Administrator instructions

Skip to: Active discussions | Recent discussions | Archive

Wikipedia editors may find articles, images, or other pages that they believe should be deleted, and raise these concerns in various deletion forums. Administrators determine consensus and examine policy to determine if there is sufficient justification for their removal from Wikipedia.

Wikipedia:Deletion review considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions. This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If a short stub was deleted for lack of content, and you wish to create a useful article on the same subject, you can be bold and do so. It is not necessary to have the original stub undeleted. If, however, the new stub is also deleted, you may list it here for a discussion. If you are proposing that an existing page be reconsidered for deletion, please place the template {{Delrev}} on that page to inform editors who may wish to join the discussion here.

Before posting a deletion review request, please read Wikipedia:Deletion policy.

What is this page for?

Please consider the options below, and then follow instructions to add your request to the main part of the page.

Principal purpose — challenging deletion debates

This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate. This page exists to correct closure errors in the deletion process and speedy deletions, both of which may also involve reviewing content in some cases. Purely procedural errors may be substantive and result in an overturn (such as failing to tag a page for its XfD discussion) or irrelevant (such as closing 1 minute early).

The main purpose of the page is to review the outcome of deletion discussions, as described above. There are some ancillary cases where editors wish to have pages restored. These are also handled in main part of the page — please consider the usual reasons below and state clearly the basis for your request.

Temporary review

Request this if you want to use the content elsewhere (such as in other articles), you suspect the article has been wrongly deleted but are unable to tell without seeing what exactly was deleted, or if the full article history is needed to complete a transwiki properly. Please state whether you would like:

1. The article temporarily restored for all to examine during a review.
2. The article restored to your userspace so you can work on it to attempt to address the problems that led to deletion.
3. The source of the article emailed to you to review 'off-Wiki'.

Only uncontroversial revisions will be restored. Content that is moved back to the encyclopedia without being improved may be subject to speedy deletion, and content held in userspace without evidence of intent to work on it may also be nominated for deletion.

History-only undeletion

Request this to have the history of a deleted article restored behind a new, improved version of the article. The old, deleted revisions will sit harmlessly in the history of the page. 'History-only' undeletions can be performed without needing extended discussion on this page.

Contesting 'proposed deletions'

Request this if the article was dealt with as a 'proposed deletion'. A 'PROD' can be restored by any admin upon reasonable request. Such an article may still be deleted at articles for deletion or under the criteria for speedy deletion.

Administrators restoring deleted articles should also restore the associated talk page if it exists and place {{oldprod}} on it. {{ProdContested}} (shortcut {{subst:PC|articlename}}) is available for notifying the original nominator that the article has been restored.

How do I do all this?

All requests go in the main part of the page below. Please state clearly your reason for requesting undeletion. If you want to review the debate or the cause of deletion, then these ancillary options are not appropriate, and you should request a full review.

Under no circumstances will revisions that are copyright violations, libelous or contain otherwise prohibited content be restored.

Instructions

Before listing a review request, please check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Commenting in a deletion review

In the deletion review discussion, users should opt to:

• Endorse the original closing decision; or
• Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
• List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
• Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear.

Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum.

Closing reviews

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least five days. After five days, an administrator will determine if a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Undeletion policy. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented.

Steps to list a new deletion review

Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page (or otherwise made the decision). There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the admin the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.

Active discussions

27 July 2008

26 July 2008

Destructoid

Destructoid (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

The article has gone through two AfD's, and was deleted a year ago in the second AfD. Since then, the blog's been mentioned on various notable media sources, ranging from minor references to substantial coverage:

• The blog's mascot, Mr. Destrucoid, appeared as a playable character in Capcom's video game Bomberman Live
• G4 (television show, an editor appeared as a commentator) [1]
• Kotaku [2] [3] [4]
• Wired.com [5] [6]
• Joystiq [7] [8] [9]
• Ars Technica [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
• GameStar [17] [18]
• Gamasutra [19]
• La Stampa [20]
• The Jerusalem Post [21]
• The Providence Journal [22]
• Redding Record Searchlight [23]
• The Daily Campus [24]
• The Inquirer [25]
• Miami Herald [26] (may need registration)
• Shack News [27]
• Red Herring (the website) [28].
• Edge (the website) [29]

One of the rationales for the last RfD was concerning Google hits, which is clearly not a problem anymore. While the last few references on the above list may seem minor, the sheer number of references by notable media sources indicates the notability of the subject. Also, having the site mascot appear in a video game by one of the industry's largest companies (Capcom), clearly shows that this isn't your ordinary run-of-the-mill blog. T B C ♣§♠ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 23:45, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Alchemy_business_solutions

Alchemy_business_solutions (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unfair_Deletion KingSenna (talk) 17:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Note: was closed by Jerry with this comment:

  Procedural close; no article by this title has ever existed, no deletion history in MySQL database. Please get the title right and resubmit the request. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

  I've reopened—after looking at the nom's deleted contribs—with the correct page title. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
• Sorta' endorse. Marasmusine should have tagged the page instead of just deleting it, and it should have been deleted under A7 instead of G11, but the page in the end should have been deleted anyways. So a bit of a smack and we're done here, I think. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 02:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Mark_McCafferty

Mark_McCafferty (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Unfair_Deletion KingSenna (talk) 17:11, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion as WP:CSD#G11, blatant avdertising. The article was entirely a bio of a non-notable professional that reads like a paid advert. No encyclopedic content whatsoever. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 17:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Barrapunto

Barrapunto (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

not a CSD Anthony (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Care to elaborate? --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. This was an article about web content that did not indicate why its subject is important or significant. A classic A7(web). Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

25 July 2008

Broad homeland hypothesis

Broad homeland hypothesis (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

I closed this AfD but one of the people who contributed has asked me to list this here for further discussion. He said on my talkpage:

Before requesting a review, I ask you to reconsider the following:

• Six votes in favor of keeping
• Of the ones that voiced their concerns, FIVE (Merzow, Mathsci, DBachmann, PhilKnight aka Addoc and Doug Weller) have a history of escalated clashes with the main contributor of the article (me) involving severe current as well as reluctantly resolved (apparently) content disputes (4X), mediation disputes (2X) and personal attacks (4X).
• Of the ones that voiced their concerns, only TWO are active on archeological articles. Only ONE is aware of the PIE homeland-related literature at issue. My kind explicit and long standing request to this most violent and influential attacker to supply the requested diffs to back up claims of WP:SYNTH and take things from there [30] has been ignored and thus should be seen as rhetoric and personal attack.
• Two voters for keeping qualified the nomination as "content dispute"; additionally one voter for keeping criticized the obvious clash on what would be the "best" theory, and with me this makes four.
• Seven against six is no indisputable headcount consensus for deletion: rough consensus?
• The topic, describing the common linguistic ancestry theory that involves a "broader homeland", has been defined and described extensively in reliable sources. Nobody openly doubted the reliability of names like Lothar Kilian, Häusler and especially Mallory. Thus, there is no lack of sources that define this topic and comply to WP:V.
• Sources have been compiled, not synthesised, within the scope and definition of the topic: the theory of common linguistic ancestry of archeological cultures delimited by the broader homeland according to Lothar Kilian. To contest this, is a matter of content dispute that can best be resolved by expert review and third party "neutral" verification of sources.

I suggest the article is deleted because of a content dispute and personal agony, using wrong arguments that compromise objectivity and fact, and that it should be restored. Any true doubt on the content should be resolved by expert review and constructive discussion on TALK. Thank you. Rokus01 (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Listed for review. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Article has evidently had a lot of fair scrutiny, consensus to delete was reached after very carefuly checking of sources by some of our most competent editors, in whose judgment I have full trust. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion per Future Perfect at Sunrise. I consider several of those who voted for deletion to be Wikipedia's best experts in the field. They have my full trust, also.--Berig (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  I object to the counsil of Berig: he has been involved in personal attacks, stalking and alliances ever since I criticized his use of out of date books and maps that favor antics on a Germanic homeland in Scandinavia by proposing an obsolete deluge theory. His mentioning of "best experts on the field" (archeology) is in contradiction to my statement above and does not specify. Rokus01 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

  Wikipedia is not a court of law, you don't get to object to people. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure (keep deleted). The debate was, in some ways, obscured by a content dispute but underneath that, the core issue raised by those arguing for deletion was never successfully addressed. No reliable, independent sources were ever produced demonstrating that the topic actually exists outside Wikipedia. This decision was well-within responsible admin discretion for closure. Rossami (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

the obvious confusion between topic and title should be addressed. I addressed the validity of the topic, even to the extend that the theory was notably qualified as one widely accepted theory by a reliable source. The suggestion to discuss the title by one of the voters has not taken into consideration.Rokus01 (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion (I was the AfD nom). I looked long and hard, and so did several respected editors active in science WikiProjects, and none of us could find any reference to the "broad homeland hypothesis" in any academic source. It is a creation of Rokus01, a synthesis spun together out of speculations by academics regarding alternatives to the Kurgan hypothesis. However, most of these alternatives are not yet named, it seems, and certainly none are named the "broad homeland hypothesis". This is original research at its most sneaky, particularly because on its face the article looks encyclopedic. - Merzbow (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Sneaky", this is suggestive to the atmosphere created and fail to substantiate the main accusation: that the theory would lack any academic source. I really don't understand how people that uphold an outstanding reputation dare to put this at stake, unless they are confident that nobody would ever verify their insinuation. So why did I mention a respected and much cited book like "In Search of the Indo-Europeans - J.P.Mallory, Thames and Hudson 1989, ISBN 0-500-27616-1", where all can read about it? Or "The Oxford Companion to Archaeology - Edited by Brian M. Fagan, Oxford University Press, 1996, p348 - J.P. Mallory, ISBN 0-19-507618-4"? I can't accept that this contradiction is settled by the word of one against the other. The theory is mentioned there, extensively, and thus an existing topic. To make a false statement on this is a very serious offense. Rokus01 (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You've been asked many times to produce quotes from academics that define a theory called the "broad homeland hypothesis". Neither of those books above do so. - Merzbow (talk) 23:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You know very well it was Lothar Kilian's theory, and also that it was the theory that tied together Corded Ware with Kurgan culture into one "common linguistic ancestry theory" that brought both cultures together into one single "broader homeland". Knowing this, you should come up with the proper question: "How the academic world refers to this theory?" Because it does, else it would not be "widely accepted". It was the "widely accepted" thing that triggered your nomination and now your offense is that you deny the existence of notable sources referring to this theory, even when they are explicitly quoted. You should have been honest and nominate this article for not complying to WP:NAME and nothing else. I could have proposed "Kilian's theory", but just like the actual Steppe theory doesn't "belong" anymore to Gimbutas (except for those too ignorant to be cited) due to countless contributions of others including partial refutals; just like this example, in my opinion the name Kilian is immaterial to the course this theory took afterwards and nowadays. Still, the theory rather deserves an unfit name than deletion. You should have proposed a better one, since you are the criticaster to the one I proposed. Rokus01 (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Mallory says that some theory for which he provides a description but no name is widely accepted. He also describes several other theories with notable support. Again, the theory is not named - you gave it a name and decided on one definition. We do not know if other scholars who are talking about something that appears similar means they are talking about the same theory. I would suggest a new article called "Alternatives to the Kurgan Hypothesis" and have sections named after each notable scholar, listing their descriptions of the alternative theories. The Anatolian hypothesis seems to be the only such alternative that has a name and a definition, so that can be in its own section. But you cannot cite multiple scholars in support of an unnamed undefined theory, which is what you did in this article. - Merzbow (talk) 02:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. I nearly closed this debate with the same result, and obviously I agree with the close. I don't see any procedural issues with it. Shereth 22:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn since even its possible over-enthousiastic compiliation does not justify the complete obliteration of a topic that is sourced, valid and that treats an existing theory, even cited as widely accepted. Rokus01 (talk) 23:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I should have gone back to work on it, but among the possible sources are Colin Renfrew,Archeology and Language: the Puzzle of Indo-European Origins Cambridge Univ. P, 1987, which discusses the earlier history of the field. The discussion at the afd was based on a total misunderstanding--this is an older and now rejected theory, now being espoused again without any sound basis. The article was POV as if the theory was correct, but that needs editing, not rrfejection of the article, because as an older theory, it was still notable. DGG (talk) 04:02, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse, debate was correctly interpreted, concerns of WP:NPOV and WP:SYN were not successfully addressed by keep advocates. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. AFD process was followed correctly; the article was pure OR. —Angr 10:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The Ratskeller in Bremen

The Ratskeller in Bremen (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This page was deleted 22:37, 22 July 2008 by User:Craigy144, though I started the translation of the German version. See the year 1405 in the List of oldest companies and the links Bremen, Town Hall of Bremen, Wilhelm Hauff etc.

House1630 (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn, bad A7. Article contains many assertions of importance, such as being the oldest wine cellar in Germany and housing the oldest wine barrel in Germany. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 18:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn Clearly not a speedy deletion candidate with several assertions of significance such as "With its history over 600 years the Ratskeller of Bremen is the oldest wine cellar of Germany". Davewild (talk) 18:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Buildings do not qualify for A7 speedy deletion. Stifle (talk) 19:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. Misapplication of A7; the speedy deletion criteria are intentionally narrow in scope, and widening the net even slightly is inappropriate. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 23:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn A7 does not apply to buildings and it asserted notability anyway. Hut 8.5 09:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg

Image:Indiana Jones and the Cross of Coronado.jpg (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)

Misjudged "keep" closure of a non-free screenshot image. The closing admin failed to assess the validity of the keep arguments on the basis of policy. All keep votes (to the degree that they contained a tangible argument at all) argued essentially only that the a certain fact (Indiana Jones appearing as a scout in a movie) was important. None of these arguments, however, addressed the crucial issue of NFCC#8: in what way is the image important in order to understand this important but simple fact? According to NFCC8, the image itself (not simply the fact it illustrates) must make a crucial contribution to the understanding of the article. This in conjunction with NFCC#1, which explicitly states that facts that can be made understood with text alone cannot be used to justify an image for illustration. Some keep votes simply asserted that it made such a contribution; none of them explained how it did so.

The admin closed the debate with a blanket statement that it "[m]eets Wikipedia:NFC requirements" without explaining how such a finding resulted from the debate.

The closing admin also failed to address the issue of which articles the alleged keep consensus was valid for. The image has been claimed for as many as five articles: Scouting, Scouting in popular culture, Uniform and insignia of the Boy Scouts of America, River Phoenix, and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade. (Of these five, Scouting isn't covered even by a fair use rationale, but nevertheless the image was immediately restored to it after the close of the IfD; rationales for River Phoenix and "Uniform and insignia..." were removed during the IfD.) Even if one were to concede legitimacy of use in Scouting in popular culture, on which most keep arguments focussed, use in Scouting is blatantly unnecessary, as it merely replicates its use in the detail article (hence illegitimate under NFCC#3); while its use in the film article must be assessed totally separately. It's one thing to say that the image is necessary for a discussion of the role of scouting in popular culture; it's an entirely different thing to say it's necessary for understanding a certain plot element in the film (which, quite blatantly, it is not.)

Therefore: Overturn and delete from all three articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Relist. There were serious challenges to the fair use rationale. Could use further debate. A proper close requires far more explanation. If there is no consensus that the various fair use rationales are solid, should the image be deleted, or does no consensus mean keep, even in these cases? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse There was no consensus to delete and so the correct process was followed. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • False. Non-free-content related IfDs have to be closed based on policy, not just on consensus. The closer needs to explain exactly how the image fulfills the requirements and how the challenges posed by the delete voters have been met. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse the close, but remove the image from the two articles it clearly does not belong in (the Scouting ones). This isn't IFD part 2, so there's no need to argue the details, but a valid argument exists on both sides and I can justify a keep, at least for the article on the film. In the other articles, though, it's just there to pretty it up, and there are already several other, better images used as examples. On a side note, the copyright is falsely attributed to the Boy Scouts, not to the filmmakers, and used under the idea that the BSA gave permission to depict their uniforms on Wikipedia. This permission wouldn't apply to this picture. This should be fixed. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • This just goes to show how poor the result of that IfD was. I would argue to the contrary: If anything, the "Scouting in popular culture" article has a relatively stronger claim to legitimacy. In the context of that article, one could at least argue that the fact of Indiana Jones appearing as a scout had some significance. In the context of the film article, that fact plays absolutely no role at all. That he goes through some adventures as a boy is important for the film; that he does so in a scout uniform seems to be of no significance. The IfD failed to clarify even these basic issues. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse and leave wherever a reasonable argument shows it relevant. If it is relevant to show him going through the adventures as a boy, it has to be shown with him wearing what he wore in the film- or it doesnt serve the purpose of providing context. It is perfectly reasonable to conclude in a close that all of the contexts listed made sense. DGG (talk) 15:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that the image shows nothing of the sort. It doesn't show the adventures. Whatever it is that it shows, it doesn't help me to understand the film. If the article had some analytical commentary about the acting or the casting, regarding the actor they chose to play the young Indiana, that might provide an angle for an NFCC case. Just him staring at that object is simply nothing of any significance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Actually, looking at the article again, I now notice that it does discuss the casting: "Ford personally recommended Phoenix for the part, citing that of all the young actors working at the time, River Phoenix was the one who looked the most like him when he was around that age". Now, if the image could be linked to that bit, I guess I could actually support it here. But remove from the other articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse The image does comply with the NFC policy but only on the Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade article. IMO Its use on the other articles really is trying it on. RMHED (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse keep closure, but the image should really be used only in the one article, per RMHED. Stifle (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and figure out exact limits of non-free use, and delete if no legal use is found. Certainly (and per above) no reason for use in Scouting articles has been given. Kusma (talk) 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse This received due process and was discussed for one week. All sides articulated their views thoroughly and Dreadstar rightly concluded that the image's use satisfied NFCC for the two articles where it is presently used and where FUR are provided, namely Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and Scouting in popular culture. Having said that, however, I have added additional content to the latter article and the associated image FUR to address Fut.Perf.'s concerns, to clarify that this is a notable example of Scouting in film, because the fictional Indiana Jones' career as an adventurer is depicted as having its beginnings as a Boy Scout, wearing an authentic early 20th century uniform. Mere prose alone cannot possibly convey this conceptualization and context adequately to the reader seeking to understand the imagery of Scouting in film. JGHowes ^talk - 23:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Saying so don't make it so. Just making that assertion over and over again won't help. Tell me exactly, what piece of visual information in the image is it that would render the article incomplete? (And no, your recent rewording doesn't help it either.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Weak endorse - there's a rough consensus for the image to be kept, but I have reservations about the image - mostly, where the supposed cross is. I can't see it full-size. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse my own closure of this IfD. I was asked to provide more detail. This was an IfD, which are focused on whether or not to keep an image on Wikipedia, not which other articles it should be included in. Once the decision has been made to keep the image on Wikipedia for any article, then basing the decision to include in other articles should be on case-by-case talk page discussions, consensus, and policy. But I’ll be happy to address the other main article, because I did weigh both very carefully.

1. The two strongest articles to consider for appropriate fair use of the image are Scouting in popular culture and the article on the film itself, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.
   1. There is no doubt in my mind that the image fully meets all criteria for inclusion in the film it is taken from. The image illustrates a key plot point, a significant event in the life of the title subject of the film. Clearly this is a significant image from the film, depicting major elements of the character’s history and makeup, showing us the beginnings of an iconic fictional film character.
   2. Indiana Jones is clearly an iconic pop culture figure, and the image of him as a Boy Scout during the formation of what later becomes the adventurer-archeologist is a notable and a true poster-child for Scouting in popular culture. In recent years, it’s very difficult to find a pop cult figure of such magnitude, and as pointed out by others, there seem to be very few images of Scouting in film; with virtually all of those copyrighted as well, so the choice is between one fair-use image and another, or having no image. I think the image adds a lot to the article, and is a clearly notable illustration of the Boy Scouts in pop culture.
2. The image meets all ten Wikipedia:NFC#Policy criteria for use of the non-free image. For the film article, as well as the Indiana Jones reference in the Scouting in popular culture article, there is no free equivalent. Indiana Jones is an iconic pop culture figure, and scouting was a major plot point of the film, this image cannot be replaced by a free one that carries the same effect. The film itself was the top grossing film of 1989, The image provides a visual context that text alone cannot convey, so textual representation cannot replace it. The image use is in no way likely to replace the market role of the original.
3. It also meets minimal usage, minimal extent of use, previous publication, and media-specific policy. It meets the one-article minimum, significance (addressed above), restrictions on location, and has an adequate image description page - containing proper attribution to the source and copyright holder.
4. Image use also meets Wikipedia:NFC#Images requirements, 8: Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television. The mage is clearly used for “discussion of the cinema and television” in both the Indiana Jones film and Scouting in popular culture articles.
5. The image also does not fail under any of the WP:NFC Inappropriate use of images criteria.

Dreadstar † 01:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Showing a significant plot point is simply not enough. You claim that "textual representation cannot replace it". Saying so don't make it so. Of course it can. As long as the claimed justification is just the thing about scouting. As I said above, I can see a different angle of justification elsewhere, to support the commentary about casting. Now, that really is an analytical statement that needs visual support to be understood. That's the only reason why I'm prepared to let this DRV rest. But I can't let this misrepresentation of policy pass uncommented. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse the criteria used is often of interpretations, different interpretations does never mean misrepresentation of policy. The interpretations by Rlevse, JGHowes and closure rationale by Dreadstar above, convinced me that this image should be used on both Wikipedia articles. Carlosguitar ^{(Yes Executor?)} 12:28, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. While there remains a group of editors that feel that there should be no non-free content on the project, that is not even close to a consensus opinion. The close of this IfD was not controversial, nor was it out of process in any way. This is an easy call to endorse the "keep" closure. S. Dean Jameson 19:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Comment, I was trying to think of this word yesterday, that image represents a pivotal moment in the character's history; as he's holding the cross, with the realization that this important artifact of history belongs in a museum and that there are forces that would take it for personal gain. His Scouting background is obviously in play here, not only by giving him the positive moral view to rise above selfishness, but also the tools and training to actually do something about it. It's really a pivotal moment in an iconic character's life. And the point brought up by Fut Perf fits right in, that image is exactly what Spielberg wanted to convey, how he looked as a youth and what motivating forces he saw behind the iconic character of Indiana Jones. It's also a symbol of what drives him to seek the holy grail. The movie starts off with the cross and ends up with the grail. Dreadstar † 20:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

And do you have reliable sources to back that up, or is it just your opinion? --82.7.39.174 (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point. There aren't any reliable sources to back up the claim that this is "the most famous instance of scouting in film" at all. In fact, Indy being a Boy Scout is almost completely irrelevant to the plot. --UsaSatsui (talk) 22:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse No clear error in IfD closing. Folks have to deal with the fact the some of the NFCC rules are subjective and opinions (headcount) does play a role. There are good arguments on both sides, but closing as keep seemed reasonable. Hobit (talk) 01:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Turners Falls Road Bridge

Turners Falls Road Bridge (|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Closing admin apparently did not check the state of the articles before deleting. While the original articles prior to the AFD were indeed lacking, significant improvements have been made during the AFD that satisfy the requirements of WP:N. --Polaron | Talk 03:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Overturn for all six articles. It seemed to me that the concensus of the discussion was to keep the articles. Agree with above statement that closing admin did not review articles for improvements made since nomination. - PennySpender1983 (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn for all - The consensus was overwhelmingly to keep the articles and as pointed above, the closer didn't seem to notice improvements made to them. --Oakshade (talk) 04:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn all Sources were added to the articles during AFD but unfortunatly nobody seems to have mentioned this on the AFD. Sources added addressed the policy grounds for deletion - WP:V - and provides an arguable case for notability which many of the contributors to the AFD accepted. Could see a reasonable no consensus close but considering the changes to the articles during the AFD, delete does not seem to be appropriate. Davewild (talk) 07:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn all. Certainly improved by the time of closure. Ian¹³/t 09:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn There was no consensus and the closer seemed to impose his own personal view rather than defaulting to keep. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn I can't see a consensus to delete in that discussion (no consensus might have been better), and nobody discussed the improvements made to the articles. --Hut 8.5 13:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn all - per previous comments - Denimadept (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Before listing a review request, attempt to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page". This discussion doesn't appear to have happened in this case. Can the nominator please explain why (or point out where the discussion was, as I may have missed it)? Stifle (talk) 18:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I only notified the admin about the deletion review but have not discussed the matter prior to this review. Is that really an absolute necessity though? The deletion review is by nature a discussion in which the closing admin is specifically invited to participate and also reaches a few more people than a one-on-one discussion. --Polaron | Talk 19:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
    • It's customary, at least, to discuss the matter first with the admin as oftentimes they will realise that the deletion was in error and restore the page there and then, without having to go through a five-day listing here. It's also common courtesy, I think. Thanks for your quick reply. Overturn deletion per all above. No consensus to delete (or, for that matter, to do anything else) is discernible from that AFD, and the standard result in that case is a keep. Stifle (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn all; bad close. --NE2 17:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn ALL. Before the articles were nominated, they did not have many reference citations (which was apparently the reason for their nomination). During the course of the AFD debate, for the (3) road bridges in particular which were claimed to be less "notable" than the (3) railroad bridges, citations and references were added to the articles (books and publications about Connecticut and Massachusetts bridges). The "AFD Discussion rules" to keep from deleting should have been posted initially so that the significant majority who had voted to Keep could have posted accordingly. Instead the closing Admin ignored both the significant changes to the articles as well as the comments of the majority who had voted to Keep. Those who voted to Keep probably did not understand what the Admin required in terms of defending Wikipedia:Notability, accordingly one or more good notability examples should have prevented them from being deleted. Wikipedia:Verifiability applies to article content and not article existence, so Notability was the only criteria which needed to be defended against deletion.

For example, Notable features of Turners Falls Road Bridge:

• Carries 3,944,700 vehicles per year (2003) National Bridge Inventory
• $2,987,000.00 was the estimated cost to make standard bridge and highway improvements to it in 2006.
• 135.9 metres (446 ft) long over the Connecticut River composed of (5) piers in the water and (6) spans
• survived several Connecticut River floodings, whereas the previous (White Lower Suspension) bridge was destroyed by flooding at the same location
• documented in/on several Connecticut and Massachusetts bridge books, lists, publications and sites.

LeheckaG (talk) 18:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I stand by my interpretation of the consensus in the AfD. Consensus is not only a head-count. How the arguments are covered by policy is the most important factor. In this instance, there were no arguments that showed how the subjects in question were notable in Wikipedia context, and many arguments that can be disregarded out of hand. There were editors, however, who effectively argued that the articles lacked notability, which is policy- (in this instance, guideline) backed. Therefore, the consensus based on policy-backed arguments was that the articles should be deleted. There were improvements made during the AfD. However, none of the participants in the discussion addressed these as granting notability or not. Perhaps the sources added notability, perhaps they did not. It is not my place to decide, as that puts my own interpretation of the notability guideline above consensus in an AfD. Now, given the improvements, a relist to gather consensus as to whether the improvements addressed the previous concerns would have been a more acceptable course of action, but there no indication that additional sources had been added that could have granted notability was given. I stand by my assessment of consensus as correct. However, in light of the new sources, and therefore the complication it adds in closure, I'm fine with it being overturned. However, I do ask that the closure be overturned and the articles undeleted with no prejudice toward a future AfD should another editor find the sources lacking, and therefore a wider consensus can be gathered based on the new state of the articles. seresin ( ¡? ) 22:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

• I realize that no one at the AFD mentioned that improvements were made to the articles during the discussion that may have satisfied notability for at least some of the articles. This is not meant in anyway to malign the closing admin as the action was completely proper based on the AFD discussion alone. The deletions, however, should be overturned and articles nominated separately (the bundling of bridges that have widely varying degrees of notability was a problem itself) if some people still think that one or more of the articles are not notable. --Polaron | Talk 01:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Open Web Foundation (closed)

24 July 2008

Category: Jewish anti-Zionists

Category:Category: Jewish anti-Zionists (|talk|history|links|