WP:Deletion review/Log/2010 January 6

:{{DRV links|Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher|article=}}

This page has been speedy deleted but it was completely new, with new secondary and primary sources, and a new title. Everything was different. It has been improved on the french Wikipedia, and kept, and this is the translation. I am not sure it has been read. I haven't been notified. And the admin Jayig (talk ) doesn't answer to my questions. Thank you Raymondnivet (talk) 21:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:For information :

: Hello and Happy new Year Hell in a Bucket,...

:... Eva Rhodes & Ophélie Bretnacher have been kept after 17 days of discussion I am very happy with the way the French Wikipedians have improved the page

: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oph%C3%A9lie_Bretnacher

: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eva_Rhodes

:: Congratulations Raymond, the article looks real good. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

::: Well now that the article has survived a deletion review on the French Wikipedia I don't think there should be aq problem adding it here. I can't speak french or I would offer my services. You might try rewriting the article in English and asking a editor to make sure that the spelling and context should be in English but I think it has a doubled chance of surviving here. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::::Hello Jayjg, You deleted the page too fast. I didn't have the time to answer. it was the translation of the new french page, which has been kept, after the discussion. Maybe you will have the time too read this new page, which is an important european problem http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oph%C3%A9lie_Bretnacher It has been improved by the french wikipedians. Maybe it can alsobe improved by english wikipedians.:-Raymondnivet (talk) 14:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::You were the closing admin for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ophélie Bretnacher. The author consulted me here and I told him if he wanted it back he would have to go to DRV. Instead, it has come back as Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance, essentially the same but avoiding BIO1E by retitling. I think, despite the attempt to show political significance, it still fails WP:N/CA, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTMEMORIAL, WP:109PAPERS... Question: do you consider this is a repost per WP:CSD#G4, or does the retitling save it so that it needs another AfD? JohnCD (talk) 22:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I've deleted it again, since it was just a re-creation of the original article. If he wants to have the article on en-wiki, he'll have to take it to WP:DRV. Jayjg (talk) 01:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

::::::: Hello Jayjg and Happy new Year, You delated a new page on Ophélie Bretnacher. It was completely different, improved by the french wikipedians, and kept after the discussion. Not the same text, primary and secondary sources... You didn't read it ?...-Raymondnivet (talk) 07:26, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::::It is not a recreation. Everything inside is different. The french Wikipedians changed the sources, The National Assembly for exemple in references, added secondary sources, . Nobody can read and understand french here ? Nobody has looked at the references ? It's terrible. --Raymondnivet (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Maybe, that (in english) can help : http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23663033-miliband-failed-to-help-hunt-for-model-feared-murdered-abroad.do --Raymondnivet (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:Jayjg has delated 2 pages with speedy deletion january 5 th and 1 page january 6 th. I ca'nt find the new Ophélie Bretnacher disappearance !!! So it's there http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Raymondnivet/Oph%C3%A9lie_Bretnacher_disappearance --Raymondnivet (talk) 08:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:: Isupport a recreation. If nec. I will help, but this article ahas survived a french deletion discussion. I Strongly suggest you ifind a editor here that speaks french. I argued for deletion on the first, definitly not baised. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 01:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD. Without gauging the article's merits myself, it looks like a new AfD discussion would be a good idea, especially if the content is substantially different as it claimed (can an admin confirm that?). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and AfD at editorial discretion. A substantial portion of the original AfD concerns WP:BIO1E, which no longer applies. I do not think it is clear-cut enough for a speedy. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:22, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and send to AFD; sufficiently different to previous version. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. The article has been retitled so that WP:BIO1E is no longer an issue, and it has been rewritten, but it is basically the same, and the considerations of WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL at the original AfD still apply: this is a tragic case but not encyclopedically notable, and adding additional references does not help that. French Wikipedia has its own standards, and inclusion there is not a strong argument for retention here. JohnCD (talk) 12:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

: It's not NEWS, it's an encyclopedic case. It is a criminal and diplomatic case, which has now lasted 1 year and 1 month. And the Eva Rhodes case has lasted 7 years. It's not MEMORIAL, it only have the name of the student, and it affects the judicial creation of the new EU. --Raymondnivet (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn The plac eto discuss the merits will be AfD, but I will just say that I give considerable weight to the judgment of the frWP, which in general is much less inclusive on the coverage of sensational or tabloid - style topics than we are. Their decision is at any case a reason to relist, DGG ( talk ) 16:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't agree that decisions on the French Wikipedia are in any way relevant to us. Certainly, a decision to "keep" or "delete" on fr.wiki does not have precedential force here; it can, at most, be indicative. What matters here is not the text of the French article, nor fr.wiki's view on whether it should be kept, but the basic question of whether there are sufficient sources to meet en.wiki's minimum standards for an article.

  Despite JohnCD's view as expressed above, and with all due respect for JohnCD's editorial judgment, I think the number and quality of reliable sources is of absolutely central importance to our decision. The idea that additional references "does not help" to establish notability does not withstand scrutiny at all.

  Examining the sources, then, I see that even non-French speakers will be able to read the quality British newspapers such as the London Evening Standard and the Guardian, which are linked from the French article. I submit that these sources are highly reliable and establish that under en.wiki's rules, we should have an article with this title.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::My point, expressed in more detail in the essays WP:109PAPERS and WP:Bombardment, is that a sensational event like a crime may get a lot of press coverage without being encyclopedically notable, and that when that is the case simply adding more and more references does not help. We are evidently going to get to discuss this again in a new AfD. JohnCD (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::: It is not WP:109PAPERS and WP:Bombardment. All the sources are different and have an utility. They never say the same thing. They all bring something different again in this complex criminal, diplomatic and also historic case. I am not defending my work, but the french wikipedian communauty's work. They added the sources, especially summary and secondary sources. --Raymondnivet (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::I do not agree with the essays that you cite, JohnCD, and I am disregarding them with all due forethought.

The general notability guideline has all sorts of problems, but it does have one clear redeeming benefit: if we apply the GNG consistently, then any editor may judge for themselves whether or not the GNG is passed and therefore whether or not an article is permitted. If we do not apply it consistently, then content contributors risk seeing their hard work deleted at random based on whether it's mainly inclusionists or mainly deletionists who happen to show up at the AfD. In other words, strict adherence to the GNG is what enables editors to write good faith content without going through a committee process first. I think that until we have a decent, objective alternative to the GNG, any essay that seeks to undermine it is not just wrong, but actually damaging to the project.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:::Well, I will fall back from essays to WP:NOTNEWS, part of the policy WP:NOT, which is what they are expanding on: "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion... routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Indeed WP:N itself says in the GNG paragraph:

:::

"Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a standalone article. For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not. (my emphasis)

:::So I don't think those essays are seeking to undermine the GNG: they are seeking to clarify one of the WP:NOT exceptions envisaged in that paragraph of it. If we rely solely on number of reliable sources, we might as well merge Wikipedia with Wikinews: every murder, every celebrity affair or squabble, every footballer's girl-friend's new hair-do, every well-organised PR stunt will qualify if someone is willing to dig around for enough sources.

:::JohnCD (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:::: In this particular case, there are also secondary sources, summarizing the case in its extension in time. This is not an incident, it is a logical succession of events, constructing a case.--Raymondnivet (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

::::??? "For example, such an article may violate what Wikipedia is not" I don't understand what you mean JohnCD. Can you explain that, with an exemple, in this article ??? --Raymondnivet (talk) 22:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

:::::We shall get to discuss this all again at a new AfD, let's wait till then. JohnCD (talk) 13:52, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

:::The points you raise, JohnCD, have merit and would be worth discussion at an AfD. My position is that an AfD is what's needed, though. We're considering a speedy deletion, and WP:NOT is not a speedy criterion, so I'm afraid I don't see it as relevant to this DRV.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 01:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

::::It was a speedy deletion WP:CSD#G4, repost of material deleted at AfD, and the point at issue here was whether the rewrite had addressed the issues from the first AfD, where WP:NOT was relevant and was cited. But we are clearly going to re-hash it all over again at another AfD, so let's not continue the discussion here. JohnCD (talk) 13:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist. The speedy deletion was sufficiently different to the original that WP:CSD#G4 was not applicable. Thryduulf (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. The article was originally deleted primarily because of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL; that is, the topic itself was not considered notable. These are not issues that can be easily addressed by an article name change, rewordings, or different sources. Also, AfD decisions at the French Wikipedia are not relevant here. I have no opinion on whether or not the article in its current form should exist, but I was quite certain that it should go through DRV before any restoration, particularly so soon after the original AfD. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|File:Liberalhtv.jpg|xfd_page=|article=How-to-vote card}}

Entirely reasonable fair use, on the article How-to-vote card, to show what one of the beasts actually looks like. Transformative use, and no possibility of commercial damage to the Australian Liberal party. So satisfies NFCC#2 and NFCC#8: showing this would indeed enhance reader understanding. It would also add to understanding at Australian_electoral_system#The_House_of_Representatives, which discusses how the parties use these how-to-vote cards to achieve a very low rate of ballot papers being ruled inadmissible by being wrongly filled in.

Despite my putting this arguments in a speedy-disputed tag, User:Fastily went ahead and speedily deleted it without any acknowledgement to me or thought to list it at FFD, and when asked to reconsider on his talk page did not respond beyond a cursory "Somehow, I get the feeling that Wikipedia doesn't have a license for this kind of media". Jheald (talk) 13:20, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn speedy and immediately send to FfD for a proper debate on the issue. It's unclear whether this is an acceptable image but it's a sufficiently unusual case that it should be properly debated; I can see both sides of the argument here - it is superficially replaceable (with text) but that point can only be compelling proven by thrashing out, if possible, some adequate words. CIreland (talk) 13:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• I originally tagged this image as possibly violating fair use policy and the image was correctly deleted at that stage. However, it would be helpful to list at FFD to obtain a proper consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn Vague feelings are not a proper basis for speedy deletion. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn, send to FFD. I don't see this image as meeting the requirements of F7; even though there appears to be a reasonable case against the fair use claim, the rationales for use aren't "clearly invalid" (especially since mutiple claims for multiple articles are involved). The NFCC issues are substantial enough to cal for community discussion/resolution rather than by the speedy deletion process. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion and list at FfD. Speedy deletion is reserved for only the most obvious cases; if there is dispute now about whether this should've been F7'd or not, then I think it's fairly certain that a discussion should have occurred prior to deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn. Strong fair use claim, should never have been speedied. Rebecca (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at FfD. Not speediable. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn This shouldn't have been speedy deleted. Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|File:Ducktastic.jpg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 30|article=Ducktastic}}

image was inappropriately deleted. this was/is the POSTER for that appeared all over GB, and everywhere else the show was performed, and its inclusion in the article on Ducktastic is permitted under wp fair use guidelines. depiction of the individuals is only incidental and not relevant. comments in the original FfD all incorrectly reference 'articles on other performers' (user:ESkog), 'that it is replaceable', that it is 'decorative' (user:Peripitus), and 'inappropriate' without addressing the fact that posters, window cards, etc. are permitted in the same manner that the posters :File:Edward & Mrs. Simpson.jpg, :File:TheMcMartinTrial.jpg, and the thousands of others are used in their accompanying article. emerson7 12:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

• Overturn per nom -- poster for a show, used in the infobox about the show. Original deletion discussion related to use in the article The Right Size on the performers (which would indeed have been replaceable). But the proposed use now, on Ducktastic, is not about the performers, it is about the specific show. That said, the article is very short; the case for the image would be a lot stronger if the present stub was a lot more substantial. Jheald (talk) 13:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn, but not quite per nom. The original deletion, when the nonfree image was used as a general illustration in a BLP, was correct. However, the image was reuploaded for use in a different article with a clearly legitimate claim for NFCC use. Therefore, G4 deletion was inappropriate, since "the reason for the deletion no longer applies." Since the image is being used primarily for identification of a notable subject (Olivier award nominee), I don't see any other NFCC issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• :comment: actually, the image was originally deleted from a section where it was being used as illustration to describe the show. it was never intended for use as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Right_Size&diff=next&oldid=251289430 identification] of its stars, The Right Size. --emerson7 17:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• ::Whatever might have been intended, it was the primary/sole illustration in a BLP without any significant text relating to the particular show, and therefore would still fail NFCC requirements. Just as a screenshot of an actor's TV role would fail NFCC in a bio article when the role was only included in a list of credits without any substantive discussion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• :::i wholly disagree with your assessment and your interpretation of 'significant' and substantive discussion, as the show is about two dudes and a duck--a parody of sigfried and roy. not a helluva lot else to be said there. at any rate, the point is moot since it is not the topic of this review --emerson7 23:32, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
• If it is used to identify the show Ducktastic, then it may be OK to have it back, but if it shows up on Hamish McColl or Sean Foley or the theatre company The Right Size it played in, then the problem is back again. The article should talk about what is in that poster. However I am doubtful that the poster achieves what s described in the fair use rationale. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy deletion and list at FfD. As Hullaballoo Wolfowitz wrote above, the reason for deletion at the original FfD no longer applies in the same way. As such, it is wholly proper to have a new discussion. Speedy deletion is reserved for the most obvious cases, and this file is not in that category. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:33, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
• Overturn and FfD at editorial discretion. Not a G4. The rationale in the old FfD does not apply here. If the file is used in another article inappropriately, the solution is to remove the image from that article, not to delete the image. Timotheus Canens (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)