Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 1: Difference between revisions

1 February 2007

Image:Emory University Seal.gif

File:Emory University Seal.gif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|IfD)

Was speedy deleted despite a valid fair use claim or any chance to argue against deletion. Was still being used in an article at the time and is under discussion at the Emory University talk page. Nrbelex ^(talk) 06:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• • It only had {{univ-logo}}. A specific detailed fair use claim for every location of use is also required, and none was present. Can you write one for each intended use? GRBerry 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
    • How's this:

      The use of a low resolution version of this logo constitutes fair use in the Wikipedia article Emory University because:

      • No free equivalent will ever be available or could be created that would adequately give the same information.
      • The low resolution nature of the image prevents reuse which could infringe on the commercial benefit of the copyright owner;
      • The image and the institution it represents are critically discussed by the article;
      • The image used for educational and informational purposes by Wikimedia Foundation, a non-profit organization.

      I'm having trouble finding another university article that has any rationale for their logo's use beyond that tag but... anyway... how's that? Nrbelex ^(talk) 20:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thread moved from where it was incorrectly placed in the content review section. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Looking at the source page, this is not even the University's current logo. "The University crest is used only for special commemorative applications and no longer represents the University in any official capacity." As such, fair use as a logo is not available. Presumably something from this ZIP file of logos should be used instead, as per directions here. GRBerry 23:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Consensus and argument on Talk:Emory University appears to be against using this image in the article, and if we can't use it, then being fair use it can't be uploaded. To be clear, my reason for endorsing deletion is the fact that there is no current place for the image; if consensus on Talk:Emory University changes in favour of the image, I would reconsider, as a deletion forum shouldn't be inadvertantly used to determine which image is used on a page. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

List of articles related to scientific skepticism

List of articles related to scientific skepticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON The List of articles related to quackery was a stand alone list without any references or organization. It was a long and unfocused list. Now, a new and different "shorter and more focused list" with verifiable references meets every aspect of Wikipedia gudleines. The List of articles related to scientific skepticism as gone through a "massive remodeling". Everything has been categorized, organized, and well written. It was NOT a re-creation of the list of article related to quackery that was a long list with any sentences or references. This was an amended list that has gone through a massive change. I invite you to look at the histroy for the PROOF. Thanks. Overturn deletion as the result of error. This is a clear case od error. New and different articles are allowed to be created. This new list had references and sentecnes and categories. Obviosly is it very different from a long long that had everthing mixed up togther. Additionally, the closing admin asserted if everything was referenced it could be back on mainspace again too. Not only is it referenced, it has sentences and categories that were not there before. And the intro paragraph has updated with a lot more detail for inclusion and focus. This is an easy overturn when you look at the history when it was in mainspace under the list of article related to quackery compared to a different, The list of articles related to scintific skepticism. A massive improvement is a reason for mainspace. Easy overturn for the misunderstanding. Thanks. --QuackGuru 02:50, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I closed this DRV after Nihonjoe reversed his own deletion, making it temporarily moot. Woohookitty then speedy deleted the article again and closed the AfD, so it seems this should be reopened. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:39, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion the reason we moved this to project space had nothing to do with references or content, but with the inherent nature of the article. 1) 'related to' is weasel wording. 2) what relates to 'scepticism' is inherently POV 3) A list wikipedia of articles is a self reference. Unfortunately there does not seem to be a consensus to remove this subjective crap from the project space, but it clearly has no place as an article. Previously 'QuackGuru' wanted us to label these things quackery, now he's got a slightly better sounding title, but he doesn't keep getting to reheat his POV article and resubmit it. This is bordering on disruptive.--Doc^g 13:54, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist. "List of articles related to scientific skepticism" is significantly different from "List of articles related to quackery", regardless of why one of the delete !voters said to delete. It deserves another discussion. -Amark moo! 15:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• 2nd Comment. There was much confusion about the lists. The lists are different. Based upon false information editors voted on false information. The lists were in fact different. The article can be reopened and if anyone feels the article does not deserve articlespace they can simply nominate it again for deletion. The deletion process should be fair and based upon facts. Confusion sometimes happens. Thanks. --QuackGuru 15:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• Superfluous bolding struck out. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 17:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• I have changed my the superflous bold to 2nd comment. Thanks, --QuackGuru 18:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure why this is important to have in article space, since it's been moved to project space previously. Plus, it totally fails the self-reference test - it's an article about articles on Wikipedia. Why would this be necessary? Endorse deletion from article space; it's probably fine in project space, but might be better off as a category in the long run. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:15, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• 3rd comment. The discussion here is about an error in the deletion process, not if the article should or should not be in articlespace. If an editor feels it does not belong in articlespace then that editor can easily nominate it for deletion and let the process continue based on the facts and not a misunderstanding that it was largely the same article. Thank you. --QuackGuru 18:04, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. I think lists of other articles are useful. Here are just four that I find useful: List of chess topics, List of chess players, List of chess world championship matches, List of famous chess games. And there are several others. Just look at the number of edits I have made to List of chess topics, as an indication of how useful I think it is. Bubba73 (talk), 18:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Whether something is a chess topic or not is a binary yes/no, it isn't inherently POV, and it doesn't need weasel words like 'related to'.--Doc^g 18:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think a big issue with this version of the article and all prior machinations is that it treats scientific skepticism as a belief rather than a methodology of believing. Perhaps this is where QuackGuru is getting tripped up. By incorrectly holding scientific skepticism as a belief, he/she thinks there must be a group who subscribes to this belief known as "Scientific Skeptics". Thus, whatever this group deems to be quackery or pseudoscience or just plain bunk is thought to be "related to" scientific skepticism. Aside from this being highly POV, unencyclopaedic and perjorative in nature, it makes a false assumption that scientific skepticism can be reduced to "what" someone believes rather than the method by which someone arrives at their beliefs. Scientific skepticism is merely a way of thinking... about anything. If you think with scientific skepticism, then you approach everything with the need to have it explained rationally by the scientific method. It is the opposite of accepting something on faith (without scientific evidence). Therefore, there is nothing in the universe that can be more or less related to scientific skepticism; after all everything can be equally analyzed by the methodology of scientific skepicism ... an apple, a quasar, a theory, a thought, etc. "Is the apple real?" "Prove it." "Is the theory sound?" "Prove it." The list of articles related to scientific skepticism truly would be as long as n (where n represents the amount of articles in Wikipedia). In essence, this list is of no practical importance. Levine2112 01:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment. At the risk of repeating myself, this discussion here has nothing to do with if the article is bad or good. This is about the deletion process was unfair because of a misunderstanding. People voted base on a misconception it was largely the same article. There is clear evidence the deletion process was against policy. People voted bease upon false information. Read the comments at the deletion discussion and it is pretty evident voters were confused. The lists were different. Also, if Levine does not like the title that can be changed and moved in a minute. Note: Many articles on Wiki have been through and are under dispute involving controversial subject matter. These types of articles, in the beginning, will have there fair share of >>> growing up to do. This is expected and is natural process. Cheers. --QuackGuru 02:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

It's more than a title change. Please reread what I wrote. I can tell you that when I voted to delete, it wasn't just because I thought the article was a re-run of something we voted out of article space previously. It was mainly for the reasons which I articulate above. I don't think that your article will ever make the cut in article space. Any limitation on what is included in the list is clear-cut POV. I'm sorry. Levine2112 02:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please >>> read the reasons given by Levine and others to delete. Thanks. --QuackGuru 02:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion - See nothing wrong with the procedures taken as Speedy Delete POV and largely the same article. The article was basically the same as the previous article only the author copied all the refs from the listed articles and called it improved. So basically a Speedy Delete for Speedy_delete#General_criteria number 4 was appropriate: Recreation of deleted material. A copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted via Articles for deletion or another XfD process, provided that the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any revisions made clearly do not address the reasons for which the page was deleted. Cutting and pasting 368 refs from articles does not constitute substantially altering the first article. Somebody would have had to do a lot of reading to do that much research. --Dematt 02:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The comments made by Dematt is exactly my point. The articles are different. Catagorization, title change, lead intro changed, references, etc. is the reason to restore back to articlespace. Please look at the history for the proof. Also, take a look at what I found. Another list of articles that is still in mainspace, as a matter-of-fact, has had difficulting in the >>> beginning! --QuackGuru 03:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse delete. There is no misunderstanding except maybe for QG. Many editors are probably tired of the onslaught of POV and this spamlink farm AGAIN. This present "article's" improvements restored some of the items specifically removed before even the *original* delistings. Changes of window dressing, cross dressing arguments, just don't solve the original problems. We have had multiple AfDs, including the surviving project space version that *actually lost on the "delete" count*, too. Relentless campaigning w/o underlying merit for duplicative, pejorative material and contextual derogation by groups that claim to represent some great scientific majority. Looking at histories, a this is another of spam farming that has been repeatedly noted by a number of editors since, at least last summer, about certain POV interests and attack sites. A big, steaming POV pile with some odorous rejects rewelded on is still a big malodorous POV pile that once again attempts to hijack the term "scientific" for partisan views into Article space, again.--I'clast 07:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability and the facts speak for themselves. According to the MFD votes there was no consensus to delete and therefore a keep. The votes were split down the middle at 14 keep versus 14 delete. [10][11] According to some editors they do not like the list because they think the subject matter of scientific skepticism is POV. We should not let the influence of a few non-beleivers get in the way of progress of building an encyclopedia. Any concerns what is on the list can be addressed on the talk page. Read the comments by those who want to delete and it is clear what they are about! Scientific skepticism is a notable subject. A list of articles of interest is a great navigational tool for readers. Scientific skepticism is not POV. Readers deserve the ability to have a list available to them. There are many lists on Wikipedia. Reference lists are exactly what Wikpedia is about. A misunderstanding created by a few people -- I believe should be overturned and reversed. Misleading voters is not wikilike. Wikipedia is about representation of all significant viewpoints. A resource list about scientific skepticism is as encyclopedic as a List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts is. --QuackGuru 13:15, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion, no evident problem with process here and reasons for deletion are sound. This may be reasonable somewhere in project space but is too vulnerable to problems to make it acceptable in mainspace, which is why it's been deleted. If there is agreement on the Science WIkiproject that it could live over there, then we can undelete it to that location, but it should not be linked directly from articles. Guy (Help!) 13:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Most of the editors who have voted endorse delete here are the same edtiors who have voted delete to the list before. I urge the closing admin. to look at the facts that the lists where in fact different and there is evidence that speedy delete was falsly used to portray the list as the same list and that a few editors used false and misinformation to confuse uninformed voters. This says more about the voters than the list. I would like to know if the voter Guy even has seen the new and improved list that was in articlespace. It is deleted now so how could he have seen it. Most of the voters of voted endorse deletion here including Guy voted to delete the list from the WikiProject.[12][13][14][15]
• Sustain deletion. I'm the deleting admin. Literally the only keep vote in the AfD was from the nominator of this deletion review. That was it. The vote was 14 for deletion and 1 for keep. Also, a good chunk of the deletes (the majority) were either strong delete or speedy delete. That's a pretty strong consensus. And letting the vote continue would not have led to a different result. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment The majority of the voters voted delete based on misinformation it was the same article. It does not matter if 100 to 1 voted for delete. There were given false information it was a recreation. The article can be listed again for deletion in a fair manner. Voters should vote base on truthful information. The article were different. --QuackGuru 16:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments below are from Dematt.

It is a great reference on project space where it came from. --Dematt 03:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[16] However, when Dematt voted at the MFD at the WikiProject, Dematt stated it was an attack list! A few editors may be showing signs of a conflict of interest or an opposition to scientific skepticism. --QuackGuru 14:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I still agree with both of my comments above. It's an attack article that belongs in project space. --Dematt 17:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Dematt's above comment stated that it belongs in project space. But Dematt voted to "delete" from project space. Clears signs of causing confusing and misrepresenting the facts. Dematt voted to delete from project space. Dematt believed it does not belong in project space.Again, Dematt voted to delete from project space! --QuackGuru 17:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Dematt said I quote, "It is a great reference on project space where it came from. Now Dematt has confirmed her/his true beliefs that she/he thinks it is an attack article. This shows clear signs of a conflict in interest. What is on the list that is an attack. Dematt has not said what. In project space on the talk page Dematt did not help much. If there is anything that is an attack it should aggrassivley be changed in articlespace. Conflicts of interest and misleading voters is a relevant reason to undelete. I have demonstrated for the deletion review to bring fair justice and due process. --QuackGuru 17:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)