, and murderers are not automatically encyclopedic. If it turned out that the killer was a former juvenile offender released with a new identity, that might deserve an article which would mention the victim. Otherwise, keep deleted. Thatcher131 17:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, cached version was not problematic, notability was asserted with sources, was not a news article as some assert, and, sadly, the subject was dead, so BLP isn't really a useful distinction here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • BLP is a policy about ethics. The ethical foundations of BLP apply very well here. Phil Sandifer 17:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • But it simply does not apply! You can't twist the meaning of the policy. violet/riga (t) 18:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • You're seriously saying that we should ignore the ethical issues behind BLP because it doesn't fit the letter of the policy? The process wonks have found their final frontier. Taylorized ethics. God help us all. Phil Sandifer 18:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • BLP is a policy about covering one's legal behind. BLP is also about living people. 0/2. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm curious. Do you misunderstand BLP, ethics, or both? Phil Sandifer 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • None of the above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • As you would put it, 0/1. Phil Sandifer 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Hardly. You know nothing of my ethical positions, and you apparently think I can't read BLP. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
              • "Misplaced Pages articles that contain information about living people can affect a subject's life. Misplaced Pages is a top-ten website, and with such prominance comes a measure of responsibility. Misplaced Pages is, fundamentally, a project that aims to improve the world. This means approaching the subjects of our articles with compassion, grace and understanding." Quick. Guess what policy page that's from? Phil Sandifer 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
                • BLP. Now, explain why that's relevant here. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • BLP is not "a policy about covering one's legal behind." BLP is a policy which assures that our actions will be ethical. FCYTravis 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • I don't buy into that propaganda for a second. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Ummm... propaganda? Phil Sandifer 18:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Yup. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I do not think that word means what you think it means. Phil Sandifer 18:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • I for one am not prepared to act unethically, nor will I endorse a policy interpretation that encourages others to do so. Mackensen (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I agree 100% with you on this one. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
              • Your actions indicate otherwise. Hell, it appears that you've argued elsewhere that WP has no ethical duties or guidelines it's required to follow, so this "agree 100%" doesn't seem to make the slightest bit of sense. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
              • I think Calton nailed it. Elsewhere () you have posited that you act ethically as you know it. So either you're being inconsistent, or your ethics are not in tune with consensus as I believe it to exist, because the ethical thing to do is to remove this article, we are not a tabloid and we should not be causing harm to innocent victims and their families by long term notoriety of what is basically just a horrific murder. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Or, my ethics are simply as relevant as yours. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Misplaced Pages is not a memorial. Thousands of people are murdered every year. Mackensen (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - There was nothing which demonstrated encyclopedic interest. Scurrilous, unsourced and almost-certainly-false rumors about the relationship of this case to another one do not demonstrate that. FCYTravis 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- I'm questioning the, um, point of bringing every common sense deletion of someone's misguided attempt at an encyclopedia article about a non notable living person based on their being involved in some news story or other. Is this an exercise in seeing how many people will trot out to vote on these? If I had the impression that the users bringing these here actually wanted to collect biographical data on everyone mentioned in the news in the 21st century I would suggest starting a project somewhere else to do that; it's not our mission. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So why exactly are we here? Jkelly 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do you question the point of challenging "common sense" deletions, but not the deletions themselves? The administrators at this point know that the deletions are controversial, so they really should stop doing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Controversial != wrong. No change for the better was ever effected in any society without controversy. Misplaced Pages is no different. FCYTravis 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, but this was, and continues to be, controversial and wrong. Stop. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Caring about Misplaced Pages's impact on turning 15 minutes of fame or infamy into that person's Permanent Life Record is not wrong. FCYTravis
          • Assuming your position > everyone else's is wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the article was not about this person, the references were not about this person. They both referred to other events. There was no assertion in the slightest of encyclopedic notability (and yes, in cases like these we do have a certain duty of sensitivity etc). Misplaced Pages is not a news reporting agency, and articles about people should be about those people. Not about other events. Moreschi 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn deletion. This seems to be an out-of-process deletion per the edit summary on the speedy deletion: "No assertion of notability, article in poor taste, BLP by spirit, if not letter."

  As for "No assertion of notability": WP:CSD#A7 refers to "Unremarkable people" and "An article about a real person that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." I haven't read the article to ascertain its importance or significance, nor can I because of the deletion, but continuing: "If controversial, the article should be nominated for AfD instead." I would say that the reactions here (and other articles) constitute controversy.

  While "poor taste" may appear in an essay or in discussions, I'm not familiar with any policy or CSD that makes any reference to it. It strikes me as a very POV interpretation, and not grounds for deletion of an article.

  "WP:BLP" seems to be a primary point of contention both here and at other discussions of recent OOP deletions; but as Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu isn't an "LP", that seems patently inapplicable.

  I don't have any vested interest in this article, and don't particularly want to argue the merits of the article itself as (aforementioned) I haven't/can't read it. But AFAIKT, this seems to have been a sourced and verifiable article that, while possibly meriting a deletion discussion, did not qualify as a speedy deletion as was implemented. There is no CSD for I don't think it's encyclopedic. — pd_THOR | 20:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn, redirecting to the article on the murderer (which still exists) may have been appropriate, to avoid redundancy, but this article did not fit any speedy criteria. C'mon people, take these to afd. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• overturn for process --the BLP concern can only be about the accused, who has pled not guilty, and the article about him remains on WP. The N consideration for speedy is no assertion of notability, and that was not the case, for if the possible murderer was notable, it is reasonable to think that the victim might be. Not that I would necessarily agree in the end, but it was not a speedy. It is clearly not an uncontroversial deletion, and needs a open discussion. The discussion should be taking place at AfD, and not here. There have been too many examples lately of IFEELITINMYHEART as a reason--one way or another. I would have done just what Night Gyr suggests. DGG 23:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, given the content, that attitude positively disgusts me.--Doc 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. I find myself in agreement with the comment by closing admin above. ElinorD (talk) 23:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• This article is dead. --Tony Sidaway 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's avoid rhetorical use of terms like "dead" in discussing an article about a murder victim. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse - unencyclopedic articles with little or no meaningful content directly related to the subject must die. This stays deleted. Nick 01:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Again, in discussing an article about a murder victim, it is jarring to see phraseology such as "must die" employed. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion look folks an article (with a picture) about the horrific murder of a little girl. Stop and think please. This is not in the least encyclopedic. And since it narrates her kid brother finding her - it is most certainly a BLP issue. This isn't a game. We are not doing this.--Doc 01:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per User:Phil Sandifer. The people screaming for overturn are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel in their quest for rationales, not to mention indulging in a fair amount of pot/kettle behavior ("Assuming your position > everyone else's is wrong" nearly made me spit up my coffee). If they have a point to make, make it elsewhere and not at the expense of Misplaced Pages and the poor bastards, thrust into the public spotlight, who have have to suffer so some people can make some kind of point, whatever the hell it is. --Calton | Talk 02:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - this is a very sad case but the girl is not notable and we have a long established policy that being a victim in a notable murder does not make one notable. Any encyclopaedic content in this page is already included at Dante Arthurs. TerriersFan 03:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. There is no assertion of notability in this article, as it's been shown many times that being a victim of a murder does not make you inherently notable. BLP concerns are quite obviously irrelevant, but A7 is reason enough for deletion. -Amarkov moo! 03:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion because it fails A7. Not because of BLP, which has nothing to do with biographies of dead people. The "L" stands for "Living". Neil (►) 09:29, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per BLP, and per doing the right thing. That's right. Per BLP. She's dead, true, but in my view, BLP's spirit applies here just the same. Those that say that it does not, based on the precise wording of BLP, miss the point. Those that insist on an AfD are process wonking, in my view. Those that don't see why this is the right thing to do perhaps should seek another project. ++Lar: t/c 11:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This is a news story, not an encyclopaedia article. Wikinews is the next office down on the right. Guy (Help!) 17:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion', primarily per Doc and Lar. Newyorkbrad 17:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Let me get this straight, now BLP is used to delete articles about dead people??? Wow, this idiocy has just reached a new level.  Grue  19:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak endorse deletion per Amarkov and Neil, with the emphatic provision that this is not an appropriate exercise of BLP (for various reasons into which we need not to get here ); the underlying article, though, cannot, I guess, be understand as asserting notability (I should say that I continue to believe that a declaration that an individual was a victim of a notorious crime is an assertion of notability, such that speedy deletion should be inconsistent with A7, but that I recognize that, BLP aside, there is a clear consensus for the idea that A7 should apply to such declarations and that, even as policy is descriptive rather than prescriptive and even as consensus can change, it is not appropriate for us to overturn that consensus at an insular AfD or DRV). Joe 01:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  I should clarify that although the deletion wouldn't fall under BLP's purview, it would fall under "common sense" and "human decency". I said A7 as it'll satsify the process wonks. Neil (►) 12:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  Thanks for your clarification. To be clear, my thinking, then, does not appear to follow precisely that of Neil; I, for one, as a few others here, I think, would most strongly object to deletion if the underlying article made an assertion of notability, not only because I would find, absent A7, no justification for speedying but also because I could not imagine BLP (even if one tries thence to apprehend some moral spirit) to extend quite as far as others might seem to think it to extend, and surely not to permit deletion before discussion. Joe 05:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see some abbreve-itis here. It's easy to throw around BLP, but if you know it stands for "Biographies of Living People", it's impossible to apply it to a dead person. - Mgm| 08:45, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse Deletion: The AfD from March was closed as a Keep, thus I can see the rationale for bringing this subsequent un-debated deletion to DRV. However, ultimately I agree with TerriersFan, in that the relevant information is already contained in the Dante Arthurs article (which has itself survived several AfD attempts, and fact of which was noted in the AfD for this article), and notability has not otherwise been asserted sufficient to maintain a separate article. Given that the review appears more controversial than the original deletion, I feel we should let it remain deleted; it can be re-created later, in the "organic" way that new articles are created all the time, if the circumstances then warrant it. — digitaleon • talk @ 04:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Anna Mae He (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This was deleted with no process at all, citing WP:BLP as the reason. The article was well sourced, including citations to multiple national news stories. There was and is no BLP issue here, not by the current terms of WP:BLP at least. And if there were, that case could properly be made in an AfD where the matter could be discussed, changes to the article proposed, and a proper consensus on whether the BLP policy calls for any modification of this article, rather than its being deleted by one admins unilateral action. This was in no reasonable sense an "attack page". There was no need for a speedy deletion here, a delay of a few days to let the matter be discussed at an AfD would have done no serious harm, and IMO the proper policy based result of an AfD would have been "keep", perhaps with some editing down. Overturn and let anyone who wishes nominate for AfD. (The deleting admin has already been notified that other editors disagree with the deletion, and has declined to undelte said he would undelte the history, (but implied only as part of a merge) if consensus developed to do so.) DES 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. No legitimate rationale for deletion. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps not under your apparent ethical system but I am not sure everyone else would agree. I think many would say that deleting this is the ethically correct thing to do. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AfD, whatever BLP issues there are are probably not bad enough to warrant speedy deletion, since the article was sourced. List it at AfD since there are potential problems here with notability, among other things. --Coredesat 16:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Yet another in a series of tabloid articles attempting to document in excruciating detail for all eternity every single child who was ever temporarily in the news. This page was not a biography, but instead a 20-paragraph report of every single twist and turn in the court case over her custody. Part of it could be merged into a broader article on child custody, but beyond that, the details of the case are hardly encyclopedic. FCYTravis 16:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Perhaps so, but that could and should have been discussed at an AfD where options such as merging, or rewriting could have been discussed and tried. Or the editor could have been bold in editing and edited down to a stub while discussing on the talk page. Speedy deletion should be the last resort, not the first. DES 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oh for goodness sake! There's a civil discussion going on on my userpage - during which I've indicated a willingness for undeletion to be considered. But alone comes DESiegel, doesn't bother discussing anything or entering into that discussion, and plops it here. Can he please provide evidence for his assertion that I have "declined to undelete". No. Please try using discussion rather than process next time.--Doc 17:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I apologize, i misread this edit as your view. I still maintain that deletion first and discussion afterwards is gettign the cart before the horse, and while you discusssed, you did not promptly undelete. DES 17:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I might add, this "process" consists of discussion. Please try using discussion first, rather than the delete button, next time. DES 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. To claim that the administrator has declined to undelete when discussion is on-going hardly seems accurate. Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure I understand - are you endorsing the deletion because DESiegel inaccurately described Doc glasgow's stance? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No. Mackensen (talk) 17:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn Per WP:BLP#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, biographical articles should only be speedily deleted if an article is both unsourced and negative in tone. Editors may disagree with whether or not it is negative in tone, and I personally do not think so, but it is a fact that the article is well-sourced. And to respond to User:FCYTravis - if you believe the content of an article is not notable or not encyclopedia, I believe the correct process is to list it at AfD, and not speedy delete it. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. This article reads like a tabloid, not a biography. Heck, the first line introduces this person as a victim of a custody battle. There is no reason for this article to exist. Sean William @ 17:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't that be a discussion at an AfD? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • No. Sean William @ 17:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Yes, that's exactly what it's for. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per HongQiGong. Some endorse comments read more like delete votes at AfD and that's where this should be. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion BLP allows for bold action in cases like this, not to mention that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a branch of Wikinews. If this person is notable a year from now, then a short, encyclopedic (not 'blow by blow story retelling') article might be appropriate, but this is just tabloid-surfing and an AfD is unnecessary before-hand. If DrV consensus is to run it through AfD, then it should after the fact without foul, but there would have to be an acceptance of the decision. BDJ's participation above should remind us that endless DRV-AfD cycles are a possibility and consensus should reflect awareness that at some point, the discussion has to stop. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • BLP only allows for speedy deletion if the article is negative and unsourced - not if an admin thinks the article is not unencyclopedic. The article is not a hoax or an attack page, suggestions on how to improve it or even proposed deletion using the "prod" tag would have been much appreciated. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm reading BLP right now, I see nothing to indicate that this is permissable. Also, I have no clue why you're tossing my name out there in that way. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted It is impossible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a person's life when the only reliable sources relate to a single incident, no matter how well documented. How sad that the family troubles of this person have been so well documented that for the rest of her life, potential employers, co-workers, suitors, neighbors, and anyone with a purient interest in the private lives of other people will be able to discover every detail of her private life, and how disgusting that some Wikipedians think we should be a party to this with our top-ten web site simply because there are enough sources to keep us clear of libel laws. Jimbo's edit to WP:NOT makes it clear this sort of article is no longer appropriate. If process demands that it be kept, then fuck process. Thatcher131 17:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It may be that the article should be renamed to one about a courtcase or a custody battle, and this incident is notable because it reached a state Supreme Court, with the Embassy of China sending representatives to listen in on the case, but I don't believe "fuck process" is a legitimate reason to delete an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Do you have any idea how many custody cases reach state supreme courts each year? Hundreds if not thousands. Unless a case leads to an important precedent, I find little reason to consider any particular custody case encyclopedic, and the fact that this article would enshrine in perpetuity not just the subject, a minor at the time, but also unproven allegations of abuse against the parents, argues for me against inclusion. Thatcher131 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The incident has also appeared in a whole lot of press coverage, including multiple articles on ABC News - to link a few - would you not say that makes the incident notable? As I've said, maybe the article needed to be renamed, but there's nothing in WP:BLP that warrants its deletion. You said earlier that it is "sad" that this person's custody battle is documented here, but the article only reflects existing sources. If something is inaccurately reflected of our sources, we can improve it. That you think it's "sad" her custody battle is documented is not a reason to delete an article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • WIkipedia is not a newspaper. Lots of things that get lots of newspaper coverage don't belong in an encyclopedia. And as far as I can concerned, respecting basic human dignity is a reason to delete an article, especially one about a little girl who did nothing wrong but which will ensure that she will forever be known primarily for her family's problem. Do you understand the level to which this article invades her privacy, and will continue to invade it for years if not decades? Never mind ECHELON or Warrantless searches in the United States, fear Misplaced Pages. Thatcher131 18:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Under that rationale, any number of WP articles could be deleted, and huge chunks of an article like Iraq War can be removed. I understand your empathy for the little girl, but our job as WP is only to reflect the sources. And one can also argue that she "deserves to know the truth" - we can go back and forth forever with these types of rationale based on personal preference forever. What we need to do is stick to policies, they're there to give a semblance of order. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Poppycock. Most of the sources for Iraq war are newspaper articles because it's an ongoing event. In ten years there will be books written about the war, and in 20 years there will be revisionist histories criticizing the first wave of books, and so on. A war is an encyclopedic event; a child custody battle is not. Thatcher131 18:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
              • And that's a notability issue, that's something that should have been discussed at an AfD. WP:BLP only allows for speedy deletion if an article is negative in tone and unsourced, not because it's "sad" that a person's custody battle is documented. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • (after EC) Whether it should be kept, or in what form, would IMO be better discussed with the article at hand for all to read, and edit. That is what an article talk page could do after a stubing edit, or an AfD discussion. "It is impossible to write a neutral, encyclopedic article about a person's life when the only reliable sources relate to a single incident" we have many articela about hsitorice figures notable only for their participation in a single incident. not all articles named for a person need be full biographies -- indeed not all can. Yet there is no rule sayign that we msut have either a full biography or nothing at all. Maybe we should ahve a policy to that effect (although i disagree). But we don't yet. If this deletion is undone, that does not for a moment mean the article will never be deelted, much less never drastically rewritten or merged. Why are people being so much in a rush to delete? Would a few days discussion in an AfD have been a major problem? DES 17:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed, and let's remember that basically all articles on WP are works in progress. The article needed improvement or renaming, not speedy deletion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:51, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Jimbo's edit does nothing of the sort. A neutral, encyclopedic article is not only possible, but existed at the time of deletion. Nothing said in the article was not already a very high google hit with or without us. It's time to kill that "top ten website" red herring for good. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question: Could anyone please comment on WP:BLP#Articles about living people notable only for one event? It seems to me that it would qualify, but I'm open to persuasion. --Ishu 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It doesn't authorize people to simply hit the delete button willy-nilly. It also doesn't mean we cannot have any articles on such people. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Agreed. You beat me to the edit conflict on that point. --Ishu 17:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. When you write an article about a certain person, you are expected to write about that person. This was not an article about her in the slightest. Possibly an article that complied with BLP and was actually about her could be written, though I would prefer not, as as far as I can tell she is a private individual. Not an article we need. This custody battle may well be notable. She is not. Write an article about the custody fight, then, not this non-biography. Moreschi 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: per Thatcher131. You have got to be kidding me. There was a lot of ink used on one incident? Gee, what a surprise. We have tabloid press gossip even on notable papers - I'm um, shocked? No, actually, I'm not. What I am wondering is why we're wasting time on a process-wanky Drv for an article about someone which is so clearly not an encyclopedic topic. This is not only Articles about living people notable only for one event, this is not even remotely a Significant one event. I'm sure I can find lots of ink on any number of completely nn people, based on one incident which the press picked up and ran with, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. One puppy's opinion. KillerChihuahua 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Article is ethically bankrupt. Phil Sandifer 18:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- I'm questioning the, um, point of bringing every common sense deletion of someone's misguided attempt at an encyclopedia article about a non notable living person based on their being involved in some news story or other. Is this an exercise in seeing how many people will trot out to vote on these? If I had the impression that the users bringing these here actually wanted to collect biographical data on everyone mentioned in the news in the 21st century I would suggest starting a project somewhere else to do that; it's not our mission. But that doesn't seem to be the case. So why exactly are we here? Jkelly 18:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The question of notability should be discussed at an AfD. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 18:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Why do you question the point of challenging "common sense" deletions, but not the deletions themselves? The administrators at this point know that the deletions are controversial, so they really should stop doing it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, Seriously, speedy is only supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions and you HAVE to know that deleting well-sourced articles is going to be controversial. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 18:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A controversial speedy is necessarily an incorrect one? Not seen that before. Be nice if the article was actually about the title, at any rate...Moreschi 19:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The point of speedy deletions is to accelerate the pace of eliminating narrow classes of material that almost everyone agrees should be gone, as the rules say: 'These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. If a page does not uncontestably fall under a criterion, or it has previously survived a deletion discussion (except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements), another process such as Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion should be used instead.' It's not supposed to be unlimited power to remove anything an administrator doesn't think belongs. 19:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Night Gyr (talk • contribs) 14:16, 30 May 2007
    • (after EC) From WP:CSD "These criteria are worded narrowly and such that in most cases reasonable editors will agree what does or does not fall under a given criterion. If a page does not uncontestably fall under a criterion, or it has previously survived a deletion discussion (except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements), another process such as Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion or Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion should be used instead." That at least strongly suggests that deletions known to be controversial should not usualy be speedys. DES 19:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment It's come to my attention that editors like User:Badlydrawnjeff and User:Doc glasgow for some time now been involved in disputes about biographical articles, what to keep, what to delete, and how to apply WP:BLP. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I just became aware of this and have no opinion in the overall matter. But I honestly feel like the Anna Mae He article in question here just became a careless casualty in this "war". The article was not an abuse of process, this was not a case of multiple AfDs and multiple DRVs - the article was simply speedy deleted even though it was sourced. The article may have problems, but it was a work of good faith attempts to have a good article. I have no desire at all to be involved in these ongoing disputes about biographical articles. I would really appreciate it if deletion was overturned and suggestions are offered as to how to improve the article, or even have the article go through an AfD process, instead of just speedy deleted. Maybe it needs to be renamed, maybe it needs to be trimmed down, maybe it needs more sources. It's more than a little disheartening that good faith editing is just speedy deleted because of an ongoing dispute about biographical articles. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid, and the article certainly reads like it belongs in one. --Carnildo 19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• List at AFD - This DRV is looking too much like an AFD. All uncited information and information cited from unreliable sources should be removed before that though. I think blanking the page for the AFD and having users go to the article's history to view the text might be appropriate though, as it is a tabloidish story. Wickethewok 20:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This article was not a biography, it was sensationalist journalism. This is Misplaced Pages, not Wikinews. -- Donald Albury 20:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Others have said it better: this is not a biography, it's an unencyclopaedic account of a messy custody battle and a millstone to hang around the neck of a child who has no say in it. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not familiar enough with Misplaced Pages policy to offer a substantive opinion on any of this, but I do think a speedy deletion was uncalled for. While it's true this was an unencyclopedic biography of a living minor, the custody battle seems notable enough(sadly) to at least merit a discussion of its inclusion. Also, I really hope this: ,, doesn't go any farther, but if the U.S. Supreme Court gets involved, we may actually be forced to include it.Lindentree 22:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Supreme Court declined cert. End of case. Just one of thousands of contested custody cases. Thatcher131 00:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, although I think the Anna Mae He Act might be worth a stub. I must note, though, that the Elian Gonzalez article also seems to cover the controversy far more extensively than the person, despite purporting to be a biography. Despite the obvious notability difference, he too is still a minor. Could somebody please clarify for me why it cannot be speedily deleted to protect him? Lindentree 08:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not aware that Anna Mae was the subject of an international diplomatic incident, or that her case was covered by press on four continents. I could be wrong about that. The Gonzalesz article is largely about the case, perhaps it should be moved to Elian Gonzalez custody dispute or some such in order to clarify that it is primarily about the incident not the person. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn for discussion There are possible BLP concerns, since the subject is a child is a custody battle, but the article has existed for over a year, and should not be deleted by unilateral process. AfD is the place for discussion. It is frequently said here in denying overturns that only process is relevant here. An incorrect speedy is process. N was asserted by the article. If one disagrees, that's what AfD is for. DGG 23:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per FCYTravis and per Thatcher131. ElinorD (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse my deletion We are not doing this to a child. We are not restoring a horrible, intrusive, mess in order to satisfy process wonking. No.--Doc 00:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD. Given that this child may have a state law named after her, I think there's a good argument that a) Misplaced Pages should have some coverage of the case and b) Misplaced Pages is not substantially increasing the profile of this individual, although a potential rename of the article would probably be appropriate. Endorse Wow, I hadn't actually seen the deleted content before making this statement - I had just looked at the sources via a Google News search. I think the case itself may be worthy of an article, but the deletion of the (pretty awful) content as of the Google cached version was appropriate, as any article on the case would require a major rewrite. JavaTenor 00:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep deleted or restore to a different name - if the article is about the custody battle, call it Hae vs Baker custody battle or something - don't claim that the article is a bio of the girl. And there's plenty in there that is unsourced. --BigDT 00:27, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted: Not everything that appears in a newspaper appears in an encyclopedia. This is a classic example of that. Danny 00:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - this is the sorta shit WP:BLP was made to keep dead - David Gerard 00:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• There is absolutely no place for any article like this on this encyclopedia. I therefore express relief that it was deleted, an act that I would have been urging on any administrator within earshot, had I known about it before Doc. Needless to say if any administrator restores it I shall call for him to be stopped. --Tony Sidaway 00:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - truly awful article with an almost non existent amount of encyclopedic content on the actual subject. Don't get me wrong, there's sources and such but none of the content is encyclopedic and none of it is about the subject - sourced butn unencyclopedic content must die. This article stays dead. Nick 00:57, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion largely per Thatcher. – Steel 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per my comments on the 5/28 DRV log, just change the background and the names, but the principles are substantially the same. Newyorkbrad 01:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• I read the article; the word that comes to mind is "grotesque". It's not about the child except in the most indirect of ways, and this isn't something that we should be covering. Endorse deletion. DS 02:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - the BLP parts are unsourced so this article has to go on policy grounds. There is significant sourcing on the custody battle so an article on that is possible but if one is produced it must be written without the objectionable content. TerriersFan 03:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Look, just because people are doing inappropriate BLP deletions doesn't mean you can start contesting all of them. And this is clearly appropriate. An article on a living person must be about the person. It's certainly a BLP violation to define a person through one negative incident, like this article did. -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion This article is full of crap and non-notable.--Certified.Gangsta 04:06, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Changing my mind after thoroughly reviewing the article at home and not hurriedly in an airport. The article is rubbish and the biographical sections do violate WP:BLP. --Coredesat 04:24, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per BLP, and per doing the right thing. That's right. Per BLP. Some say that the article doesn't fit the letter of the policy as written, but in my view, BLP's spirit applies here just the same. Those that say that it does not, based on the precise wording of BLP, miss the point. Those that insist on an AfD are process wonking, in my view. Those that don't see why this is the right thing to do perhaps should seek another project. This long drawn out discussion is itself doing harm though and we would be better served by less knock down drag out fighting about this stuff. ++Lar: t/c 11:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn per DGG. Alternately, delete this version without prejudice and create a better sourced version that focuses more on the timeline and cross-national implications. Calwatch 04:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at AFD Then interested editors can argue why it should be kept or deleted. Instead, there was a speedy which did not meet any criteria for same, followed by an acrimonious and rambling pseudo AFD here. If new grounds for Speedy need to be established, then go to WP:CSD or even WP:BLP and add a criterion allowing admins the latitude to remove what they feel is distasteful. Edison 17:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn I can only speak for myself, but I am going to support overturning every single speedy delete that uses WP:BLP as a rationale. I don't care how poorly worded they are, how unbalanced they may be, how sad the circumstances, but this has to stop. Instead of deleting them, stub them, note why they were stubbed in the talk page for the article and list them for AfD, if they are not notable. This deletion spree has spun so far out of control that Monica Lewinsky is in range of the BLP cabal, and it's only a matter of time before Jeffrey Dahmer becomes eligible for this bizarre form of parole. (Oh, by the way, he's dead, so ordinarily BLP wouldn't apply, but that was under the rational rules that applied in the past. Death is no longer a disqualifier for BLP.) Horologium t-c 00:37, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Your comments will be ignored. Check the recent changes to the deletion policy made by Jimbo Wales. --Tony Sidaway 00:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Yes, Tony, please check those recent changes - claims of BLP with no basis in reality will be ignored. Meanwhile, since he has adequately shown why the deletion was improper, his will have more weight. Thanks for noticing. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  We'll soon find out whether we're dealing with reality or jeffipedia. In reality, protest votes made to express dislike of a policy aren't arguments to overturn deletion of seriously damaging content. --Tony Sidaway 00:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  When in doubt, go with the cliche, right? In reality, comments that display why an activity was improper are better arguments than attempts to justify improper activity. --badlydrawnjeff talk 01:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's called hyperbole, Tony. A quick check will show that this is the only BLP CRV I've participated in this week. You know, unless you have actually read the BLP policy (something which you emphatically asserted you had not read last week), I have trouble accepting your references to it. Additionally, there is a little thing called "Courtesy Blanking" that can be used if there are concerns about content; a courtesy blank and an AfD are a much better combination than deleting and then having a review. Vaporizing the pages means that the unwashed masses who are not admins are not able to view the article to make an informed comment, which really goes to the heart of the matter. What's the point of editing if your contributions are vaporized and only the admins can see what gets speedied? Why not just cut regular editors out of the process and have the admins do all of the writing? FWIW, I am fairly deletionist (as a review of my AfD positions would reveal), but I have an issue with the current incineration-fest due to alleged BLP violations. Under ordinary circumstances, Jeff and I would probably be opposing each other, but he and I share a common disdain for out-of-sequence deletions. Horologium t-c 01:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Tony, I can't speak for anybody else but myself here - I voted to overturn not so much because I felt the article was in a good enough state, but because I would have appreciated suggestions to improve or rename the article, or even an AfD. A lot of people felt that the article was not biographical - that's a problem that's easily solved by renaming the article and refocusing its topic. Also, I am not involved in this apparent ongoing war concerning WP:BLP and how to apply it, and I have no opinion on the matter at all, but I really feel like this article became a careless casualty of this war. I started the article, but it was other editors that edited it to turn it into the state it was in before it was deleted. It needed improvement, but it was still the result of good faith editing. It wasn't an attack page and it wasn't a hoax. It would have been great to be given a chance to improve it instead of having it speedily deleted. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Jurassic Park IV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

It should be deleted because because the article is very similar to the deleted page Terminator 4.both are possible continuations on a film trilogy, both films are well sourced on places such as IMDB, both have been talked about being produced since the release of the previous film by both actors and producers, and both have been given an approximate release date by officialls.For fairness Jurassic Park 4 should be deleted, because Terminator 4 has had several deletion discussions and so it should be the result to use to the Jurassic Park 4 article. Rodrigue 16:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Deletion review is for articles that have been deleted and you think were deleted outside of the normal deletion process. This article has been to AfD and survived only a few months ago. Anyway, you are in the wrong place. Leebo /C 16:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually that isn't so, If an editor thinks that an AfD with a "keep" result was closed improperly, that also can be reviewed here, and in rare cases, such a review results in overturnign the clsoe and deleting the article. DES 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• You are correct, my statement above is incorrect. As far as I can tell, he's not requesting a review of the previous discussion. The proper way to say what I wanted to say would be "Deletion review is for reviewing deletion discussion decisions, not starting new deletion discussions." Leebo /C 17:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse whether to keep an article about a planned future event, such as this, is a judgement call, the question is whether there is already enough verifiable discussion of the matter to make the subject notable, even if the event never occurs. (for example see The Last Dangerous Visions which is notable primarily for not having been published on schedule). In this case the judgment of the AfD discussion was "yes". I might or might not have aggreed with that view, but it is well within the reasonable range of judgement for an AfD within our policy. DES 17:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• This should be taken to the article's page (or a film series page) with a "proposed merger" discussion set. If your intent is to preserve the information, but in a better place, then AfD is not the place to go, and you should propose a merger.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• There isn't a Jurassic Park franchise article though. Alientraveller 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Well whaddaya know! Alientraveller 17:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Keep There are plenty of sources for the article, so we're not crystal balling it. The AfD was properly opened, participated in, and closed; not sure what else needs to be said. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

George Griswold Frelinghuysen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

notable and referenced by current standards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

• The only AfD I see is from two years ago and was entirely proper. Unless I'm missing something, why not just create an article? Mackensen (talk) 16:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorce deletion but with no prejudice against creating a new and sourced article. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Relist Totally inadequate AfD, only three people, 2 against and one for., argument for nom "and a President of the P. Ballantine & Sons Company, whatever that is," when it was a linked WP article. Argument for 1st delete: even though he had an Arboretum name for him (that was also N enough to have a WP article), argument of 2nd delete: "nn" I dont know what the standards were in 05, but this discussion doesn't meet any reasonable standard today. The existing article is a good stub as it is. DGG 23:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Obviously not available through Google cache after all this time, but, as Mackensen says, why not just create the article? ElinorD (talk) 23:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Article was deleted almost two years ago. No one's stopping you from creating a new one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 00:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I remember this article (I was the sole "keep" vote) and have sometimes thought of digging it up and bringing it here. Ideally I would have liked to find a little more about the guy. But yeah, I think he meets our notability standards--a current president of one of the largest breweries in the US would surely be kept. Our presentist bias is it work here. If Richard can (and knowing his work I'm sure he can) provide references for the info in the article I think it should absolutely be allowed. Richard, if you want me to copy it to your userspace so you can work on it, let me know. Chick Bowen 02:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• I'm gonna restore and userfy, I don't think there'd be any objection if it has more sources/claim to notability when it comes back to mainspace. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• userfied to User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/George Griswold Frelinghuysen Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 03:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This category was merged into Category:Songs by songwriter as a result of a discussion on Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_May_7#Category:Songs by composer. Unfortunately, the person who proposed that merge did not have the courtesy to notify me that this was being discussed, as suggested in Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Howto#Notes_for_nominators, so I only discovered that this was done after it had already happened. It seems that there are some people who think that, just because there are few people who nowadays write just lyrics or just music, that the distinction between lyricists and composers is useless (see Mike Selinker's comment on Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 18#Songs by songwriter), but I think that this decision should not have been made without allowing those of us who are primarily concerned with older music to disagree.

Postings which have been made by Johnbod, both in Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 18#Songs by songwriter and directly to me in User talk, seem to imply that he thinks all one needs to do is recreate Category:Songs by composer. It is my understanding that that would be a violation of Misplaced Pages procedural rules, so I can't see my just going ahead and doing it. And at least one other user, InnocuousPseudonym, agrees with me that what was done was a mistake. So I wish to reopen that discussion. -- BRG 14:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• The first debate was a rename, not a merge. The nominator commented: "For the best logical arrangement we maybe ought to have 3 categories (by songwriter, by composer, by lyricist) but in the interests of avoiding over-categorisation I think renaming this category would be the best solution." He pointed out that a great number of the people categorised wrote both words and music. I personally feel that the decision there did not rule out the re-establishment of Category:Songs by composer for pure composers (musicwriters) only. The lyricists already have their category, which is not involved in these debates. Classical music is unaffected by all this btw, that has different categories. It is clear from two later debates on May 18 and the abortive one onMay 17 that the songwriters category has good support, for people who wrote both words and music. I think BRG should be asking here for confirmation that there is no block on creating a new Category:Songs by composer for people who only wrote the music. I would support this. Johnbod 14:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

As BRG says, I strongly support the re(?)-creation of a "Songs by composer" category. The composer-lyricist distinction was the norm for at least the first half of the 20th century (encompassing the bulk of the Great American Songbook) and applies to at least a portion of more recent songwriting teams. InnocuousPseudonym 20:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• overturn as everyone involved clearly wishes to do.DGG 23:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, in my case, I don't think the previous decision should be overturned (and there are many editors I'm sure who would agree), but I think the closing here should confirm that a re-creation of the "vacated" Composers category would be ok, so there are 3 categories: by songwriter, by composer, by lyricist. Johnbod 00:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse renaming. Seems like the debate was pretty clearly for renaming. I'm not sure what my comment about composers and lyricists has to do with the validity of the closing decision.--Mike Selinker 00:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Your comment about composers and lyricists clearly indicates that you think most people do both and that is why you wanted the rename. As InnocuousPseudonym and I have tried to make clear, there are a great number of people who did one or the other nearly exclusively. -- BRG 13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Right, and I could be wrong or I could be right. But it doesn't change the validity of the closing, which seems fine, and which I would have supported either way.--Mike Selinker 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse, seems a reasonable outcome. We don't always need to split cats into finer detail like that. >Radiant< 08:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

We may not always need to split cats into finer detail, but in this case we certainly do. Normally, in fact, Misplaced Pages uses narrow cats and a hierarchical structure. Why should this not be such a case? -- BRG 13:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Also the songwriters cat is enormous & a split would make both easier to use. Johnbod 12:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• As a participant in both debates, I would like to say that, in the first debate, I found the nom's suggestion that three cats might be overcategorization to be somewhat persuasive, but on reflection, I'm not so sure. In the second debate, I objected to the use of a horrid neologism, and also to the effective removal of the just-created by-songwriters category, but never really addressed the question of creating three categories, except by reference to the previous debate. So, for the record, I'd like to say that whatever I wrote in those debates should not be read as opposition to the idea of having three cats. In case that helps. :) Xtifr _tälk 16:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse renaming but allow for the re-creation of Category:Songs by composer. There were no procedural issues with the original CFD nomination and BRG and Johnbod both have good arguments for the categorization scheme. howcheng {chat} 23:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse renaming but allow for the re-creation of Category:Songs by composer, per my comments above, since I haven't put it in bold yet. Johnbod 00:04, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|MfD)

Improper closure of an MFD discussion. This page was a redirect from an old userpage to a new one, and one that contains over 2,000 incoming links. The page was originally deleted at the request of the user, User:White Cat. The deletion was seem as unnecessary and made things needlessly confusing for edits both editors finding Cool/White Cat, and for users following those links. I recreated the redirect, per Misplaced Pages:User page. White Cat tried to place the speedy delete tag on the page once again, but it no longer qualified for speedy delete. It was then taken to MFD. Two admins have attempted to close the MFD, both on incorrect grounds. The first admin was reverted by myself, with support from other users including at least two other administrators whom felt taking it to DVR wasn't necessary. It has since been speedy closed again, but now the page has been protected.

Speedy closed as "user request" (WP:CSD#U1), however U1 states that if U1 is contested it should be taken to MFD: " If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page. "

Improper close, plain and simple. Even if you don't feel such things are necessary, they are supported by policy and guidelines, and by several people from the MFD. Something to note is that even if the MFD got speedy closed that still won't prevent the user page from being recreated. Recreating pages is not a 3RR violation, as some people have suggested, especially since there is no consensus or policy that requires the page to have been deleted. This is normally not even an issue we face, because long before that we take such situations to XfD. If you feel this redirect should be deleted, then all the more reason to continue the MFD, which would create a consensus to keep deleted.

This isn't even a big deal, but it's somewhat bizarre that both White Cat and the deleting admins feel so strongly about deleting the page. No reason has been cited for deletion, and there would be nothing to gain from it, and it would only inconvenience and make things confusing for others. Keeping a redirect hurts no one, and shouldn't be a controversial issue. But, for whatever reason, it is controversial, and that's what we have the MFD for.

Also, no one is saying anyone has to have a userpage, that is not the function the page is having at this time. Rather, this page is now pointing users to the new user name that Cat has chosen. White Cat has made it very clear that he did not change usernames to vanish or start fresh, and has been completely open about who he is and was (complete with links on his current user page). Of course users can have their own pages deleted, but that's not the issue here. It's a redirect, for the sake of a great amount of past discussion and many incoming links. It actually benefits White Cat (which makes the situation even more bizarre).

I'd like to quote something David Levy said it to Newyorkbrad (the final admin to close the MFD):

"No offense, but I don't perceive you as a neutral party (to any greater extent than I'm a neutral party). You didn't weigh the arguments and arrive at a consensus-based decision. You threw them out and substituted your own judgement for that of the community (instead of simply expressing your opinion in the discussion). —David Levy 22:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)"

And having said all that, relist MFD -- Ned Scott 05:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted - the old talk page is still there. Anyone looking for the user can easily find him. I don't know or care why he wants his old page deleted, but as someone who has been harassed before, I can certainly understand that there might be a good reason. At any rate, unless there is evidence of bad behavior or some such thing, we delete user pages on demand. Five admins have deleted this page. One person has recreated it four times and reverted an admin's close of the MFD twice. Something is wrong somewhere along the line. --BigDT 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This is not the MFD discussion itself. The closing was improper, regardless of how you feel about the situation. Also, even if I was the one who recreated the page and reverted the closure, others (including two administrators) supported that. -- Ned Scott 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Other people have not re-created it in order to allow the discussion to proceed and be well-considered, but that was truncated. The fact that more people were edit-warring to achieve a certain outcome does not mean that outcome is right or better. No reason whatsoever has been provided by User:Cool Cat for deleting the page, and if the reason were harassment, the effective way to end harassment is to actually create a new account completely severed from the old one. If there were harassment, migrating all his contribs and making 10,000 edits to change his signature advertising the change to everyone with a watchlist would be the least effective way to end it. —Centrx→talk • 05:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Ned, you and everyone else would be much better off if you would let Cool Cat (or whatever he wants to call himself) be and move on to other things. Seriously. Chick Bowen 05:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd love to move on, but others have insisted that a DVR is required instead of letting a simple MFD continue. -- Ned Scott 05:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted This is grossly unnecessary. --MichaelLinnear 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • What you personally feel is unnecessary is not a reason to keep this deleted. An improper closure is an improper closure. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Closing the MfD was unnecessary, and the people who closed it unnecessarily insisted that the issue be brought here. —Centrx→talk • 05:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Abstain. While I agree that this closure was improper, our ultimate goal is to build consensus (not drama). I've been discussing this matter with White Cat, and he has expressed a willingness to work toward some sort of compromise with the community (beginning with the creation of a temporary page at User:Cool Cat pending a long-term solution). Therefore, I urge you to withdraw this listing (at least for the time being). —David Levy 05:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted - Users can have their own user pages deleted for any reason - end of story - thats why they are user pages. There shouldn't have even been an MFD. The amount of time/text wasted on this already is pretty ridiculous/hilarious/sad. Wickethewok 05:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know how many times I have to quote this: " If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page." Your reason for keeping it deleted is not supported by the deletion policy, which directed us to an MFD. You can disagree with that all you want, but that's the way it is (for now). -- Ned Scott 05:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Also, that presumes that the account's contribs remain at the same username. In this case, they were all moved elsewhere, which without a redirect would be mysterious. —Centrx→talk • 05:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Reminding everyone that this is not a vote. It's been shown that this has been an improper closure, and unless you can show otherwise then how you feel about the deletion itself really isn't relevant to the MFD being relisted or not. -- Ned Scott 05:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Any admin can speedy any page that falls into the criteria for speedy deletion. The fact that there was an MFD going on changes nothing. This was not an out of process deletion - it was a legitimate speedy deletion. --BigDT 05:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • It is disputed that it actually qualifies for speedy deletion. I suppose that could be discussed on User talk:Cool Cat, but otherwise the best place is an MfD. —Centrx→talk • 05:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. I've looked at WP:CSD#U1, and the history back through April, and cannot find what Ned Scott quotes above. U1 reads: Personal subpages, upon request by their user. In some rare cases there may be administrative need to retain the page. Also, sometimes, main user pages may be deleted as well. See Misplaced Pages:User page for full instructions and guidelines. Also, relative to the Right to Vanish, I know of nothing that would require White Cat to have a redirect from his old name. The original deletion seems proper, and I don't see any need for it to have been at MfD in the first place. I'm more concerned about Ned's actions in this, the extremes to which he is forcing this issue. --InkSplotch 06:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  It's on the linked page with full instructions. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  "See Misplaced Pages:User page for full instructions and guidelines." As for my actions, I would not call what I am doing an "extreme"... I do get worked up when I see people side step discussions and force an issue, though, but who wouldn't? You're basically asking why I care. For one, he's using this deletion to justify changing his old sig in talk archives, which he was forced to stop, and was reverted on. Second, and probably the bigger motivation, regardless of what the MFD is about the forced closure was totally unacceptable. It's alright if other people don't care, and if they think it's silly, but that's no reason to throw other people's valid concerns out the window. No one is asking that anyone cares about this, we're just asking for a simple discussion on the matter. -- Ned Scott 06:21, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Ah, I see it now. Thanks for pointing it out. Well, it's a stronger argument now, but I'm still looking into things...particularly this bit about Cat updating his old signatures. If anyone has a link to the discussion on AN, I'd appreciate it. At this time, I'm letting my vote stand. CSD is a policy, the supporting User Page is only a guideline. Ned, I called your actions extreme because you seem to be the only one carrying this torch, and it seems more disruptive to me than just letting Cat fix his old signature links. I referenced Right to Vanish, and I still feel it applies here...'Vanish' isn't just leaving Misplaced Pages, it's also a right to a fresh start. You're causing a lot more drama for Cat trying to do just this than is at all necessary. I'll keep reading up on this, but for now my comment stands. --InkSplotch 13:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  I'm bringing this to DRV because I think the actions of the closing admins was completely inappropriate. I'm more concerned about this affecting future MFDs than I am about the redirect itself. Keep in mind, from my point of view, I was simply making a redirect. Undoing the admins incorrect actions was easy, justified, and allowed a consensus building discussion to continue. The early closure of the MFD is what escalated the situation. -- Ned Scott 03:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Revert waring is never right and is never justified and is to be discouraged. If you disagree with a deletion you take it to deletion review assuming its worth spending time on it. Pointlessness of your policy-lawyering is simply jaw dropping... -- Cat 06:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Do you even know what the hell you are talking about? Nothing I've said is even close to policy-lawyering. If the closing admins disagreed with the MFD they should have brought it up in the MFD. Blatantly incorrect actions are ones we should simply fix. A revert is not always a bad thing, and was only done because... policy and guidelines backed me up, others involved (including other admins) felt speedy re-opening was ok and DRV was needless, the speedy close was a disruption, taking it to DRV would only cause more disruption, and the rationale thing to do was simply continue with the existing discussion, and I could go on and on. I have done nothing wrong with those reverts, and rather, it was those who speedy closed who are in the wrong. -- Ned Scott 07:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Do I know what I am talking (typing) about? I am pretty certain I am or else I wouldn't be putting anything here. You seem to be unfamiliar with WP:CIVIL. Have a read of it, then reread it.
  The procedure in correcting "blatantly incorrect actions" is clearly laid out with WP:DR. Unless the edits are destructive compromising encyclopedias quality that require urgent action (such as vandalism, blant copyright violations) you have no reason to "revert" much less revert war. I see no evidence of a compromise in encyclopedias quality with the deletion of a non-critical userpage redirect which in your words is a "trivial situation". See WP:3rr#Exceptions for when "revert waring" is fine - even then it is more than discouraged. So, since it isn't critical, you are expected to take it to the person's talk page you are disagreeing with at a minimum. In this spesific case that would be me and each admin that has deleted the page or closed the MfD. Speedy close was well inline with WP:IAR if nothing else quited qualifies such as WP:CSD#U1 or WP:CSD#G7. Further revert waring against multiple admin closures is again disruption. You have border-lined violating WP:3rr by doing so if not crossed it. Waisting the communities time by forcing a trivial matter to the point of a MfD and later a DR is disruption and to be blunt quite dicky.
  -- Cat 09:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Ned Scott, thats a combative mentality frowned upon on wikipedia. -- Cat 13:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Improper close, plain and simple. He was trying to short circuit a fight that was getting pretty nasty, but speedy closes only throw gasoline on that fire. Better to give it the full five days to burn out. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 06:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong endorse deletion, m:Right to vanish, valid U1 - the page has no apparent need to be retained, and an existing MFD does not disqualify a speedy by any means if the page meets one of the criteria; in this case, the page was {{db-user}}'d, etc. Stop forcing this issue; apparently it's not enough to edit war over whether the redirect should exist. Furthermore, you should not have reverted the MFD closures at all, as you are not an admin; if you had a problem you should have brought it up with the closing admin or came here first. --Coredesat 07:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • This user does not wish to vanish, it has nothing to do with the right to vanish at all. Second, being an admin or not has no bearing on being able to revert a closure. Being an admin does not give one more authority, it just means they are trusted with admin tools. Reverting the MFD was an attempt to make the issue less of a big deal and to not waste people's time. Reasons for retaining the redirect have been provided. The U1 CSD says specifically to use WP:USER for detailed instructions, where it says that an MFD does disqualify it from being a speedy. Disagree with that all you want, but that's what it says. It is not a valid U1 deletion, and that's a fact. -- Ned Scott 08:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• endose I closed this MfD as a speedy delete and was reverted for some reason - Brad did the right thing. Now, go do something useful.--Doc 09:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse. Get on with life. Trebor 09:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • You not having an interest in this situation is not a valid reason to endorse an improperly closed MFD. -- Ned Scott 03:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: In other words... you revert warred with 5 admins and the user owning the userpage. -- Cat 10:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The numbers mean nothing, all five were wrong, and you don't own the page. -- Ned Scott 03:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: No block)
  • Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Ned Scott reported by User:White Cat (Result: Pages protected)

  -- Cat 10:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse per some prior DRV discussions where it's better to overrule policy for common sense. – Chacor 10:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Considering how split the MFD was before it was closed, it's not accurate to call the speedy close common sense. -- Ned Scott 04:02, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion The page was deleted in accordance with common sense and policy (I can't believe I said that). CharonX/talk 11:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Sigh. I'd make a fuss about how, once again, "I know best now shut up" has been a fellow admin's response to a discussion he doesn't agree with, but, really, what's the point? Neil (►) 12:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse - if it isn't U1 it would be G7. Will 14:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  You mean G8? :D -- Cat 14:16, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Keep deleted I am more and more convinced that Misplaced Pages is (collectively) insane. What possible reason is there to not grant this user the courtesy afforded to any other user who asks it, including a number of notable pests? This should never have been at MfD in the first place. Thatcher131 14:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The difference is the other users' contribs were not moved, thus severing the user account from its history. There are also no personal information or harassment issues, because the user has kept all his contribs connected to his new account. —Centrx→talk • 17:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted echoing Thatcher's concerns above. White Cat has been extremely cooperative in keeping links to significant elements of his previous identity on his new userpage (including the block log). This seems to me a straightforward CSD U1 request and NYB was correct to delete it. I remain unpersuaded that the deletion of this page is harmfull or that White Cat has to prove it is beneficial. Deletion of userspace is performed on request except in exceptional circumstances - this seems fairly mundane to me. WjBscribe 14:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from the deleting administrator or I should say from one of the five admins who deleted this redirect. I re-deleted the redirect by request of the user involved. Simply put, the idea that this trivial matter warranted a five-day community-wide discussion is inane. I do not understand why this matter is being pressed so vigorously—or indeed, at all—and no one has been willing to tell me, which I find extraordinary. I respect our deletion processes and yet, there comes a limit to the extent in which we should engage in process for its own sake and it is submitted that with all respect we have reached it. Editors interested in debating policy issues have several hundred more productive discussions in which they could participate to choose from. Newyorkbrad 15:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Simply, if someone wishes to find the contribs that used to be associated with User:Cool Cat, or to contact that user, they are going to spend time finding the new account, and then rather than making everyone waste that time create a simple redirect which there is no reason to delete. This is not process for its own sake; the discussion is supposed to get understanding on the issue, which apparently none of the five admins who deleted it have. —Centrx→talk • 17:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It is a trivial situation, but it was required if Cat wanted to get his userpage deleted. He was the one who wished to press the issue in the first place, and he could have easily just let it go. I haven't let it go because of how inappropriate it was for you to just throw out the active discussion, incorrectly citing policy, when in fact you were just applying your own rationale. -- Ned Scott 04:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Week Overturn - as this redirect is useful and valid and the closure was out of processes. Week because... who cares? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• comment Technically Ned Scott is correct: WP:USER#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? does contain the text he quotes. it also says "Where there is no significant abuse and no administrative need to retain the personal information, you can request that your own user page and user subpages be deleted" and the clear implication is that such pages are normally deleted on request unless ther is a good reason to retain them, and the primary reson cited is "evidence of policy violations that may need to be kept. which i gather does not apply in this case. The early close was IMO unwise, given that at least one editor was so striongly pushing for retention of this page -- as so often, a speedy clsoe made things worse, not better. But in this case i can't see any likelyhood that a resumption of the MfD would result in the page being kept, so unsually for me endorse, despite improper process. DES 17:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • A lot of people on the MfD said it should be kept; in terms of numbers it is evenly split and the people saying it should be kept have good reasons to do so, so where are you getting your evaluation of "likelihood"? —Centrx→talk • 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • On rereadign the MfD it seems that soem users on both sides of the matter were being rather WP:POINTy about the issue, but it was not as clear as my earlier hasty scan indicated how this would come out. I'll change my view to weak overturn, to let consensus form. I express no final opnion on whether deelting this page is or is not a good thing, i donm't see it as a vital issue either way, and not of the reasons cited at the MfD strike me as showing why it is so important. DES 19:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorsing this as a matter of course. If there is much more of this disgusting hounding of Cool Cat, as his mentor I'll raise the matter with the arbitrators. --Tony Sidaway 18:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Telling Cat that he can't just throw a fit and get his way is 'not "disgusting hounding". I don't know why he over-reacts like he does to such minor situations, but that doesn't give him a free pass to fuck consensus. -- Ned Scott 03:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Endorse and I seriously question the motivation of the nominator, who has a history of tensions with the individual in question. bastique 18:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Thatcher131. Why not afford the user the ordinary courtesy granted to other users? Also, why make an issue of something that really doesn't matter? ElinorD (talk) 22:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • U1 is there because it's almost always non-controversial, for normal situations there will be no issue and no one will care. It is not a right, and I suspect the people who think it's a right is nothing more than a misconception developed because we lacked situations such as this one. It's not a right, it's just something that is ok for 99 percent of the time. And the ones making an issue over this are the closing admins, who've been far more disruptive than the MFD itself. When I'm acting with our guidelines and policy backing me up, I don't see that as me acting alone. -- Ned Scott 03:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Bah! Ned Scott should have let this slide; but, when he didn't, admins should have followed the rules carefully. This conflict would have been over by now if either party had behaved well. —SlamDiego_←T 01:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, right now we would be in the second day of a pointless 5-day MfD, quite possibly followed by a trip here to DRV anyway, all in the service of nothing in particular. And in the meantime the user in good standing who, for whatever idiosyncratic reason, didn't want the redirect there would be annoyed by having content on his own (ex-)userpage against his will. Newyorkbrad 01:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • So what? The correct thing, regardless of how you feel about the situation, would have been to let the MFD run. It was no longer a speedy deletion criteria, plain and simple. It doesn't matter how stupid it was, the closure was wrong. This is not a vote, and the issue is very clear here. We relist XfDs that are both improperly closed and controversial (at the time it was split right down the middle). You will not be allowed to ignore our deletion policy twice. -- Ned Scott 03:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment: Your fervent insistence that we must continue to discuss a dispute of this nature, no matter how trivial the dispute may be or how misbegotten the nature of your concern with it, simply because there exists a rule that arguably authorizes the discussion, is without merit. Frankly, at this point my only regret at having speedy-closed the MfD is that it disqualifies me from being the one to speedy-close the DRV. Newyorkbrad 04:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • MFDs shouldn't always have to be a life or death situation, and many of us felt it was still worth discussing. At this point, it's not worth the effort, but that is because of your doing (and Doc's technically speaking). You forced it closed, demanding that anyone who have a problem with it to take it to DRV. When I did.. you complained about that. What gives? You are to blame just as much as I am for making this a big deal. -- Ned Scott 04:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • If it is so trivial then there should be no problem with leaving the redirect in place. —Centrx→talk • 04:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. I've always seen deletion of pages in userspace as a right (in fact if not in name), unless deleting the page would serve to obscure a history of disruption. Even if Cat has done some bad things, deleting his (her?) old userpage doesn't obscure that very much, so I see no reason not to allow it. -Amarkov moo! 03:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Please understand that this is the DRV. You are expressing that you feel the deletion is correct, which would be an appropriate comment for the MFD. The DRV is discussing if the closure was correct or not. Regardless of how you feel about this being a right or not, the instructions on the matter says that other users have a right to put this up on MFD. While I do think there is a history of disruption, that's not the only reason for which one can contest a userpage deletion. For one, Cat is using this deletion as leverage to continue his sig changes, an attempt at validating the action, which he was forced to stop doing. -- Ned Scott 03:54, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • But your contesting of the deletion is based on CSD U1 not applying. I'm saying that I believe it does, and if a speedy criterion applies, the closure was perfectly correct. -Amarkov moo! 04:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • "If the deletion occurs immediately, others may request undeletion if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page. In such a case, the page should be undeleted and listed on Miscellany for deletion for a period of five days following the deletion of the user page." Correct me if I am wrong, but is this not in plain english? -- Ned Scott 04:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment: That's about the userpage content itself, not a redirect page created and insisted upon by someone else. This is ridiculous already. Newyorkbrad 04:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • It doesn't say that at all, brad. It makes no distinction between the function of the page, and only says that if others feel there is a reason it should exist then it should be taken to MFD. -- Ned Scott 04:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Ned, you left out the previous sentence. "If there has been no disruptive behavior meriting the retention of that personal information, then the sysop can delete the page straight away in order to eliminate general public distribution of the history containing the information." That passage you keep quoting is talking about a need to retain the page because of disruptive behavior. There is no evidence of disruptive behavior in a simple redirect, thus an MFD is out of order and it is a valid U1 deletion. --BigDT 04:39, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • The page content can be speedy deleted if there is no evidence of disruptive behavior, but that is not the only reason such a deletion can be contested. It's Wikilawiering to suggest that the paragraph is encompassing any and all situations that could possibly apply. "if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page" doesn't say "if they feel there was in fact a need to retain the page for evidence of disruptive behavior" -- Ned Scott 04:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
            • And keep in mind that U1 is assuming it's a normal user page, and not something like a redirect to a new user name. You are over-extending the rationale of U1 to a gray area, where it no longer becomes a clear criteria being met. -- Ned Scott 04:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
              • There is no gray area. Cool Cat is still his user name. It's still his user page. I'm not required to have a user page. You're not required to have a user page. That paragraph you keep quoting from talks about disruptive behavior before the sentence you quote and it talks about policy violations after the sentence you quote. The logical assumption in my mind is that your sentence is talking about a need to retain the page because of policy violations. Any time that a deletion is contested, deletion review is always the proper course of action. When someone keeps recreating an article that is speedied, we salt the thing and tell them to take it to DRV. DRV, not MFD, is the correct process for contesting deletion and I have seen before and see no readon now to override his right to delete his own user page. --BigDT 04:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
                • Straw-man, I'm not saying Cool Cat has to have a userpage, I'm saying the benefit of having a redirect to his new account outweighs his desire to have a redlink (for no reason, whatsoever) on his old account. Deleting user pages has never been a right, it's just been something that is normally uncontroversial. Do not confuse the two. Deleting the redirect was a WP:POINTy move by Cat to justify his sig changes, and only causes confusion and negative side effects to those trying to follow past discussions. And if the only reason for retaining the connection between the two accounts is disruptive behavior, Cool Cat has fulfilled that requirement, and I've said so since the start of this whole thing. It's a very gray area, because none of the policy was set up for this kind of situation, and it's anything but a clear speedy deletion criteria. You might feel strongly about this, but your feelings are not backed up by policy, and you should have brought your thoughts to the MFD. -- Ned Scott 05:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
                  • How does it cause any more confusion than for anyone else with no user page? His old talk page is still there and is a redirect, so if you click on the redlinked user page, you would see a blue linked "discussion" that will then redirect you to his new talk page. That's exactly the same number of clicks that it takes to get to anyone else that doesn't have a user page. --BigDT 05:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
                    • We're not talking about people who don't have a user page for the current account they are using. Regardless of how many clicks it takes to get to his userpage, speedy closing the MFD as U1 was improper. -- Ned Scott 05:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Moving all the contribs elsewhere changes the situation. Normally, if someone deletes their user page, all the contribs would still be in the same place, and the user would still contactable on their talk page. —Centrx→talk • 04:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Comment At this point, if someone would mark the MFD as something like "no consensus" or "no one gives a fuck", I'd be content with that. People are right, it's not worth this utter bizarre resistance just to help improve things for other editors. I no longer seek a relisting, but the closure is still improper and not supported by policy (as it was claimed). I don't know how the others who are supporting relisting feel, but I suspect that they wouldn't object to this. -- Ned Scott 05:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment: I hope that anyone who knows my work on this site realizes that my goal here was to put an end to an unnecessary and bitter distraction from our main goals, not to perpetuate one. I still think my closure was proper, and am sorry you disagree, but if changing the wording of the close would reduce discontent I'd be happy to do that. Newyorkbrad 11:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Inquiry: Wouldn't any non-keep close rationale be cited as referance on similar future cases? -- Cat 14:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
      • We don't keep "precedent" files on matters of minimal importance, and hopefully there won't be any "similar future cases." If I am able to get this resolved please don't complicate it further. Newyorkbrad 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
        • What will happen is about 3 months from now someone will find a comment by User:Cool Cat and wish to contact the user, but he will find there that the user page is gone and all the user's contribs have disappeared. Then, he will find the username he changed to and contact him there, while doing the polite thing and putting a redirect on User:Cool Cat so that other user's do not have such difficulty. If your purpose is to dispose of the issue so summarily that you have done so arbitrarily, then you may as well have done so by leaving the redirect in place. Since you think the issue is so trivial that the outcome does not matter, then the easier route to dispose of it would be to take the course of action that will not result in an endless stream of innocent people innocently re-creating the redirect, which will then either be let to remain, in which case your MfD decision is null, or it will be re-deleted, citing the MfD as precedent. —Centrx→talk • 18:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
          • Actually, if the user types "User:Cool Cat" into the search box, as of this moment, the redirect still comes up (because there is one at User:Cool cat with the small "c", even though User:Cool Cat is a redlink, which makes this issue even less important than when we started. I feel brain cells dying off every time I think about this issue and how many words have been spent on it. I plan to say nothing further about this matter. If I start to change my mind, stop me. Newyorkbrad 19:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
            • I strongly believe people will have better things to do in three months than meddle with my userpage. You cannot really have a second guess as the deletion rationale. -- Cat 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
              • They are trying to contact you, or investigate the mystery of the missing contribs, and then after going through the trouble of finding it out, they create a redirect, which requires about 5 seconds of time, and saves anyone else the future trouble. —Centrx→talk • 21:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Brad, "user request and precedent" was cited for the closing rationale. "precedent" I think should go all together, since this situation is not the same as the others cited on the MFD. If "user request" could be note that the U1 application was disputed by others, I'd be happy with that. Something like "It was disputed if U1 applied or not, but the matter has been dropped to de-escalate the dispute". -- Ned Scott 06:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. While I feel that much of the discussion on this page could have been avoided if the MfD were allowed to run its full course, I also feel that similar discussion would probably have taken place over there if not for the speedy close. I don't have strong feelings about whether or not the close was improper. Let me just point this out: if anybody stumbles upon the User:Cool Cat page, they can find the connection to User:White Cat by either clicking on "discussion" or viewing the activity logs for the Cool Cat page. Yes, it's more inconvenient than a simple redirect but not terribly so. --Kyoko 16:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy - allow discussion. But more importantly, get a life and get back to writing an encyclopedia - let's not argue about how many angels dance upon the tip of a pin, OK? That being said, Cool Cat, why in the world do you have to create needless controversy with this kind of nonsense? With all due respect, this is far from the first time you appear to be climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spiderman. The Evil Spartan 18:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  I am White Cat not Spider Cat. I dislike climbing german parlimentary buildings and I do not do cosplay. -- Cat 22:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletionEven though it shouldn't have been improperly deleted, the reasons for its deletion remain: it's his userpage, and he should be able to delete it at his own will. hmwithtalk 19:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restore redirect. His userpage is deleted. Putting a redirect there for easy navigation doesn't change that. It has so many incoming links that having a redirect is necessary. Why is he even resisting a redirect if his talk page redirect is supposedly so easy to find? - Mgm| 08:49, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  It is not point. I do not want "what links here" show my non-current edits. That way I can more conveniently follow references on me. -- Cat 11:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  So it's better to inconvenience the community on the whole for something so painfully minor? -- Ned Scott 04:00, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Is your argument so weak that you have to respond to anything and everything I respond to? -- Cat 04:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Just because I respond to you doesn't make my argument weak at all. It's called a discussion. But hey, I like how you avoided my question and tried to turn it around on me (in a way that.. doesn't make any sense at all and only makes you look stupid, but hey, whatever floats your boat). -- Ned Scott 04:10, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist at MfD These four things I know are true: (a) It is eminently clear that, in the absence of some profound new argument, MfD will counsel deletion here; (b) It is, to me, quite plain that deletion is appropriate here inasmuch as we do not proscribe editors' rendering their signatures as redlinks and inasmuch as User talk:Cool Cat, a tab for which one reaches when he clicks on User:Cool Cat, redirects to the new talk page (which redirection may not be obligatory; (c) It is well settled, the occasional recent DRV notwithstanding, that where a non-trivial amount of editors suggest that a criterion for speedy deletion does not apply to a given page, even where the number of those reasonably suggesting a criterion to apply are sufficient to suggest the presence of a consensus for the application of a criterion, inasmuch as speedy deletion commands the support of the community as policy only to the extent that it means to effect relatively uncontroversial, pro forma deletions and since it is always better to permit discussion, even that which one sees as fruitless and unnecessary (exceptions may apply where discussion is particularly disruptive, but disruptive does not equal consuming the time of certain editors who might, I think, be better served to spend their time otherwise), where the curtailing of such discussion is likely to engender more trouble (if a full MfD had been completed here and had borne out a clear consensus for deletion , Ned and David, et al., would not, I imagine, feel compelled to consume the time of the communtiy with the issue; and (d) DRV (almost exclusively) about process (I suppose that process may not be of paramount import where an overturning of a particular decision at DRV should produce unnecessary disruption and ultimately a disposition identical to that which preceded DRV, but I recognize that the disruption of this page's being relisted will prove less severe than of this DRV's affirming a closure that some think to have been out-of-process); hence, overturn. Joe 06:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  I'd like to point out that this multiple page debate is over a "#redirect User:White Cat" content. I do not understand why people are thinking so hard about it. -- Cat 06:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  Could not the same be said for.. you..? -- Ned Scott 06:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

  On a side note, dang, Joe, that's freaking art (meaning: well said!) -- Ned Scott 06:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, if the user wants his/her former userpage deleted, keep it deleted per CSD U1. Let's get back to work since this is an encyclopedia. He still lists his logs on his new userpage and also his old talk page is not deleted. Terence 07:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• U1 says a user can have their userpage deleted, yes, but it doesn't say anything about preventing anything from being there (such as a redirect). I can't help but think that, logically speaking, U1 was about the content of the page itself, and not about the title. -- Ned Scott 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Existing policy can be followed now, and amended for future cases. I believe that many of the people who are now insisting that policy should be followed would accept it also being amended. —SlamDiego_←T 14:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Existing policy wasn't designed to work for these kinds of situations in the first place. The idea was that such deletion requests were almost always minor, non-controversial, and where it was removing content that the user themselves had generated and wasn't required to fulfill any particular function. The policy even says for more details to see WP:USER, where it's suggested to take such things to MFD. I do wish to expand on U1, and help clarify situations for the future, but what it says now is not in conflict with contesting U1 on MFD. -- Ned Scott 21:08, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, but presumably you would insist that you are trying to get policy (ill-designed or otherwise) followed. So long as there were no ex post facto application, would you object to amending policy so that, in future, a request such as that by the Cat could be honored without the sort of discussion for which you now argue? —SlamDiego_←T 21:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
    • (I ask because I am somewhat sympathetic to each side here. I'm inclined to believe that the rules were and should not have been broken, and I'm inclined to believe that the rules should allow a user to get his page truly wiped.) —SlamDiego_←T 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, as one of the deleting admins, I really don't understand how such a simple request got as far as DRV. This is ridiculous. Yonatan 16:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Because it was an improper closure? It doesn't matter if you feel it's a silly issue, multiple long term editors in good standing raised questions regarding the issue, including if U1 even applied or not, especially given that we don't anticipate U1 ever being controversial, is all the more reason to have allowed the MFD to continue. As one of the deleting admins, you've one of the reasons this has gone so far, and why it went from a simple MFD to a larger issue. Let me ask this, why be so insistent that there not be an MFD? Why do the people supporting close continue to insist that having an MFD is the big deal? Maybe you don't understand the situation because you don't have all the answers, nor are you the "judge" of such situations, the community is. -- Ned Scott 21:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment An interesting thing happened, Cyde Weys, unaware of the MFD/DRV, recreated the redirect for User:Cool Cat. An understandable miscommunication, but it does give us some interesting insight from someone who hasn't been apart of the discussion so far. I'm not trying to pull Cyde into the debate or anything, as I doubt he feels strongly about it one way or the other, but I felt it was just too interesting not to note.

  "It's not about what you desire though, it's about what is most functional and useful for the whole of Misplaced Pages. Your bizarre and unexplainable desire to not even have a redirect from your old username is not outweighed by the very pragmatic usefulness to everyone else, especially those unaware of your name change, of having such a redirect. --Cyde Weys 16:43, 2 June 2007 (UTC)" .

• Full text at User talk:Cyde#User:Cool Cat. -- Ned Scott 21:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This image was used in the Battle of Dien Bien Phu article (a featured article) to illustrate the three top commanders at the battle. The image was listed at Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 7, where it had unanimous consensus to keep it (the nominator not withstanding). User:Howcheng deleted it, claiming "it was never explained in the deletion debate exactly what is so important about this specific image", when in fact that was explained in the previous deletion debate. There is clearly not going to be a free replacement, and the image is necessary to illustrate the commanders at the battle. Also, to respond to Howcheng's question, this specific image is necessary because it illustrates all three top commanders planning their battle plan. Raul654 02:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn. Overwhelming consensus that the image isn't replaceable or decorative, considering the article passed the FA wringer and there was no consensus for deletion at the IfD. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at IfD Whilst I think it exceedingly likely that a consensus will develop at IfD for the image's being kept (and properly so, IMHO), I would suggest that the original IfD ought not only not to have been closed as delete but in fact ought not to have been closed at all (were closure to have been undertaken, no consensus; hence keep would surely have been the appropriate disposition); although the discussion bore out what one would imagine to be all of the relevant arguments, there was not really sufficient participation from which to divine where the consensus of the community lay. Joe 03:48, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Remember that "consensus" is the gathering of valid arguments, and not the counting of votes. The keep votes on the ifd failed to address the concerns raised on the nomination, and as such, don't form consensus. --Abu badali 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  I don't know that your definition of consensus is quite right. Whilst it is true that a consensus at a particular insular AfD cannot override policy to which the community generally have acceded, a consensus at a given XfD as to the application of a given policy is presumptively correct. If, for instance, an editor nominates an image for deletion in view of its being inconsistent with our non-free content policy and eight of ten who partake of the IfD suppose that the nominator is incorrect, it is not for the closing administrator to substitute his own judgment for that of those participating in the IfD except where the reasoning of !voters is so plainly capricious as to be unlikely to command the support of any non-trivial number of editors; the latter situation is surely not present here. Where an XfD suffers from low participation, relisting may be in order; where there is a plain consensus amongst those participating at an XfD for an interpretation of policy that others suggest may be plainly inconsistent with the wishes of the community, an admin (adminship is, after all, ministerial) must close the discussion in accordance with the consensus interpretation. Other editors may, then, challenge the decision taken as plainly inconsistent with policy, and those participating at DRV might determine that, although the closure was proper, the discussion failed to consider certain issues, such that relisting is in order. XfD is not a vote, but neither is it an invitation for a closing admin to substitute his own judgment, or that of a few participants in a given XfD, for those more prominently expressed where the latter are not facially contrary to policy. Joe 01:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  But if you read the ifd in question, you'll see that the keep votes didn't addressed the policy. They simply repeated that the image is necessary to illustrate the article, without explaining why. One editor said "it adds significantly to the Dien Bien Phu article" and other said "(it) depicts the command of one side of the very important battle", but both of them failed to explain why the Dien Bien Phu article needs an illustration that "depicts the command of one side of the battle" to begin with. It's not obvious to me why, in order to be understood, an article about a historic battle needs to be illustrated with a picture showing three men pointing to a map. The ifd closing was correct. --Abu badali 11:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  Precisely. And I have to note that of the three editors who contributed to the discussion (Raul654, AnonEMouse, and Zeus1234), none of them are regulars at Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content. The NFCC is one of the most arcane portions of Misplaced Pages policy, so it's not surprising that they don't really grasp it entirely. Abu's arguments were the only ones that addressed all ten points of the NFCC. It's my prerogative to disregard those comments which don't take into account or misrepresent the entire policy. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  It is only the closing admin's prerogative to disregard those comments that are entirely inconsistent with policy, not those that offer plausible, if dubious, interpretations of policy (since adminship is ministerial, discretion is, or ought to be, rather limited). If an admin confronts an AfD in which deletion is urged by eight of ten !voters solely on the grounds that the subject is a bad guy, he is compelled to discount those !votes because they are not consistent with any interpretation of policy (he ought then to relist to generate more discussion). Here, though, the keep !votes can be understood as advancing an interpretation of policy (those !voting keep don't ignore NFCC's criteria; they ostensibly construe and apply them, and it is not for a closing admin to consider how well they apply them, only that purport to apply them), and that interpretation's being different from that of the deleting admin does not permit the latter to substitute his judgment for that of those participating in the XfD. Where a consensus appears to have developed at an XfD for an interpretation of policy that an admin thinks to be entirely at odds with policy, he ought to raise that issue in the XfD or relist to generate a clearer consensus. At the very least, relisting was appropriate here to provide other editors the opportunity to suggest why an article about a historic battle needs to be illustrated with a picture showing three men pointing to a map; a failure to relist and to delete without sufficient community involvement is itself a procedural problem the presence of which merits an overturning at DRV (if only to permit another discussion). Joe 06:17, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, obviously. Consensus can't trump copyright law. Think about it - suppose Encyclopedia Britanica wanted to use this guy's photo and not pay royalties. His estate (or whoever owns his photos) would sue. Fair use isn't "this looks pretty and I don't feel like paying royalties so I'm going to use it". To use this photo under a claim of fair use, we would need to be offering some kind of critical commentary about the photo itself or a discussion of the topic would not be complete without including the photo. For example, when you see Kent State shootings, you instantly think of the Pulitzer photo. No discussion of that topic is complete without the photo. But this one? There's nothing iconic - it just happens to depic the topic. We cannot use this image under the law. Any consensus to the contrary is invalid. --BigDT 04:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • As a fair use justification, there's no apparent legal issue. Our policy is much stricter than the law for short-sighted, pragmatic reasons, and it seems like a lot of people think this image still makes the cut. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • This image probably does meet our policy. It unquestionably does not pass the legal standard, though. You can't use someone's photo simply to avoid paying them royalties. That's why we don't use news media photos. The fact that this photographer privately sold his photos to books instead of calling himself a journalist changes nothing - we can't use this photo legally without paying royalties. --BigDT 05:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Fair use standards are different for nonprofits. --badlydrawnjeff talk 13:02, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
        • Yes, that's true, but keep in mind that we have commercial downstream uses. Everything we create needs to be GFDL-compatible and the GFDL permits commercial reuse. If this image would not be legitimate to use commercially without permission, then we can't use it either. --BigDT 13:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
          • And the policy allows for fair use. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
            • Neither policy nor consensus can trump law. Nobody anywhere outside of Misplaced Pages would try to use a news media photo under a claim of fair use. It just doesn't make a bit of sense - it is inviting a lawsuit. --BigDT 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
              • And, again, this is not legally problematic. --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
                • How? Saying it doesn't make it so. The fair use doctrine lets us use a screenshot from Star Trek when talking about Star Trek. It lets us quote from Rush Limbaugh when talking about him. It doesn't let us use Joe Schmoe's photograph simply because he happens to have taken a photograph of the subject of the article. If Joe is selling rights to use his photo, then our use of it is infringing on his right under the law to make money from his intellectual property. There are three DRVs right now basically on the same issue and this applies to all of them. I'm going to say it in big letters - FAIR USE IS NOT A LICENSE TO USE COMMERCIAL CONTENT WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT. If our policy doesn't adequately recognize that we cannot use these images, then our policy is broken and we need a Jimbo ex Machina or some such thing to fix it. --BigDT 18:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • This image doesn't meet our policy. It fails item #2 (in that it's a non-iconic from a news agency used in an article about the event depicted) and item #8 (in that it doesn't help the in the articles comprehension). We don't do with non-free material what we can do without it. And this article doesn't need an image of 3 men pointing to a map. --Abu badali 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Who is the photographer and where is this image sourced to? Kotepho 05:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The source is http://www.indochinawar.com/image3.html. They give the photographer as Georges Boudarel. (See fr:Georges Boudarel.) I don't read French, but from the google translation, it looks like he served with the French during Vietnam and later wrote books critical of the war. The book that published his photo is not one he wrote, so presumably he licensed his photo to them. --BigDT 05:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

BigDT, that is one the wrongest statements I've seen in a long time. Fair use IS, under every definition in the law, a license to use commercial content without paying for it under particular circumstances. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

False. Fair use is a defense that you can use in court if you are sued for copyright infringement. No court would ever recognize use of some random news media photo as a fair use. --BigDT 21:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn per Raul.  Grue  19:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  Just like the ifd, this is not a vote. Endorsing an argument doesn't make it stronger. --Abu badali 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  Uh, yeah it does. We're trying to build consensus here, not to compete in Who Comes Up With The Longest Way To Say "Copyright Paranoia Sucks".  Grue  19:51, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  This isn't "copyright paranoia" -- it's about following WP:EDP, and calling it such only mocks the Foundation policy. howcheng {chat} 16:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Overturn Fair use is indeed a license to use content without paying for it, or in the face of the opposition of the copyright holder. See Fair use. There are several aspects of the fair use test, and no one of them always controls. One aspect is whether the copyright holder would suffer any economic loss, and that test always considers the commercial market for the work, if any, and how it would be harmed by the use. Another aspect is the amount of the work used. Yet another aspect is "the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes". In this case, what wikipedia is doing is commenting on the historical events, events which are depicted in the photo. This makes at least a reasonable claim of fair use, and would for downstream reusers, at least for reusers who are mirrors or forks, even commercial ones. But no fair use claim is ever identical to any other, and unless we remove all images used under fair use claims, any downstream reuser must make an indpendant evaluation or be at risk, at elst theoretically, of suit. This image is no different. DES 20:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

  You say the article is "commenting on the historical events, events which are depicted in the photo." I did read Battle of Dien Bien Phu, specifically the "Lead up to Castor" section where the image was located. Nowhere in there is there any description of what is depicted in the photo: these men sitting around a map. To be absolutely clear, there is no commentary on the image whatsoever. Let me put it another way: We normally disallow magazine covers to be used when the cover itself is not discussed. This is exactly the same. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

  • So why should any AP photographer ever take a picture of a news event? If anyone (including commercial entities) can just use it and call it fair use and refuse to pay royalties, what's in it for the photographer? --BigDT 22:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Becauawe one photo, of an event several decades ago, may be usable under "fair use" by some but not all reusers for some but not all purposes, it does not follow that all news photographs may be reused by anyone at all for any reason whatsoever. Fair use is all about making those distinctions. Also, as a practical matter, most AP photographers are either on salary, or are paid for the inital uses of their photos -- the fraction of their income that comes from reprints 30 years later is effectively zero. If this were a photo of an event last week, the case for fair use would be much weaker, in part because the potential commercial market would be much larger. I again suggest that you read our article Fair use, it explains what the legal rules are at some length. DES 22:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Incorrect. History books or ...encyclopedias (!) are still potential customers to AP. Your argument would imply that it's ok to pirate old (but still copyrighted) movies, just because the bulk of their revenue came from the ticket sales. --Abu badali 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep deleted our use does not appear to be transformative. There is no critical commentary of this image and it is used soley to identify these people (them looking at a map is not something that needs to be illustrated). Kotepho 22:57, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment from closer: I'd like to point people to the newly rewritten WP:NFCC #8, which I believe is more in line with Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy (full disclosure, I wrote it a week after I proposed it, during which time it received no objections). So with that in mind, since Raul states that the image is required in order to show "all three top commanders planning their battle plan", here's my follow-up question: What information can be gleaned from this picture that can't be adequately explained in words? It's just a picture of some people sitting around a map. howcheng {chat} 23:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn - despite my recent rampage through the fields of Misplaced Pages fair use with a machete, this is precisely the sort of thing fair use is for - David Gerard 00:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
  • In what way does this image meet NFCC items 2 and 8? howcheng {chat} 16:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - The "three top commanders planning their battle plan" is not an information that asks for an illustration in order to be understood. The threshold for using non-free material is that it's necessary for the article comprehension, and not that it's simply useful. Showing three men pointing to a map doesn't help an explanation about a battle nor about the strategies or tactics used in this battle. --Abu badali 16:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn. It meets all of the Non-free content criteria. - Mgm| 08:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I repeat: in what way does this image meet NFCC items 2 and 8? howcheng {chat} 16:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Hop (drug) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

why I think it should be undeleted:

1) Very well documented, including journal articles and OED references. Cited journal articles are not found in the OED reference.

2) While the term is no longer used in contemporary language, it survives in important American literature, such as "THE ICEMAN COMETH" by Eugene O'Neill and "THE THIN RED LINE" by James Jones. Thus, in my opinion it still lives on and is important information to document. When one reads about a "hop dream" or being "hopped up", the context often doesn't give enough information as to the meaning of the term, especially in literature prior to the 1960's when talk of sex and drug use had to be written in less explicit terms.

3) The article content was not *just a definition*. It gives an etymology with references and several examples. Please read the actual content before judging second hand from the AfD note of one person. Moreover, the content was not and is not in wiktionary.

4) Many other slang terms are included in wikipedia: Cracker_(pejorative), White trash, dork. Why do they exist and not this?

Repliedthemockturtle 01:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. According to the AfD, the article was just a definition, and one that said it was slang for opium. There's no reason given why the AfD was wrong, so... -Amarkov moo! 01:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Looking a second time, it turns out that I misinterpreted the comment on AfD; it was referring to the Wiktionary article. Could we get this temporarily undeleted for review? -Amarkov moo! 01:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restore There is decent content in the article. Even if it is a duplicate of the Wiktionary entry currently, one can imagine some further expansion and at the very least it could survive as a redirect. Pascal.Tesson 14:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Restore, then expand encyclopedically (if User:Repliedthemockturtle volunteers to maintain non-dicdef content), then relist at AfD for a new consensus on whether it's non-dicdef enough for a Misplaced Pages article. I can't see the article and its refs (I'm not an admin and Google cache doesn't have it), but I trust the judgment of User:Pascal.Tesson on the content. Wiktionary, besides the two-word description at "hop" number 5, has the phrase hopped up with slightly more content and a sample usage, but no connection to the term's use in twentieth-century literature (William Burroughs is another influential example, cited in Opium). Phrases with the term "hop" also took on significance in jazz and blues that are probably more documented than "just another slang name for a drug". WP:NOT#Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary tells us that

  it may be important in the context of an encyclopedia article to describe just how a word is used to distinguish among similar, easily confused ideas, as in nation or freedom. In some special cases an article about an essential piece of slang may be appropriate.

  If the article and its sources satisfy the AfD's closer that it's more than an expanded dicdef, then it should be relisted. The consensus may or may not find the article to be more than just a minor cultural-linguistics essay. Normally I would expect AfD to reach a decision to merge this into one paragraph in Hop, but that's a disambiguation page with no parent better than this one. It points to Opium but that article doesn't mention "hop(s)" nor "hopped up" nor use in jazz or blues. Barno 16:17, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• A comment on the nominator's point 4: besides the guideline that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason for this article to exist, the other slang terms may or may not have been debated on AfD and found to be "essential" enough or to show well-documented significance that passes WP:ATT. You're free to nominate-for-deletion any of those articles on slang that you don't feel meets the policy WP:ATT or the guideline WP:Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. If you do, check its "AfD history" link first. Barno 16:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• comment I have doen a temporary undel so that the history is visible to non-admins. DES 20:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse The AfD was reasoanbel, and the statemetns made there were not inaccurate. no process violations that I can see. However, do not salt, specifially, there should be no bar to creating a new and more encyclopedi article on this topic. allow the history to be userfied if anyone wants it as a basis for such an expanded articele, and if it is used, undelted the history if such an expanded article is created. DES 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• comment I am not an admin nor an expert on the workings of wikipedia policy, but it seems that it is very easy for an article to be deleted but very difficult to have it reinstated. My main point here is that if precidence (i.e. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS) is not a sufficient reason for inclusion of an article, why should we rely so heavily on the decision of the orginal AfD? Shouldn't this be evaluated anew, instead of leaning so heavily on the original AfD decision ('no process violations' seems to me to be a decision based on precidence)? My secondary point is that I see the delete/undelete arguments to be somewhat overtechnical and knee-jerk reactionary ('dicdefs don't belong here') My personal guidelines for inclusion are these: 1) does the article provide (and will it continue provide) useful information to people? 2) is the topic important enough to justify inclusion in an (extensive) encyclopedia on general knowledge 3) is the article factual and researched well? As far as wiktionary versus wikipedia, I think that any article that can benefit from the wiki process of elbaoration and research belongs in wikipedia. A dictionary is a place where people go to look up a definition, not a place to collect extensive etymological knowledge on a word. Take a look on the entry for the term OK. This is a fascinating and useful article on a slang term. It never would have gotten to its current state if it was deemed a dicdef. Lastly, in the spirit of democracy I think it's best to err on the side of including material when at least some segment of the wikipedia community find it useful. What is worse to loose knowledge or to have a little extra trivial knowledge? I lean towards the former being worse. Seems like we have wasted much more time, energy, and disk space on discussing this deletion than if we just executed the 'sin' of leaving the darn (rather harmless) entry in place. These are my thoughts...take them as they are...Repliedthemockturtle 21:14, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Comment, there doesn't seem much to be said about this, but it seems like it would do fine as a couple sentences in the main opium article, which already uses the term "hop fiend" without much explanation. Why not just redirect and leave the history behind it? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 21:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Really, this article was deleted almost 2 and a half months ago. It looks like a dictionary entry and would probably be better served by a mention in a relevant article. Other than that, this is DRV, which reviews process not content (if anyone's forgotten that lately). Process was fine and fair. -Royalguard11(Talk·Review Me!) 23:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse, but allow recreation. No problem with the result, and it does read like a dicdef, but that's no reason to disallow a possible better article in its place. --badlydrawnjeff talk 23:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
• Question Could someone please explain to a relative beginner what is the practical difference between overturn, and endorse but allow re-creation? DGG 23:34, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
  • History undeletion, probably. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 23:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
    • More specifically, i would say that if deletion were overturned, the previous article would be recreated, to be expanded or not in the normal editing process, with the implication that the existing form is acceptable id not exactly FA matériel. Endorse but allow recreation means that the old article will be deleted, but when and if a reasonable article on the subject is created, a) it won't bee subject to speedy deletion under G4 (recreation of deleted content) and b) the old article will, on request, be undeleted as part of the history of the new one. But nothing will be there until a new and better article is written by someone. DES 14:50, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If the new article is substantially different you can't speedy delete it as a G4. - Mgm| 08:58, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Endorse deletion Administrators have discretion to end discussions they think are getting out of hand. I see no reason to overturn. YechielMan 01:53, 31 May 2007 (UTC) (edit conflict)
• Endorse deletion. I haven't seen any evidence that process was not followed in the AfD or subsequent deletion, which is what we review here. Heather 14:08, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn, merge and redirect. There was far too little participation in the AFD and no one even considered merging it into the opium article which would seem like a sensible solution to me. - Mgm| 09:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)