Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 9

:{{lc|Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Category:Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada}} cache]|CFD)

I don't think enough debate was given to this topic. I can't accept the organizational reason. Articles can be in many categories. It's far more apporpiate than a list. Reopen CfD discussion. GreenJoe 14:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• No objection to relisting Endorse deletion as closer - The nomination had been open for 12 days and was uncontested, so the only procedural issue is the limited amount of participation, which is a fair objection. However, in this case, I felt that a lack of participation was an indication of implied consent, for the reason that while articles can be in many categories, they should only be in categories that are defining for the subject (see Wikipedia:Categorization). I saw no fault with the rationale that "institutions by accrediting organisation"-type categories are overcategorisation on the basis of a non-defining characteristic (a comparison could also be drawn to WP:OCAT#Award recipients), and so felt that it was not necessary to relist the discussion or to voice a personal objection. I think the argument for relisting would be stronger if an argument was offered that being accredited by the ATS is a defining characteristic of the various institutions categorised (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080309083600&limit=217&target=Black+Falcon here] for a complete list). Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:42, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reopen CfD discussion - I don't have strong feelings about this particular category, but it appears to me that the lack of discussion on the CfD page is evidence that no one with an interest in the category was aware of the CfD discussion. CfD is not a high-traffic area and thus is likely to be overlooked, and there is no evidence that the nominator posted notifications on any user-talk pages. Furthermore, the nominator's reasons for deletion deserve broader discussion. Specifically:
• It is not true that "many universities are accredited by multiple associations"; most have just one source of institutional accreditation, although programs within the university may have programmatic accreditation.
• This is just one of many Wikipedia categories that list the schools accredited by a particular accreditor. For others, see :Category:School accreditors. If there is a desire to eliminate all such categories, they should be discussed as a group, rather than starting with the category for a relatively small and noncontroversial accreditor.
• There is no basis for the nominator's suggestion that the category membership is unstable. (The nom said "I don't know how often they accredit, and it may not be a good idea to store this kind of periodic and changeable information in an article that is not guaranteed of regular updates.") This is a very stable topic: New institutions potentially eligible for accreditation by Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (i.e., graduate schools of theology) don't exactly spring up overnight, and accreditation is generally awarded (and renewed) for a term of 5 years.

:--Orlady (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::*You articulated it better than I could. I'm also worried about the precedent this could set, and yes, those who care about this issue didn't know it was on CFD. GreenJoe 18:53, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• reopen/relist per Orlady- I edit conflicted with Orlady given somewhat similar rationales but Orlady's description above is more thorough and well-written than mine. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: If the CFD discussion is reopened, something to which I don't object too much, I would ask that the category itself not be restored and repopulated unless the CFD discussion ends with a consensus to recreate. The reason for my request is to avoid unnecessary edits should deletion be subsequently endorsed. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:*Fair enough. The discussion should be informed by information about the category membership, however. There's a [http://www.ats.edu/member_schools/alpha.asp list of accredited institutions] on the association's website, and from skimming your contributions log I estimate that there were somewhat more than 200 articles and categories in the category at the time of deletion. --Orlady (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

::*Yes, 212 articles and 3 categories were affected. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

:*No, that's the reverse of how everything on WP works. The debate should proceed in the usual way, but with the cat left empty, and if, at the end of it, there is no consensus to delete the category it can be re-populated. To insist that consensus must be shown to re-create it requires a double hurdle of succeeding at DRV and a reverse CfD. But certainly, there is no need to re-populate in advance of the CfD being re-run, except to undelete the category page itself, if there was one. Splash - tk 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

::*I miscommunicated my intent. I did not mean to suggest that the CFD should develop a consensus to recreate -- after all, that's the purpose of this DRV. Rather, I meant that the category should not be repopulated prior to the conclusion of the 2nd CFD - if it takes place, that is. I have stricken the part about restoration for clarity. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Reopen/Relist per Orlady, whose arguments are well thought out, articulated, and compelling. Only one participant (other than nom) is hardly consensus to do anything and seems to support the contention that the CfD was below the radar screen for those that would have participated. Therefore, even if there were no compelling arguments to keep, it should be reopened on a procedural basis alone. I agree with not recreating/repopulating the cat unless the reopened CfD is closed with consensus to keep as fair. — Becksguy (talk) 21:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse close CFD is not a vote, and no quorum is required. Dozens of people saw the debate in progress over its 12 days, dozens edited the page and not a single one saw fit to state any reason why the cat ought be retained. Unlike AFD's which are transcluded on the daily page and there is a possibility that someone can see only the single article being debated, CFD's daily debates is for all to see, even if one only arrives at that page through the category tagged with the notice. Overturning this is bad precedent to require a "quorum" in any of these debates as many people don't add a comment when it appears to be unanimously going one direction or another. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• In general, yes, there is no quorum and silence can be taken as consent on CfD. However, oftentimes a deletion nomination only gets noticed when it is eventually acted upon, and suddenly 200-odd articles make watchlists go ping. In such a situation, when someone does eventually present a well-argued case for re-consideration, I think it is incumbent to re-run the debate with the newly-aware people now ready to join in. Keeping it deleted only because no-one noticed, when someone has now noticed, does not go the way of setting a quorum precedent. Splash - tk 17:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Reopen/Relist ATS accredidation is reconginzed by CHEA and Department of Education as a legitimate accrediting agency. Though this category might seem trival, any accredidiation takes time for the school to be recognized, and last a significant amount of time (ie 5-10+ yrs). Accrediting bodies recognized by CHEA and DoE should be evidence enough for these kind of categories to remain. I second GreenJoe on what kind of precident this might make. Normal users don't check CFD logs, as I am a case. I only knew about the CFD once the deletion happened on one of my watchlists. — PikePlace (talk) 04:01, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Relist since it seems there's additional information to be provided in the discussion.DGG (talk) 00:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|Dante's Cove images}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Dante's Cove images}} cache]|AfD)

Overturn - no consensus for deletion, comments were 2-2 and the licensing tag for DVD cover images specifically states that DVD cover images are allowable to illustrate the DVDs in question, which these images were doing. Otto4711 (talk) 03:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment -- The images described were deleted as a result of the discussion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_February_29#Dante.27s_Cove_DVD_covers. John254 03:45, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion -- Template:Non-free DVD cover is neither a policy nor a guideline. Pursuant to Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images, "cover art" may be used "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." As there was clearly no "critical commentary" associated with [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dante%27s_Cove&oldid=196927222#DVD_releases the usage of these images] in Dante's Cove, the deletion was proper. John254 03:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Their sole use was in a gallery, which fails WP:NFCC#8. The close was proper. ➪HiDrNick! 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, decorative unfree image use, no thanks. Guy (Help!) 17:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• endorse per John, Guy. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per John254. Cowardly Lion (talk) 13:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

: (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Image:High Resolution Solar Spectrum.jpg}} cache]|AfD)

It's always a sad day for Wikipedia when a featured picture is deleted. This particular image was featured pursuant to Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/High Resolution Solar Spectrum, deleted as it was copied to the Wikimedia Commons, then [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Image:High_Resolution_Solar_Spectrum.jpg deleted there], as the [http://www.noao.edu/image_gallery/copyright.html conditions under which it was licensed] preclude commercial use, while permitting non-commercial use, such as on websites operated by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Our own policies prohibit the uploading of images with non-commercial only licenses after May 19, 2005, and permit the speedy deletion of non-commercial images uploaded after this date pursuant to CSD I3. However, this particular image was clearly uploaded before May 19, 2005, and can thus be retained under a non-commercial only license -- see, for example, the use of this image in [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sun&oldid=13913133#Magnetic_field the May 17, 2005 revision] of Sun. John254 03:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• So at some point it was moved to commons and then deleted from here? and now deleted from commons for incompatible license? So we should now restore it here? (I assume that is the situation). Not sure what the speedy crtieria has to do with this. It's a speedy criteria, it in itself governs speedy deletion, it doesn't create an inalienable right regarding images. The intent of the criteria is clear, non-commercial only shouldn't be here except within the came bounds as other non-free content, the date was to prevent mass deletions occurring under the speedy criteria. I guess the questions I'd have are (1) Was it in use on any articles here when removed from commons, then we'd probably delete it as non-free and orphaned. (2) Featured pictures are always free, so this suggests the image was tagged incorrectly when here, so it would lose it's featured picture status anyway? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• :The image was used in Spectroscopy at the time of its deletion from the commons (see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spectroscopy&diff=154983246&oldid=154848495]), and thus would not have been deleted as orphaned had it remained on Wikipedia. While CSD I3 does not completely define our policies with regard to non-commercial only images, it is representative of our policy that the uploading of non-commercial images was permissible prior to May 19, 2005, and that such images uploaded preceding this date are exempted from the blanket prohibition on non-commercial only licensed material. However, it is conceded that the licensing of this image may be incompatible with featured status. John254 12:55, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• ::Fair enough, since it was in use I'd tend to adopt an approach with these that it would be down to someone to find a replacement before deletion. The basic principle of the "free" encyclopedia stands, so finding such a replacement is of course desirable to meet the deadline. I do hope at sometime we put a time limit on these images for replacement or deletion, but we've a hell of a lot more pressing image issues before we get to that. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 14:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn per nom. GreenJoe 14:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted The image has a non-commercial license, and by current policies, we do not want to use such images on Wikipedia. One requirement for featured images is for them to be free - so this one was improperly tagged. That a version of it was already uploaded before May 17, 2005 is splitting hairs to me - it is non-free, and so should only be used under fair-use. --Minimaki (talk) 12:55, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as contrary to the purpose and aims of the project. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and if it really bothers people that much, tag it w/ fair use -- Naerii · plz create stuff 11:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

:{{la|Mike Matas}} (restore|[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:Mike Matas}} cache]|AfD)

Rewritten and cleaned up article, with OT removed and added special notability section. I.e. not substantially the same which was the reason for the re-deletion. Henriok (talk) 00:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion. I have reviewed the article history. The content is new and the old AfD vote is no longer applicable. Therefore, the speedy deletion was out of order. — David Remahl (talk) 00:40, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Okay, so. The AfD was not a delete, it was a redirect. This rules out deletion as G4, since the previous actual deletion was in fact a PROD which is not subject to G4 and where recreation constitutes contest. I'm therefore going to directly restore the article, and leave it to other processes to determine its eventual fate. Splash - tk 13:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)