Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 21

Bolognaola – Speedily endorsed. Clear patent nonsense. – Krimpet 21:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

not nonsense Silverbaxent 20:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion of this nonsense "definition" that does not produce even one google hit! -- But|seriously|folks 21:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. -- But|seriously|folks 21:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion. This article did not present this as a neologism, or a slang term; rather it explained it as an actual medical "condition" which could be "diagnosed". Obvious hoax, and thus speediable as nonsense — if this was actually a slang term, then the article about it should not portray it as a medical condition. --Haemo 21:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Image:Asayab al-Iraq al-Jihadiyah.jpg etc. – Deletions endorsed. – Xoloz 00:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

These Iraqi insurgent group logos were speedily deleted out of process. The deletion reason given was "Nonfree image only used in gallery in violation of WP:NFC" which is not a valid criterion for speedy deletion. The images had been used in Iraqi insurgency where they met the significance criterion by allowing people to identify the groups from their logos.

Please note that the `WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use policy states that, "The use of non-free media in lists, galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements normally fails the test for significance (criterion #8), and is thus unacceptable." (emphasis added.) In this case the criterion,

"Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function."

is met, because readers would not be able to identify the groups from their logos if they were not arranged in a group for the purposes of identification (which {{logo}} explicitly allows for non-free logos) in the article which describes them.

Furthermore, I have doubts about the neutrality of the deleting admin because he asked on Talk:Iraqi insurgency, "why give them an air of legitimacy by including their logos here?" Finally, the suggestion that Iraqi insurgent groups would take legal action against the Foundation because of the use of their logos in an article describing them is preposterous, and a clear example of m:Copyright paranoia. ←Ben^B4 15:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Image:Asayab al-Iraq al-Jihadiyah.jpg was uploaded 19 June 2007 and tagged 18 August 2007 with Template:Di-no fair use rationale. The statement "To be used for identification and/or critical commentary in articles such as, but not limited to, Iraqi insurgency, Mujahideen, Islamic Army in Iraq, etc." was added as the Fair use rationale 19 August 2007 and the tag removed. The image was then tagged 19 August 2007 with Template:di-orphaned fair use. The 19 August tag was removed 21 August 2007 and readded an hour later. The uploader was "no rationale" notified 18 August 2007 and Orphaned non-free image notified 13:35 19 August 2007. The image was deleted 14:10 21 August 2007, with the reason given "Nonfree image only used in gallery in violation of WP:NFC". Here is a link for the images and media speedy delete information. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but I believe I added a valid fair use rationale to that image after it was tagged and before it was deleted. ←Ben^B4 16:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I revised the above DRV note to include your fair use rationale post. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, let's put aside any question about my neutrality. Note that I don't have any prior edits to this article. My comment about the "air of legitimacy" has been taken out of context. The full sentence was: "Second, to those who claim these groups have no rights, why give them an air of legitimacy by including their logos here?" This was in response to the following summary from the last of several edits which reinserted these images into the article: "use of copyrighted material?? terrorists have no coypyright in american law!!". Notice too that I am calling them groups, not terrorists. I am an American, but I think I am being completely neutral.
As far as the nonfree image issue is concerned, it is my understanding that galleries of nonfree images are almost never acceptable. The fact that an image has been relegated to a gallery is a strong indication that it is not germane to the article. One would expect a significant image to stand alone in an article section surrounded by the text that makes it significant. These images were in a gallery under its own heading containing no discussion whatsoever, just the name of each group. Since the gallery had been deleted by at least two different editors citing WP:NFC and WP:NFCC but reinserted no less than six times, I assumed that removing the gallery from the article would lead to yet another disruptive revert. So I deleted the images that were not being used elsewhere. I left intact all of the images for groups that had their own articles.
Aside from WP:NFC and WP:NFCC, we are also bound here by the Foundation's licensing policy resolution, which requires us to keep nonfree content to a minimum. The proposed usage of these images is contrary to that binding directive.
I can't imagine anybody saying, "I didn't fully understand this article until they added the group logos, but now it makes more sense to me." Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, it is clear the images do not increase understanding of the article on the insurgency in any way and cannot be used here in this way. -- But|seriously|folks 15:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should also note that I considered protecting the page to stop the edit warring, but I felt the deletion of these images was a less restrictive course. -- But|seriously|folks 15:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the deleting admin fails to respond to the fact that the images were deleted out of process. There is no reason his concerns could not have been raised at IfD. The suggestion that being able to identify an insurgent group from their logo does not increase readers' understanding of the groups is absurd, and the deleting admin's comments to that effect are disingenious becuase I just explained to him that I was recently trying to identify the source of a video posted on the web with a logo and Arabic text which I do not read. ←Ben^B4 15:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disingenious. I just don't agree that that entitles us to include this gallery of nonfree images. The same argument could apply to Major League Baseball, National Football League, National Hockey League and Premier League, but those articles don't have galleries of team logos. -- But|seriously|folks 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How often do readers come across videotape of baseball games with logos but no other indication of who's playing that they are able to read or hear? ←Ben^B4 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It probably happens to the insurgents all the time! -- But|seriously|folks 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that the deleting admin has claimed that he would not be opposed to the use of the logos in individual articles about the groups, which I am willing to create, but his out-of-process deletion has made that an impossibility. ←Ben^B4 16:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more than willing to undelete the logos to be used in individual articles about the groups, as long as we have an understanding that they are not to be used in a gallery in the insurgency article. -- But|seriously|folks 16:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse speedy deletion - Per NFCC non-compliance, images uploaded after 2006-07-12 and used in no article may be deleted 48 hours after notification to the uploading editor that the image does not comply with the NFCC policy. WP:NFC has a similar procedure. The image was deleted 48 1/2 hours after notification. Although there is a 7-day exception where fair use is claimed, the added statement "To be used for identification and/or critical commentary in articles such as, but not limited to, Iraqi insurgency, Mujahideen, Islamic Army in Iraq, etc." appears to be insufficient as a fair use claim so that the 7-day exception does not seem to apply. The speedy delete after 48-hours notice appears justified. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 16:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The images were used in an article, even if they were the subject of an edit war, just today. And why is my fair use claim insufficient? ←Ben^B4 18:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion, images were in clear violation of WP:NFCC. And you're not helping your case by appealing to the fallacy of copyright paranoia. The reason we avoid nonfree images is because we're a free encyclopedia, not because we're scared of getting sued. —Angr 22:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn "fair use was claimed" if it is insufficient as a claim, that's for IfD. DGG (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The images were orphaned, and, even when used, were a clear violation of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use. Their use would be valid in articles about the specific groups (see one logo that was preserved in Al Qaeda in Iraq) but not in a gallery of non-free logos. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Ironton Tanks – Copyvio deletion overturned, after copyvio text (only a small part of the article) was removed. – Xoloz 00:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

I am interested in your reasoning behind deleting my page on the Ironton tanks. You first deleted the page as being insignificant. This is a team which has great historical significance in the heartland of pro-football befoer the NFL. The team beat NFL teams over and over and can easily be called the best team to not convert from Ohio football to the NFL. The hall of fame is in Canton, a team they played many times. Then you state it reads like a copyright violation. This page is solely my camera work with only the words from the historical marker, a referenced (maybe not properly) piece on the coach who beat the bears and giants, and another referenced piece on the best player Glen Presnell. You also state it is not an article. I read the help file, looked at many expamples including you pages. It seems to fit any definition of article on the wiki help page or examples thereof. Can you explain your objections and how to fix them? Thanks BMcC333

I sent this to the admin responsible for deletion as an email, after posting it on his talk page. The Ironton Tanks are one of the most legendary teams in football history and this is my 1st attempt at an article. I am happy to take any criticism to improve the page, but there is no doubt they deserve entry in any encyclopedia or reference work. Thanks for your help. BMcC333 14:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Comment Hi BMcC333. Where did you get all that information for the article? -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 15:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Reading like a copyvio (which I agree with) does not make it copyvio, so overturn. The article text probably is more due to the creator being a new user rather than a copyvio. There is enough reliable source material to create a Wikipedia article on the topic, so do not list at AfD. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I can't see the original versions of the articles, I can't tell what their content looked like, but the second deletion was due to the fact that the article "looked like" a copyvio. There are a number of Google hits which indicate that the Ironton Tanks are notable, so I will !vote neutral, but allow creation. Corvus cornix 16:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, however the text taken from the 2002 historic marker (and probably from this page) must be deleted. I believe the image is also a copyright violation due to the included text. -- But|seriously|folks 17:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't respond to wikipedia emails, and if the article it's at least part copyvio, it should keep deleted but allow recreation, please see many of wikipedia guidelines for writing an good article, subsections that say greatest team ever are a no-no and makes any admin thinks copyvio instantly. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the advice. I did type the words from the sign off my picture, not the ohio link provided. Is there a way to show this picture with a reference to them? The 2nd point is about my catch line "the greatest team that ever was" and that it is their real claim to fame over all the other good ohio semi-pro teams that did not make the NFL. If you look at the Lions NFL page, they bascially claim beating the Tanks in 1929 is what sent them on their way to the NFL. A book on the tanks also makes this claim in the title "When the Tanks were Tops" but I did not want to steal his words. Does this vote mean the original will be put back? I did not save a version in notepad as suggested. Would it help to reference either of these sites to back up this claim, or is there no room for a team slogan in wiki? If admins don't respond to emails, why is that a suggested method? It was not easy to figure out how to paste to the talk page. Best regards. -- BMcC333 (talk · contribs · logs) 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaranda, I'm much less experienced than you here, but I do think admins have the obligation to respond to good faith emails about wikipedia. DGG (talk) 22:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't check my email in about a week as well, I read it yesterday as it gave a clear reason in the email topic (most of the emails from wikipedia I get are vandalism, and I also gotten viruses from it, so I don't really check them because of that). Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the advice. As I did not save a copy which will reload, can it be restored? It seems overturn has won the debate here. I am glad everyone agrees they are significant, and this is an article, so the issues of the sign and catch line are things I would like to satisfy everyone on, even of the page is restored as it was. My comment on the sign issue is that they did not invent that data, nor reference it. I am sure they would argue it was common knowledge, at least in Ohio. The sign picture tells that the town has invested recently (2003) in preserving the tank legend. I could easily rewrite it and reference one of the tanks books or just reference the Ohio historical page where they print the text. I also think my version of the book title when the tanks were tops makes the article more lively. Perhaps a question mark would make the statement "The best there ever was" ? not appear that I am trying to sneak an unsupported claim into an encyclopedia. (BMcC333)

Ok, I think we can put this case to bed. I referenced every detail in the article and went and hunted down references for things I knew as common knowledge. I references the Ohio Historical society for the sign, the same as the public TV station in the link above. I changed the best there ever was to a question instead of a declarative statement. Please message me with any suggestions or criticisms if my newbie status let me down again. I think the article is much improved due to the initial criticism. Best regards to all! (BMcC333 8/24/07) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ironton_Tanks

Restore as requested. It was a misjudgment to deem this non-notable.

Jaranda, why did you mark the page in need of wikify? I moved the historical markers to the picture gallery and kept the word History as a subject title. Shouldn't these type decisions be talked about on the page's talk page? I did just ask to be contacted with any criticisms. When discussing a 75 year old defunt team, everything is "history" and this type of redundancy does not make any sense to me. This paragraph specifically deals with the legitimate claim that the tanks were the best team that did not become an NFL team. There really is not even a close second. Labeling it "History" confuses the specific topic being addressed. It is now well referenced and was only labeled as a question for debate, not an absolute fact. What other non NFL team ever beat the bears and the giants in their history, much less the same year??

I am concerend about any non-standard wiki format, but the only format violation I can see from the help pages is the lack of bold letters to the 1st line, which I corrected. How many pictured to include seems arbitrary and can be debated. Given that I probably took 50 or more. I tried to include unique views, and fits one of the inclusionists favorite phrases, this isn't made of paper.

Abberley2 21:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Camp Washington Chili – Speedy overturn; clearly claims importance. – Mango juice^talk 05:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

This article was deleted without any notification to me, the creator. I provided a reference by form of the Cincinnati Enquirer, but am prepared to also use other references from books to add further credence. The parlor is mentioned in How We Talk: American Regional English Today by Allan A. Metcalf published by Houghton Mifflin, in The Taste of American Place: A Reader on Regional and Ethnic Foods by Barbara Shortridge, published by Rowman & Littlefield, in Best Food in Town: The Restaurant Lover's Guide to Comfort Food in the Midwest by Dawn Simonds published by Emmis Books. More can be provided if necessary. (Mind meal 04:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC))[reply]

overturn article asserted importance so A7 didn't apply --W.marsh 04:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - They won an "American Regional Classic" award, so A7 didn't apply. As for using references, the more you use in the article once it is restored, the more likely the article will stay on Wikipedia. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 05:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the article appeared to be about a single restaurant, which is obviously normally non-notable. Having seen the refs above, particularly the non-food one, I'm happy to restore pending those refs being added. Jimfbleak 05:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

John Bambenek – deletion speedily endorsed, as no new data offered and this is attracting BLP inappropriate edits – GRBerry 04:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

John Bambenek (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD|AFD2|DRV1|AFD3|DRV2|DRV3|DRV4|DRV5|AFD4)

Subject has been dubbed one of the worlds must trusted information security researchers (http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/25279/info), has been given awards by the DailyKos (http://www.dailykos.com), Eschaton (http://atrios.blogspot.com), and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute (http://www.isi.org). He is on the board of several prominent political action committees, is a known political figure, and routinely gives invited talks on information security and other academic issues. He's published widely online and in print. Just Anoter Fanboy 04:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Deletion, Salt every iteration of John Bambenek, Ban User, Censor all content. John Bambenek is a (BLP refactored attacks out), the only thing notable is his persistence in this vain attempt to get an article in wikipedia. -- Prairie biker 04:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Deletion. This Log Cabin Republican is non-notable... doesn't merit a wiki entry. I cite WP:BAMBI username BLP refactored 04:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, somehow, among the three non-blog links provided, none goes to a page mentioning Bambanek. Why I am I not surprised? I see nothing to change the prior discussions, most significantly AFD3 and DRV2. GRBerry 04:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.