Misplaced Pages

:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 4: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Deletion review | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 05:36, 6 June 2008 editZsero (talk | contribs)12,092 edits →Image:01622200.JPG← Previous edit Revision as of 05:45, 6 June 2008 edit undoCryptic (talk | contribs)Administrators41,747 edits →Image:01622200.JPG: When there's some shred of evidence that the author is in fact unknown and the image not just lifted from a random website and uploaded to Misplaced Pages with a falsified...Next edit →
Line 25: Line 25:
*** "Anonymous" isn't "we don't know who made it", it's "nobody knows who made it". Uploading an image you find on some website somewhere doesn't imply the latter. &mdash;] 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC) *** "Anonymous" isn't "we don't know who made it", it's "nobody knows who made it". Uploading an image you find on some website somewhere doesn't imply the latter. &mdash;] 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
**** How can you ''ever'' know that there is nobody in the world who knows who made a photo? We are talking about photos that are scanned from a newspaper. I doubt that Czech newspapers at the time identified the photographers of news photos. So the odds that anybody happens to know this information is much the same as it is for ''any'' photo under EU-Anonymous or PD-Ukraine. There's ''always'' the possibility that someone, somewhere, knows; so according to you when ''can'' we use these tags? -- ] (]) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC) **** How can you ''ever'' know that there is nobody in the world who knows who made a photo? We are talking about photos that are scanned from a newspaper. I doubt that Czech newspapers at the time identified the photographers of news photos. So the odds that anybody happens to know this information is much the same as it is for ''any'' photo under EU-Anonymous or PD-Ukraine. There's ''always'' the possibility that someone, somewhere, knows; so according to you when ''can'' we use these tags? -- ] (]) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
*****When there's some shred of evidence that the author is in fact unknown and the image not just lifted from a random website and uploaded to Misplaced Pages with a falsified {{tl|PD-self}} stuck on it. At ''bare minimum'' this would be when and where the image was first published. Like, y'know, the fine print on ''both'' {{tl|Anonymous-EU}} and {{tl|PD-Ukraine}} ask for. &mdash;] 05:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 05:45, 6 June 2008

< June 3 Deletion review archives: 2008 June June 5 >

4 June 2008

Image:01622200.JPG

Image:01622200.JPG (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|PUI)

The image is surely either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine, unless the original uploader's claim is true, in which case it's been released. Either way, it should not have been deleted. See my comments at PUI. Zsero (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion as lacking source, if nothing else. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    Source is only needed to determine copyright status. Since neither PD-Ukraine nor Anonymous-EU require this, it's irrelevant. All we need to know is in the image itself, which is obviously from a newspaper published shortly after the event it depicts. -- Zsero (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Comment. Why not just upload these to commons? That's the place for free images anyway. MrPrada (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
If someone will restore them, I'll do that. -- Zsero (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. I've linked the PUI entry above. Without a source, there's no way to be certain about the copyright status. The chance that this is {{PD-self}} as claimed is vanishingly small, especially given the uploader's other deleted contributions. —Cryptic 19:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
    • So why isn't it either EU-Anonymous or PD-Ukraine? -- Zsero (talk) 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
      • "Anonymous" isn't "we don't know who made it", it's "nobody knows who made it". Uploading an image you find on some website somewhere doesn't imply the latter. —Cryptic 21:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
        • How can you ever know that there is nobody in the world who knows who made a photo? We are talking about photos that are scanned from a newspaper. I doubt that Czech newspapers at the time identified the photographers of news photos. So the odds that anybody happens to know this information is much the same as it is for any photo under EU-Anonymous or PD-Ukraine. There's always the possibility that someone, somewhere, knows; so according to you when can we use these tags? -- Zsero (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
          • When there's some shred of evidence that the author is in fact unknown and the image not just lifted from a random website and uploaded to Misplaced Pages with a falsified {{PD-self}} stuck on it. At bare minimum this would be when and where the image was first published. Like, y'know, the fine print on both {{Anonymous-EU}} and {{PD-Ukraine}} ask for. —Cryptic 05:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Munkacs benes.jpg

Image:Munkacs benes.jpg (edit | ] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|PUI)

The image is surely either Anonymous-EU or PD-Ukraine, unless the original uploader's claim is true, in which case it's been released. Either way, it should not have been deleted. See my comments at PUI. Zsero (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Gamma Beta

Gamma Beta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I'm having a difficult getting this page to pass. The organization is a fairly new organization, and the admin that requested the deletion of the article says there is not enough evidence that we are a real organization and not a group of people. I've listed articles to show evidence of the organization but they were rejected. One was a newpaper article and the other the university's website that recognizes us. Another thing is there are a couple of other organizations who have articles on wiki and yet have less evidence that they are a real organization than we do. I feel like since they were able to start their article at an earlier time it was easier for them to stay and since we are trying to start an article now its been very difficult. hawee talk

Endorse deletion - very spammy, probably nn too, jimfbleak (talk) 17:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion. The problems with this article are that the 'new' version was substantially similar to the deleted version, the tone of the article is excessively spammy and self-promotional, and the sources given do not establish notability. Also, bear in mind that saying other articles like this one exist is not relevant. We have fairly stringent notability guidelines that must be met in order for articles to be kept - you might want to review the guidelines and see about pulling together sufficient reliable sources to back up the article before trying again. Arkyan 20:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion, the AFD had a consensus to delete and DRV is a place to point out how the deletion process was not followed, not to advance new (or the same) arguments about why the decision was wrong. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse The question is not whether or not this organization exists, but whether or not the article asserts notability. No verifiable, reliable sources have been provided that have shown that the subject meets notability. Despite the bizarre and inadequate nomination statement on the AfD, the outcomess per the AFD, the PROD, and two speedy deletions have been correct. Dlohcierekim 03:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ivobank

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

A new independent online bank has just launched called Ivobank, but new page entries have been deleted. Given that online banks don't launch everyday and the online community will wonder what it is, like I did, I think it deserves its own page. Please can we create one? --AbbieG (talk) 15:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Endorse deletion, both previous versions of this article were indeed overly promotional in tone, and had the character of an advert. Unless the nominator can produce reliable sources to indicate notability and demonstrate that an article can be written in a neutral manner, I don't see any reason to unprotect/recreate. Arkyan 16:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. The company is probably on its way to being notable, as it has recently sponsored a PGA tour event. I would suggest userspace creation first before we unsalt it. MrPrada (talk) 16:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion; the version in the cache is overly promotional and rightly deleted as a G11. I have been unable to track down good third party mentions, other than the golf sponsorship mentioned above. I agree that notability is likely in the future but not just yet. Smile a While (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've created a one line explanation of what Ivobank is in my Sandbox, surely it's ok just to have this. Then at least people will be able to find out what it is? User:AbbieG/sandbox --AbbieG (talk) 10:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Link to above. And no, I'm afraid that is not okay. That little stub there meets CSD A7 and would be very quickly deleted if you created an article with just that. You would want to include some references or external links to places that establish that it is non-trivially covered in multiple places, what we call notability and make sure that these sources are reliable. Hope that helps. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 11:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. Misplaced Pages is not ivobank.com. Stifle (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per above fine arguments Article did not assert notability. I am unable to locate verifiable, reliable sources asserting significance. Per the article, subject is new and has not yet achieved notability. As what we have so far is overly promotional, moving it to the creator's page would not be beneficial. It would need a total rewrite if it did achieve notability. Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, and we should not have an article about every business that hopes to become notable. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Jones Lang LaSalle

Jones Lang LaSalle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was speedily deleted per WP:CSD#A7. Being quite familiar with retail, I know that Jones Lang LaSalle is quite a prominent shopping mall management firm. A quote from the article read "The company has more than 32,000 employees, approximately 170 offices worldwide and operates in more than 700 cities in 60 countries", which I believe is a rather valid assertation of notability. Furthermore, there seem to be plenty of reliable sources found in a Google News search. One of them even calls the company "the leading global real estate services and money management firm". Furthermore, one of the companies that was merged to make Jones Lang LaSalle has been around since 1783. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • 15:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Overturn/restore per the above links uncovered by fine mustelidian research. There does appear to be enough material out there for this to cross the threshold. Arkyan 16:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn & restore It was never a valid speedy A7. Not with 32,000 employees--that's a rather clear assertion of importance,.DGG (talk) 16:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral I speedied this - although it's probably notable, it lacks any independent refs to support the data. However, I don't object to restoration. I think that once this is finished, if not before, the creator should have an indefinite block on that username. jimfbleak (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
As far as I see User:Joneslanglasalle isn't the creator but just did one and actually the last edit, which doesn't seem to be sufficient for a block per Misplaced Pages:Username#Company.2Fgroup_names. --Tikiwont (talk) 11:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

NBA Championship Templates

This nomination is procedurally bizarre, as I am the closing administrator in this debate, which can be found here. The debate has been closed as delete. However, due to the potentially vast scope of the deletion, and the certainty of this review being opened, I have gone ahead and filed it. My closing statement is available on the TfD page and should be considered to be my formal statement for this debate as well. I realize this is unorthodox, and I believe I have correctly applied policy in this case, but the work required in undeleting would be very great indeed if my close were overturned, so I simply have not taken that step as of yet. I am personally uninterested in the outcome, so do not expect much participation on my behalf, it would be wise to contact me on my talk page if any more direct participation is desired. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 03:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Some recommended reading:

I hope these are helpful. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 04:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment I was an active participant in the discussion, so I will refrain from endorsing the decision here. However, I do want to repeat some comments that are buried in the extensive discussion on the TfD page and might be overlooked. I believe that the "right way" to replace these templates is threefold:
    1. Add links to pages such as 2007 NBA Finals from the infoboxes on player articles
    2. Ensure complete rosters are included on all pages in Category:National Basketball Association Finals (as they are for the 2007 page)
    3. Ensure all player articles currently transcluded from any of these templates have complete infoboxes
    After all of this work is complete, then the templates should be deleted. I suggest further discussion take place on Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 04:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Defiantly not disagreeing as I think all of the above should be done. That being said the rosters were already added by someone to all the finals pages. That being said they need beautification but they are there now. -Djsasso (talk) 04:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment: I strongly dispute the outcome of this afd because I do not agree with some of the assessments made by the closing admin. First, the statement "Many of the keep arguments center around the fact that the templates are nothurting anything, and that they are helpful" is incorrect as I gave many reasons as to why the arguments made by the deletion side are invalid. An exploding numbers of this type of navboxes isn't really a valid reason at all per WP:NOTPAPER, a policy. I agree that the deletion side has not provide sufficient policy evidences to support their position. The only guideline they could provided is WP:EMBED, which I think is fundamentally flawed. Conversely, the keep side has made some strong arguments. I think WP:IAR will back that up because deletion of these navboxes is clearly not going to improve Misplaced Pages, but to do quite the opposite. IAR also tells us to ignore bad policy that prevent improvement (in this case is WP:EMBED). IAR is also a policy whereas WP:EMBED is just a guideline. This should have been an easy keep. Definitely not no consensus. —Chris! ct 21:19, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    Comment Not to get into the same arguements as the tfd itself. But deleting the templates significantly improves Misplaced Pages and keeping them significantly hurts the encyclopedia. I think based on the huge amount of precedent in past tfd's and projects scopes that an WP:IAR arguement is not all that valid as there is significant belief in the community that removing them helps the encyclopedia and keeping them does the opposite so I don't believe you can state that it "clearly" will not help the project. WP:NOTPAPER doesn't apply to the exploding number of infoboxes as its not size that is the issue, its the massive number of insignificant links that end up on an article masking the truely relevant information. -Djsasso (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    I am not going to reiterate my reasoning because I already done that over and over again. All I will say is that WP:IAR is an important policy here in Misplaced Pages. Your negative response toward WP:IAR makes me think that you simply dislike this policy. If so, bring that to the IAR discussion page.—Chris! ct 22:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
    No I believe IAR to be a great policy and think its important to have. I just believe you misunderstand what it is. IAR is for situations where it is obvious that ignoring a rule helps the wikipedia. What I am saying is that it is not obvious that that is the case as many people obviously feel the templates are hurting wikipedia. IAR is only for situations where its obvious and common sense that we should be ignoring the rule. This is definately not the case in this situation. -Djsasso (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    There are also many people who obviously feel that these templates are helping Misplaced Pages. You are right, IAR is only for situations where its obvious and common sense that we should be ignoring the rule. The current situation about these templates clearly fits that description and I have explained over and over again why that is so. I think the only reason this dispute continues is that the deletion side refuses to accept what is right and blindly follows WP:EMBED.—Chris! ct 19:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    For Chrishomingtang and Djsasso, please note that deletion review is for additional editors to review the closing admin's decision to delete. I don't think this continuing debate you are carrying on is appropriate for this forum. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:45, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    I realize this, but it is appropriate to point out that the closing admin didn't ignore their arguements is it not, which was my point? That is the point of DRV right? To determine if an admin did or didn't close a debate properly? Based on his comments he is saying the admin didn't close it correctly, I am allowed to put forward a case starting that he did close it properly. Ideally I would have prefered that no one involved in the afd would have comented one way or the other. But y'all have. -Djsasso (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    Sure, but I think it's ok to leave one comment and move on. Back-and-forth debate isn't helping. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    I actually hadn't intended to comment again till you commented. ;) -Djsasso (talk) 20:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
    Not trying to continue any argument, but I just want to note that I know deletion review is for additional editors to review the closing admin's decision.—Chris! ct 20:37, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tikiwont (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)--Tikiwont (talk) 09:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Just read through the TfD, and I come to the same conclusion as RyanGerbil10. It's clearly a valid close, thought some might disagree with it. I would suggest going with Andrwsc's suggestion of moving the information to pages on the teams for each year and adding more detailed information to each player's article as well. Perhaps before deleting, since it'd be easier, but I'm sure someone would be willing to batch userfy them so the same thing can be done after deletion. Also, kudos to Tikiwont for relisting this; it's the first time I've ever seen that at DRV, I think. Cheers all. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 15:41, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Deletion review/Log/2008 June 4: Difference between revisions Add topic