Catholic Office for Emergency Relief and Refugees (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

i believe that the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly. this article has no reliable secondary sources. i was the only contributer to refer to policy in the afd, all the others voted keep with no basis for their vote. after contacting the closing admin, i was refered to wp:consensus, which as far as i understand it, is about consensus based on discussion and constructive arguments. the afd was treated more like a vote, which it shouldn't be. there were far more keep voters, but not one of them made reference to policy. no consensus regarding whether or not this article should exist based on wikipedia policy was ever reached. wp:consensus says "In the few cases where polls are used, understand that they are actually structured discussions, not votes. Your opinion has much more weight when you provide a rationale during a poll, not just a simple vote. Your goal should be to convince others of your views (and give them a chance to convince you)." Jessi1989 ( talk) 00:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Sustain keep' The award was sufficient to justify the keep.A reasonable close. Nominate again in 8 or 9 months if you insist, and if you have made a good faith effort to look for additional sources and failed to find them. DGG ( talk) 02:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure An article not making use of sources is a reason for {{ sofixit}}, not for an AFD nomination, much less a deletion outcome. A deletion outcome would only have been appropriate had there been a sound showing that no possible sources exist - which even the nominator said was not the case. On this topic, it is highly implausible that there are no useful sources in any language. GRBerry 14:38, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, closer correctly interpreted the consensus. Stifle ( talk) 15:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment Only one source in the article (that I would consider reliable) mentions the organization in prose. While an article not making use of sources can and should be fixed, the same is not true if those sources don't readily exist. I can understand the nominator's frustration. He was the only person in the room pointing out this lack of sourcing. I don't know if sourcing does exist, but if it doesn't, I'm going to say that the close might not have been right. Protonk ( talk) 15:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep Process followed. MBisanz ^talk 07:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

UNDELETE_REASON The page was deleted before it was completed as a result of saving it several times while it was in the process of being edited by an inexperienced user. This page is not advertisement and nowhere refers to any company or product. It is a word/poetry game that provides endless amusement to young and old. More information can be found at http://picoku.blogspot.com/

• Endorse deletions Appears to be an attempt to advertise that blog. The text string is a valid word in some foreign language, but no reliable source in English uses it as a word, much less for this topic. GRBerry 14:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle ( talk) 15:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse deletion by default due to nominator's failure to respond to a reasonable request. Stifle ( talk) 10:24, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. The only source I can find for this word/poetry game is the aforementioned blog, which started three days ago and has only two posts. No independent sources have been identified to establish notability. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2008 (UTC) reply

File:Velasquez, Vosloo.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| | article)

The image that I uploaded was in the same logic that the image at The Mummy Returns#Cast but deleted because it didn't have a valid fair use rationale. At the time, I was a newcomer and didn't know about some procedures, and my mistake to didn't ask for help. Now, I'm trying help other people to make things right and if I find an image which is missing a fair use rationale, I'll try put it if I'm familiarized with the subject. This didn't happen to me when I was a newcomer! If it happened, I wouldn't be blocked by violating the rules, when I didn't know what to do. So, doing my routine, I found this image linked to a biographical article, similar with to the image deleted. So, if this fair use image can be linked to living people, so the image uploaded by me, linked to the movie article and articles of actors appearing in the image deleted. Now, for fair use rationale, I can use {{ ScreenshotU}}. Today, I'm thinking how many times daily I find something like this. How many times I try to others images be accepted on Wikipedia. Is my attitude with others over good or the attitude given to me was bad. Sdrtirs ( talk) 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Remembering better, I did insert a fair use rationale for the use in the article about the movie, but Yamla (now retired) said that the image didn't show anything about the movie. And about the Image:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg linked to Kareena Kapoor, does it shows about the film and is it allow to have this image on the biographical article about her? I had knowledge about this image when recently went to see Yamla contributions. He was who had me blocked on Wikipedia for using this image. I'm feeling discriminated!-- Sdrtirs ( talk) 13:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• This page was deleted nearly six months ago. Is there a reason it has not been brought up here until now? Stifle ( talk) 15:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• I though that Yamla was right, so I didn't question his authority. Like I said, I was a newcomer, so I didn't know well the rules. Today, looking back after seeing something similar with my case with other attitude, the image was accepted, I'm starting to think that there wasn't a reason to delete this image nor having me block for reverting removal edits of the image I uploaded to biographical articles of those actors. I just want equality without any discrimination attitude.-- Sdrtirs ( talk) 18:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Summary

1. Image source: http://www.bollywoodsargam.com/hollywood_celebrity_photos.php?poster=9183719-262244836-1-latest-The_Mummy_Returns_Movie_desktop_wallpaper_images_pictures.html
2. License: Fair use
3. Propose: Illustrating the movie (in a section of the article about the movie)
4. Reason for deletion: Yamla said that this image does not illustrate the movie
5. Images similar to this with different treatment: Image:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg, Image:Chameli (Kareena Kapoor).jpg and Image:Kareena in K3G.jpg linked to the biographical article about Kareena Kapoor and Image:Mummy returns.jpg about the movie The Mummy Returns. Notice that Image:Kareena in K3G.jpg had reversion to it original uploader, due to vandalism, by Yamla. And the user: BOLLYWOOD DREAMZ wasn't blocked and neither this image was deleted.

• Endorse deletion. As Yamla quite rightly noted when he tagged it, a movie screenshot should be explicitly used in its article to support some point of encyclopedic analysis. This one wasn't. The fact that we have many other images that are used wrongly doesn't mean we should keep this one (). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• For the record, the article about the movie hadn't a screenshot image. So, this screenshot image on the article was uploaded after this image uploaded, and consequently my block. And if you think that one screenshot is enough in the article about the movie, what do you say about the biographical article about Kareena Kapoor?-- Sdrtirs ( talk) 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Fut.Perf. ☼ said:

    The fact that we have many other images that are used wrongly doesn't mean we should keep this one

    That's what I meant when I referred to discrimination attitudes!-- Sdrtirs ( talk) 18:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Does WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS apply to Image:Kapoor JabWeMet.jpg, uploaded on 4 July 2008, after deleting this image, uploaded at February 2008? What the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS says about deletion of content is discriminating editors! All discrimination attitudes are against Universal Declaration of Human Rights.-- Sdrtirs ( talk) 18:56, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply

    Sorry, but that's a specious argument. For one thing, the UDHR does not have any authority on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a court of law. Stifle ( talk) 10:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • I said that to compare with the disrespect of the users/editors which WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS brings. Wikipedia as a community editors must help each others and I think that liberals ideas such as Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood should be present all days in Wikipedia. Freedom, Wikipedia don't censure content; Brotherhood, editors are trying to help others editors; Equality, yet it's undefined...-- Sdrtirs ( talk) 02:37, 1 September 2008 (UTC) reply

File:Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) ( restore| cache| IfD | article)

(1) An image went through [Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 19 deletion review], had many keep votes and also a number of delete votes, but was determined to be a "delete" by its closing admin anyway, which is fine. In any case, the primary deletion criteria of the deletion votes was because it was a headshot from a video, which was argued didn't supply enough information to be encyclopedic. (2) So today I uploaded a completely different image -- that's not a head shot and that illustrates information in the text it accompanies. Yet, a user mistakenly deleted it as a recreation. (Which isn't too terrible; deleted material can be recreated.) OK, finally, here's the presenting problem. I can't find where to appeal this delete since this new image is not listed for deletion anywhere, whatsoever, akin to its being a stealth action.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC) PS the new image is here. It shows Hilton smiling. The original one has her talking, with a serious look on her face. (I'll post it as soon as I locate it.)  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Well there's so many screenshots out there, but there's a both a closeup and (if you click the No. 2 under it) a farther-away shot found here.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC) This is just supposed to review the process of deletion-without-proper-discussion, a discussion where everybody could weigh in on the merits instead of only two contributors: two contributors who mistakenly believed that one image was a cropped from the other, so they were deleting the same image.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 11:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• I would be very careful before you start making accusations about the deletion discussion. The discussion for the new image was here: WP:IFD, after which it was speedied as G4. You didn't mention that the old image, discussed here was a crop of the new one. The arguments in the old deletion discussion apply for the new one as well and since the new image is a portion of the old one, I believe it qualifies as a recreation. Also, if an image or article is deleted at AFD or IFD, it can be speedy deleted under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I would be equally careful about calling such actions "mistakes."
• The old image was not deleted because it did not "supply enough information" but because it failed item #8 of the nonfree content criteria, which states that a nonfree image must significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the events. The discussion for the old image indicated that any portion of the video would not satisfy that criterion, since it could just as easily be described in the text without having to use an image. The closing administrator for that discussion concurred with that assessment and rightly deleted the image. The exact same argument would apply to this new image and so, again, it was correctly deleted under CSD G4. Cumulus Clouds ( talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Well, whoever believed the new image was a crop of the old one was simply mistaken and I'm sorry but that's just a fact. The mid-distance shot had Paris smiling and the closeup had her talking with a serious look on her face. So the rationale for the second image's deletion was a mistake, plain and simple!  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Meh. The old image showed paris hilton. the new image showed paris hilton. Neither image was free. Neither actually illustrated the subject (the controversy) anymore than an image of paris hilton would. We have free images that show what paris hilton looks like. The new image didn't address the deletion concerns, which (unfortunately for the future of a FU image on the subject) were basically that a shot of paris hilton doesn't enlighten the reader about the subject of the article in any meaningful sense. endorse deletion. Protonk ( talk) 05:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, this bait and switch manoeuvre is aimed at circumventing the non-free content criteria, which this image clearly fails. Stifle ( talk) 15:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the image remaining deleted. The difference between the one I deleted after the IfD and the one deleted by Fut Perf as a Speedy G4 are not substantive enough to invalidate the Speedy. Image was correctly deleted - Peripitus (Talk) 11:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Fred R. Klenner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

This is from way back in 2007, but there was still no consensus to delete: 1 delete, 6 keeps. The delete vote says he had only 2 publications, and other comments seemed to indicate that that was misleading or false. The delete vote updated this to 5 publications and 1 book section publication. Because of the way this AfD started, it may have been hard for the admin to follow. Still, I don't see justification for overriding 6 editors. Not all of the keeps were from "OMM advocates", either -- Espresso addict voted keep and Gordonofcartoon voted weak keep, noting something called the "Fultz quad connection" (not sure what that is). II | ( t - c) 18:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist. I cannot imagine why this was not appealed earlier. He was nominated as part of a very confusing group discussion, and the deletion rationale was "While he may be one of the founders of orthomolecular medicine, this isn't really a mainstream theory. " True, it's not a mainstream theory, but its still a notable one. The article was in my mind deleted on the basis of his work not being mainstream, rather than not being notable. It perhaps can be shown his contribution was not significant, and I may not argue for a keep in that, but this really needs a new discussion. DGG ( talk) 02:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Closer clearly got this one wrong; whether or not it is a mainstream theory has nothing to do with whether or not the article should have been deleted. Consensus of that discussion was to keep the article, and no argument from overriding policy appears in it. GRBerry 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply
• Can I ask why this is being brought here so long after the AFD closed? Stifle ( talk) 15:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• No particular reason. I saw an unjustified close and thought it should be rectified. II | ( t - c) 18:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Reasonable arguments made for keeping and there was certainly no consensus for deletion. Davewild ( talk) 10:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC) reply

The Leaving Trains (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) ( restore | cache | AfD)

Illegitimate A7 deletion of a band with eight albums on SST Records. The group rockets over WP:MUSIC. Chubbles ( talk) 15:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC) reply

• This needs to be reopened, because after the deleting admin, User: Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry restored it at 15:34, User:Coren, inexplicably, deleted it again via speedy on the same questionable reason at 23:13. I have notified him of this discussion. I assume he accidentally failed to notice the article log. DGG ( talk) 02:52, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  I have restored the article and put it to AfD; I did fail to notice the log. I don't agree with the closer that the article meets, let alone rockets over, WP:MUSIC but AfD is a better place to discuss the matter. —  Coren  ^(talk) 03:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC) reply