Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 April 1

< March 31	Deletion review archives: 2008 April	April 2 >

1 April 2008

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion (closed)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion – Keep deleted. Density of this page title has caused it to collapse beyond the Schwarzschild radius. I should note that quantum singularities are not permitted on Wikipedia per WP:V and general good sense. High levels of X-Ray radiation are also bad for the developers, and could mutate Jimbo into Gamera. – IronGargoyle (talk) 23:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Overturn then speedy delete under G6 in half an hour. Let's face it, WP:APRIL's over in half an hour, and there's no point keeping this around after that. And of course, until then, it's hot. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Invulnerable? Ta-da! Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No, no. I meant not 'til tomorrow. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 23:30, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Oops..) Can I invokve Wikipedia:Ignore all time? Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Spishak (closed)

Spishak – Non-controversial request granted. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Temporary Review: I request that this article be sent to my e-mail, as found in my Talk page. I have no intentions to restart the article. I am requesting this action, per the suggestion made to me in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 18 UrPQ31 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (Er, could someone close this and the one below for me? I can't find the templates. =P ) Tony Fox (arf!) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

The Lillian Verner Game Show (closed)

The Lillian Verner Game Show – Non-controversial request granted. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:50, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

I request that this article be sent to my e-mail, as found in my Talk page. I have no intentions to restart the article. I am requesting this action, per the suggestion made to me in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 18 UrPQ31 (talk) 21:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. May be closed. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Template:Personality rights (closed)

Template:Personality rights – Deletion endorsed. WP:CON and WP:NDA were both sufficient for deleting the template. – IronGargoyle (talk) 17:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The original nominator completely misunderstood the reasoning behind this template. Its purpose is to inform downloaders that they may not necessarily use this image in certain circumstances. The nomination states, "WP:BLP policy extends to all material involving living persons, including images, thus making the disclaimer redundant," but BLP is an internal policy that applies to articles written about living persons, not how people are to reuse the content. The nominator's second point is that personality rights vary across jurisdictions, but that's precisely why this is needed; the downloader is responsible for determining those rights. The third point is the only one that has any validity, that WP:NDA might open us up to lawsuits if the disclaimers are not applied consistently. howcheng {chat} 17:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Why are we responsible for how someone might reuse an image? Besides, doesn't this duplicate information found on our general disclaimer, which is linked to from every page? Finally, to address the TFD itself, the close was proper, there was no opposition. --Kbdank71 17:55, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no complaints about the close; I'm just saying that the reasons for nomination (except the 3rd) were completely inapplicable to the template's intended usage. howcheng {chat} 18:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I see no problem with the nom or the closing of the TfD. -- Kesh (talk) 21:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I do not think we should be responsible for, nor attempt to advise, the use of images by others. Thus, while I agree that my nomination statement is largely inapplicable to the downloading of images and their off-wiki use, I do not think we should have a template to address such use. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Wikipedia:General disclaimer (and other disclaimers linked from there) says nothing anywhere about the re-use of images and how personality rights may apply to images of people. I will happily withdraw this request if it can be added there. Can I do it myself, or do I need Mike Godwin or another Foundation representative to do it? howcheng {chat} 22:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you could do it yourself (see, for instance, this addition), though a talk page note might be in order... Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wikipedia does not encourage the violation of any laws; and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws, should you link to this domain or use, reproduce, or republish the information contained herein. That pretty much says we're not liable if you break any law by reusing anything you got from us. No changes needed. --Kbdank71 00:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think that's too obscure, especially since the licensing of images is already so confusing. Think about it -- the image page says (to paraphrase) "you can use this for any purpose" but you can't really. It's really misleading. I think we have the responsibility of saying, "Hey, that's not always the case." It's not that much more text to add to the disclaimer, isn't it? howcheng {chat} 00:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You might want to check with the foundation on that. I'm not a lawyer, but from an editor's perspective, it's fine. Besides, if we get sued, what is the charge going to be? "But Wikipedia said I could do whatever I wanted with the image!" Again, not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that would get tossed out before that sentence could be finished. --Kbdank71 10:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Closing administrator statement. Simple close, I have no recollection of it though, that's really long ago. RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 23:12, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, obviously we're not responsible for people's use of images but there's nothing wrong with giving them a little warning anyway. -- Naerii 15:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

CubeDesktop

New article, has nothing to do with previous one. Was deleted before I could, at least, finish it. Halfelf2000xp (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relist A little more information--I doubt it is enough, but it's not an substantially identical re-creation.DGG (talk) 17:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I suggest you create a userspace version of the page so we can see the finished version first. VegaDark (talk) 03:16, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Human (closed)

Human – By the vigilante powers vested in me, I must quash all cabal resistance. – bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 02:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Closer totally disregarded the consensus to speedy delete... and I'm saying this as a keep voter Sceptre ^(talk) 02:17, 1 April 2008 (UTC) -— Scepter (talk • contribs) is a human and has made few or no other edits outside this topic for the past two minutes. [reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Deletion review (closed)

Wikipedia:Deletion review – Okay, kids, break-time's over, back to class :) – Stifle (talk) 15:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Completely out of process that it was never nominated for deletion! The nonexistent closer obtained no consensus for doing nothing. Abusive and out of process! I say overturn per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion... Salt and ketchup! IronGargoyle (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per consensus. --JayHenry (talk) 06:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn based on clear evidence here! -- Kesh (talk) 12:19, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Monkey~~. This nomination is not hot enough, I'm afraid. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 13:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holy crap! according to this AfD, this page should be deleted right now! Check out the logs! I'm going to have to change my !vote to Speedy delete WP:CSD#G4! --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 14:16, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At least if this one gets deleted, there can be no process warring over it. "Take it to DR... oh." Orderinchaos 14:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse overturn of overturned endorse, for reasons which should be obvious. Guy (Help!) 14:54, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Send in turn to MfD, CfD, RfD, ANI, ANB and WPA. One of them might think of something to do about it. consider again this time next year. DGG (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Restore no consensus per consensual nonsense. Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 22:53, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feature, fails WP:BOLLOCKS-- _{Escape Artist Swyer} ^{Talk to me} _{Articles touched by my noodly appendage} 23:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shock the Monkey per all the above Beeblbrox (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.