Comment Notability isn't inherited so it is quite possible that his theory is notable, without being notable himself. If the only coverage stems from writings about the theory, surely you'd just write an article about that theory and possibly redirect the author to that article? Or is there sufficient depth of coverage about the author to warrant a standalone article? (If it's the latter can't you just ask an admin to usefy it for you, work it up a bit to use that in depth coverage and move it back to mainspace?) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First, I thought about stubbing the book, but it doesn't appear notable. That leaves, indeed, the theory or the author. The theory is what is getting the publicity, although it is strongly connected to the author; it is HIS theory, nobody else seems to be strongly supporting it. For the same token, he is not know for much else but this theory. I'd prefer to rereference the deleted bio to creating a new article on his theory, if for no other reason that at least his bio has an obvious name, but I am not sure what name we could use for his theory. Something in this mess is notable, and given that is is hard to separate the man from his theory, why not go with the man? Authoring a notable theory and getting substantial coverage in the media for it seems to satisfy the notability criteria for me. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
the naming problem is a good reason for keeping the article at the name of the person not the name of the theory--it is difficult to give pseudoscience or pseudohistory articles a name that avoids an implict judgment.(another alternative is the title of the book). DGG ( talk ) 02:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"uthoring a notable theory and getting substantial coverage in the media for it"... that's the point, he isn't getting substantial media coverage i.e. they aren't writing about him. What biographical facts/history are included in the articles, does it meet the GNG requirement of addressing directly in detail the subject? The whole point in notability is that it's what the world outside think is notable not you or me, being his theory if that's enough for the world outside to be interested in him, then they'll write about him, if on the other hand they are taking note of his theory without much interest in the person behind it, they'll write about the theory and not much about the author. There are many things out there (inventsions say) where the world is really interested in the invention but know nothing and care nothing about the inventor.--82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support original decision to delete. I don't see how the problems at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manuel Rosa have changed. We already have an article Origin theories of Christopher Columbus which mentions his ideas, a separate article on his idea is not appropriate. It's nice to see that that edit wasn't added by Rosa himself or one of the apparent sockpuppets that keep adding what look like promotional edits to this and the main Columbus article. I can't see how he passes our notability guidelines. Note that this publicity is sourced to his PR Release at [8]. His page on this website [9] makes it clear he isn't a professional historian - and doesn't even say he's an academic, just that he works at Duke University Medical School. I'm also trying to figure out if his book is self-published - the publisher is [10] and I find this which suggests to me that it probably is. Dougweller (talk) 07:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He works for the "Information Technology support help desk at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center" [11] and also as an apparently freelance poet, singer, songwriter and producer [12] --82.7.40.7 (talk) 08:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the original deletion, which appears to be based solidly in guidelines and went with consensus. As regards possible recreation, I don't think the sources given are quite enough. My suggestion would be a redirect to an article on his theory, which has a stronger claim to notability. A small amount of sourced biographical information could perhaps be included there. Alzarian16 (talk) 10:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nor was I aware of it--it's a good title, and I agreew ith Piotr that a redirect there would be a good solution. DGG ( talk ) 19:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That looks like the answer to me, too.—S MarshallT/C 02:42, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Furthermore, no clarity for the reasoning behind the decision was made following a declined appeal to the admin for reconsideration.
The user who put it up for deletion did not return to make an opposing statement.
The undisputed statement was:
"It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved, if it is still recognizable as a letter, than in the U.S. it may not be copyrighted."
Based on the previous statement:
"As described at Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts the "M" is therefore not subject to copyright claims. This leaves only Trademark issues with respect to the use of this image."
I have since applied the image with the following template:
The side of caution has already been taken. There's no reason at all to delete the image. This image is linked in two articles where it's a contribution. Editor182 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have to go back to first principles, which is the relevant law: [13]. Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts may well be an inaccurate representation of the law. It seems to me there are two questions: whether the logo constitutes a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring", or "typeface as typeface". I don't think it falls into either category. It is much more than a mere variation of lettering. And it is not "typeface as typeface". Typeface is a form of representation of a set of letter of digits: this logo on the other hand is a creative variation of one letter of the alphabet only. That seems to be the distinction that paragraph (e) gets at by saying "typeface as typeface".--Mkativerata (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you endorse its retrieval based on the image not falling into either category? The trademark template is there for a reason, and I think it's applicable here, not a deletion. Editor182 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't fall into either category, it is subject to copyright. Categories (a)-(e) list things that are not copyrightable.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the Wikipedia article concerning fonts is fallacious, then it needs to be corrected, but for now, I'm going to stick to agreeing with the statements made above based on Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts, that it is not subject to copyright claims, and that leaves only Trademark issues which are covered with the template.
If there's doubt, then it should clearly side with being against deletion, and the article can be corrected first and foremost, but I really don't want to beat around the bush with this, an endorse or overturn decision would be good for now. Editor182 (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem to fall within WP:Public domain#fonts either. That says "typefaces and the characters they contain" are not copyrightable. This appears to be neither: it is a creative representation of a single character, not part of a set of characters constituting a typeface. If a publisher had created a typeface by which all letters of the alphabet could be represented like this "M", it would not be copyrightable. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States (Code of Federal Regulations)." If we're to draw a conclusion for now, then it should side with the "M" logo not being under copyright protection in the US, and the article speaks about having a soft-copy of the design which may then fall under copyright, but this is a photograph, of a can, it's a "hard-hard copy". It's not like the logo being used in the article under fair use, which is a soft-copy of the trademark, although it's still not under copyright protection even then. "Hence the computer file(s) associated with a scalable font will generally be protected even though the specific design of the characters is not. Furthermore, a rasterized representation (e.g. bitmap) of the characters in a scalable font is not protected by copyright in the United States." - Let alone my photograph of a can. Can we draw a conclusion based on what we have now? Editor182 (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, the distinction is between "font" and "typeface" on the one hand, and a stand-alone creative representative of one character on the other. Of course, if I'm wrong in making that distinction then I'm more than happy to be corrected. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I'm going with what was stated above; "It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved - if it is still recognizable as a letter - then in the US it may not be copyrighted." I think going into this topic any further will be perpetuating unreasonable doubt and pulling at straws. The admin offered no rationale for the deletion, except to be on the safe side and the user who put the image up for deletion withdrew themselves from the discussion in acceptance of the information presented on the contrary. Perhaps this is about not being so fast to reverse a firm decision made by an administrator, but it was a firm decision based on no research or justification, only a self-assured unwillingness to consider otherwise. If something solid comes up in the future to justify its deletion, then it may be removed, but at this point in time, it should certainly be restored, as there is nothing thats been presented to validate or justify deletion. Editor182 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn: The Monster "M" is clearly just that, a letter "M" as such it is utilitarian (in so far as copyright is concerned). One does not need to see the rest of the alphabet to know that it is an M, and it clearly falls under the specific law on fonts in the U.S. Again, there may be reasonable trademark issues with how the image is used, but copyright and the resulting requirement for a fair use rational do not apply. —MJBurrage(T•C) 18:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad someone gave a clear and unbiased response. There is no doubt that this image should rightfully be restored without needless further delay. An incorrect decision is an incorrect decision; whether it was made by an administrator, or a user, the response and subsequent course of action should not be dissimilar and dragged out needlessly, wasting time that could be spent improving articles or resolving other disputes which have cause and reason. Editor182 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm unconvinced by the responses to my comments above. This isn't typeface. It is a highly creative representation that happens to be based on a single letter of the alphabet. All comments in favour restoration both at the IFD and here are curiously devoid of reference to the relevant law (which I have outlined in detail above) as opposed to wikilaw (editors random views about what the law is). The closing admin was correct to err on the side of caution when the IFD concerned copyright issues. It also appears, subject to anyone demonstrating that my own view is wrong (I'm certainly open to that happening), that it was the correct decision on copyright principles.--Mkativerata (talk) 01:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're attempting to refute facts and you've only presented doubts about these facts in your comments. Rest assured, there is absolutely no reasonable doubt that this image is copyright protected. There is no doubt; it is clearly NOT copyright protected. You're basing your affirmative decision on your unreasonable comments. Why not base a decision on the evidence provided, instead? This is typeface. This is a variation of typographic ornamentation, lettering and coloring. It is a single letter of the alphabet and in the US; it may not be copyrighted. If it is not restored, then you might as well throw out the dispute resolution process for content deleted by administration. I believe your decision is either bias or shows extremely poor judgement, whereas the administrator who deleted the image was careless and self assured, disregarding consensus. The user who originally put the image up for deletion withdrew their argument, as they had enough esteem to accept that they were incorrect and corrected.
Now what? Now two administrators are siding with deletion, one of them blindly and callously, as you note how the administrator who deleted the image has not commented here or on their talk page on their rationale. If this image isn't restored it will be an example of immoral and bias administration. Every person on Wikipedia should be for Wikipedia, not for their team, but that's just my opinion, just like your opinion that it should be removed based on..uncertainty, or rather; nothing. What is not an opinion is fact, the fact that this image is not copyrighted, and the appropriate trademark tag has been applied. Either do wrong or do right. Show some propriety or display abuse of power. Editor182 (talk) 01:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:
(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents;
(e) Typeface as typeface.
Based on any one of the three parts I underlined, it is clear that the Monster logo is in no way subject to copyright. If a complete typeface (no matter how fancy) cannot be copyrighted, than clearly a portion of a typeface such as a single letter also cannot be copyrighted. —MJBurrage(T•C) 03:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, a single letter is not a typeface. --Mkativerata (talk) 04:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - To me, it's clear that the logo is more a graphical element that happens to be based on the letter M, rather than letter M that's used as a logo. It's a subtle, but an important distinction. And you'll see that the wavy logo is not used as text in any of Monster's brand identity - the "M" in the brand name looks nothing like the green wavy/clawy thing. It's more than a little disingenuous to claim the green M falls under "mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring" (as in, they didn't just tweak the letter M with a couple of graphical elements), and since it's not used as type, I fail to see how it could be "typeface as typeface". Mosmof (talk) 04:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another administrator siding with "endorse", why am I not surprised.
"No, a single letter is not a typeface."
The copyright exclusion includes typeface and lettering. A singe letter is lettering.
"To me, it's clear that the logo is more a graphical element that happens to be based on the letter M, rather than letter M that's used as a logo. It's a subtle, but an important distinction."
Really? It just "happens to be based on the letter M"? The energy drink is called MONSTER! Clearly the "M" is for the "M" in MONSTER, and not a coincidence.
"it's not used as type, I fail to see how it could be "typeface as typeface""
It may be either type or lettering.
"green wavy/clawy thing."
No, it's just the letter "M" with some fancy graphical elements. It's no ambiguous "clawy thing", I can assure you.
I can also assure you that it is not a copyrighted image, without a doubt. Can you admins say the same thing? No, you can't.
I believe your endorsements are bias, designed to create reasonable doubt where there isn't any. There is no reasonable doubt for deletion.
If you're both genuinely endorsing and all just happen to agree on.. nothing. I say nothing because everything you've said so far has been clearly addressed as false ...
... then you're basing your decisions on doubt, and our argument is based on fact without doubt. You're pulling stuff out of your ass. You have absolutely no logical argument.
The weakness of your arguments and strength of your convictions sicken me. You're all pathetic and without principle, a waste of my time when I could be improving other articles.
The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:
(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents;
(e) Typeface as typeface.
Based on any one of the three parts I underlined, it is clear that the Monster logo is in no way subject to copyright. If a complete typeface (no matter how fancy) cannot be copyrighted, than clearly a portion of a typeface such as a single letter also cannot be copyrighted.
Do you know what this is? It's called factual and logical information, something you have clearly not presented, and you know what else? The user isn't bias, only appealing to the facts, truth, principle of the whole thing. Go ahead, endorse, suck up to your peers, be cowardly, appeal to the majority, because of course you'll have the numbers and misplaced power to close this review without overturning anything, even though you're wrong without question, and you know you're wrong without question.
Congratulations, you must feel good to be on the side of injustice, you can win any argument with a delete button. Imagine an administrator came in now and was for overturning the decision.. what an oddity.. they would be basing their decision on factual information instead of supporting their peers in favor of run of the mill bullshit.. that person would be.. an administrator who thinks for themselves. An individual! How amazing! Anyway, maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're all genuinely endorsing this decision.. but that would make you idiots instead of cowards.. either way, you're just users with administrative privileges, not an administrator, an administrator doesn't take sides, they're more mature and have higher esteem than that. Too bad one isn't here. Editor182 (talk) 09:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the Macdonalds corporation can't copyright a stylised letter "M", then neither can these people. Therefore this file is trademarked but not copyright. It follows that Raeky's argument for deletion was factually inaccurate and should be discarded, leaving a clear "keep" consensus in the FfD. No blame attaches to SchuminWeb who's not expected to be an expert in trademark or copyright law, but on the facts, this has to be overturned—provided that Editor182 stops the dramamongering, accusations of bad faith and other unacceptable conduct in this DRV immediately.—S MarshallT/C 11:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
S Marshall is there any material out there that says McDonald's haven't tried to copyright their "M" or why that is? I've tried to find something but can't. That would help change my views on this. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've based your decision for endorsement based on information which doesn't exist? Please read the information that does, and you'll see that it's because it's not eligible for copyright protection in the US. Editor182 (talk) 19:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could be copyrighted in some countries, but Wikipedia is (rightly or wrongly) only concerned with US copyright. In that regard it's easiest if I point you to the US copyright office FAQ here, which explains that in the US, "[c]opyright does not protect names, titles, slogans, or short phrases." The letter "M" is "a short phrase" for the purposes of this. One can copyright a picture, but there's a certain minimum level of complexity; so I could claim copyright on my photograph of the Taj Mahal, but I could not claim copyright on my computer file "white_square_10px.png". This letter is insufficiently complex to meet the copyright threshold. Therefore we're only concerned with trademarks.—S MarshallT/C 23:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess the complexity is the issue. My contention is that, because the "M" is stylized to the point where it may not be recognizable as the letter "M" out of context, you could make a reasonable case that it's a picture based on a letter, rather than type. More importantly, it's not used as type - contrast that with the "M" in the "Monster" text below. That "M" is clearly recognizable as the letter, and it's used in text. The green M is not. Finally, we can disagree on the complexity of the letter "M" in question, but there is clearly a difference in complexity between this and the McDonald's golden arch. Mosmof (talk) 00:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we both talking about the letter "M" logo on the top left of this page? If so, I'm not seeing the complexity myself. I'm tempted to ask Moonriddengirl what she thinks, or another editor active on the subject of copyright, if nobody would object? (I'm mindful of WP:CANVASS but it seems like a relevant grouping to consult.)—S MarshallT/C 01:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the one. I mean, it's not exactly Jackson Pollock, but it goes beyond mere type or simple geometric shapes. It's meant to be as much claw mark as it is the letter M. Mosmof (talk) 04:07, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've dropped a note about this on Moonriddengirl's talk page.—S MarshallT/C 05:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no complexity, as I mentioned above, it's just the letter "M" with some fancy graphical elements, the big green "M" for Monster is clearly no more ambiguous than the big yellow "M" for McDonalds. Editor182 (talk) 03:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, could whoever keeps adding a bolded "overturn" to the front of my remark please bloody well stop doing it? If I ever intend to add a word in bold, I'll do it myself.—S MarshallT/C 23:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"M" is a short phrase? Not following that, I'm afraid. I think what "short phrase" is getting at is that expressions by way of short phrases are not copyrightable. It's not saying anything about the creative way in which an individual letter is expressed in visual form. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you mean can't copyright a sylised letter "M". The problem with copyright is that it's a bit of a Schrödinger's cat cat type problem, how the law would be applied and interpreted can't be told until someone tries to enforce it via legal action. So until McDonalds try to uphold copyright on it, it's an indeterminate problem. They'd usually however be better off with Trademark law for such things, so it's a bit academic. I notice our rendering of the McDonalds M however does list it as non-copyrightable in our view, without seeing the logo in question, it does seem we are being inconsistent in our interpretation. I'll also agree that Editor182's latest screed is far from helpful. (also isn't an admin) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, 82.7.40.7: I meant copyright, not trademark. Fixed now.—S MarshallT/C 14:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what I've stated from the beginning of this review.
There is no questionable doubt whatsoever that it's a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.
There is a template for that purpose, concerning trademark issues, which had been applied to the image at the time it was erroneously deleted:
Elevate I believe that copyright matters, especially those related to interpretation of copyright law, are not in the realm which can be possibly decided by consensus. IMHO, as it is Foundation who may potentially be sued, then just to be on a safer side and not let some lawyer to cause trouble for the whole Wikipedia, we should ask for advice from Foundation before deciding (I have no idea how it can/should be done, but I'm sure there should be a way); another alternative is a group here on Wikipedia which specializes in such questions (if such group exists). We are not lawyers, and whatever I/you/consensus think is obvious, easily might happen to have very different reading in the court of law; of course, if any of those who discusses it, can produce legal opinion (in common law sense) about it, it would be a different game, but even in this case I'd still prefer to go to Foundation (or to special forum for discussing copyright issues) and submit that opinion there. Ipsign (talk) 05:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The matter isn't complicated or risky enough to need escalation to the Foundation. That would happen if Monster Energy complained about our use of their logo, but that's extremely unlikely. As a rule companies strongly prefer to see their logo on Wikipedia, and actively wish to have a Wikipedia article that's as visually attractive as possible—see Coca-cola, Burger King, Microsoft, AXA, or Toyota, for sample articles about corporations. Standard practice is to use the logo, and you can bet that those companies are well and truly aware that we're doing it and don't mind in the least. Generally we tag the logo image with {{Non-free logo}} but I think that for the simpler logos such as this one, that's overcautious. It doesn't matter because in the real world, corporations want to see their logos plastered all over the web as widely as possible in every context apart from passing off. They definitely want their logo on their Wikipedia article.
In this case we're faced with a bizarre and unusual decision from FfD to delete a logo on the basis of copyright. FfD doesn't normally make decisions like that, and the problem is that once there's a decision that copyrighted logos need to be deleted off Wikipedia that's allowed to stand, it'll be done again and again with other logos. Which benefits absolutely nobody. Certainly not the corporations, nor the WP:OTRS team who will have to deal with the emails about it, nor the reading public who might well be confused on coming across an article like Royal Dutch Shell and need the logo to connect it with the Shell Oil Company. All such a decision would do would be to create work to no purpose. So DRV has to find some basis to overturn the decision.
The reality of course is, that if DRV fails to overturn the decision, then Editor182 will just go to Monster Energy and ask them to email their logo to the Wikimedia Foundation with a consent form so it can be re-uploaded, but I object to that on principle. It's petty, it's griefing, it contravenes our rules, and it's disruptive.
In any case, it's simplest for all concerned if the decision is overturned here. The simplest surefire way of overturning a FfD is to point out a factual inaccuracy in the discussion and in this case there is one, so I've relied on that. However, I have raised it in a place for discussing copyright issues. the most reliable such forum on Wikipedia is User:Moonriddengirl's talk page...—S MarshallT/C 12:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As most of your reasoning is about logos, what about restoring it but as a non-free image under fair use clause? This is the way stuff like Burger King and Toyota logos are included, so such inclusion will be simply applying already existing WP:LOGO (which most likely has already been reviewed by Foundation) to M-Energy drink. But every time when I hear somebody saying that certain interpretation of the law (especially IP law) is obvious, it makes me really' scared, and statements like "if it is still recognizable as a letter, than in the U.S. it may not be copyrighted" are certainly way too scary to agree with. Ipsign (talk) 12:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
but I object to that on principle. - PRINCIPLE! The reason the case was opened. Appreciated and likewise. Not to mention MJBurrage, as the case wouldn't be here if it wasn't for the valuable information they provided on the proposed deletion page. If it was any other administrator than that lunkhead, they would have accepted the consensus. Anyway.. the here and now. Editor182 (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, seriously Ipsign? Okay, let's just say it is copyrighted (which it isn't) on what grounds could the company sue based on this image being on Wikipedia? Copyright infringement? Okay, fair enough.. oh wait, but WHERE IS THEIR FINANCIAL LOSS?! Wikipedia is not for profit, if it was some fancy online subscription encyclopedia with paid access, then yes, that would be grounds for a case, as the image is improving the quality of their articles which people are paying to view. In this case however, the most they would do if they were bothered by it (which they wouldn't be, if anything, they'd be happy to see their product displayed here), they would send a message to an administrator to have it removed - but to file a lawsuit? Not a chance. Lawsuits are expensive, and if one was filed, the judge would throw it out, but they're not that stupid. Just think next time, okay? Think about the real world. Editor182 (talk) 13:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That line of thinking runs contrary to the mission of the Wikimedia Foundation. The reason why we do not accept material licensed for non-commercial use is because we are gathering content to be used and reused as widely as possible. In terms of the real world, our content is reused widely--not only in other websites, but in print materials, and they do so with our blessing and encouragement. A copyright can send a takedown to us; handling misused images that have been replicated in print is a far more complicated matter. It is our responsibility to copyright holders and to reusers to make sure that the content we declare to be free is free. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to comment by Moonriddengirl: if I remember US copyright practice correctly, effect on potential market (which roughly corresponds to the term loss you've used) is only one of four criteria which are routinely considered by US courts when dealing with copyright infringement. It is perfectly possible to be found guilty of copyright infringement even if there is no monetary gain (cases are numerous, including infamous Capitol v. Thomas), and if statutory damages come into play, it can become really ugly. As the whole IP law is an extremely difficult and convoluted area, I don't feel that anybody on this discussion (obviously, myself included) is really qualified to make evaluations of image being copyrightable in such a borderline case; not to mention that question "if there is enough creativity" can often become a matter of fact decided by jury, with a completely unpredictable outcome. Based on this, I don't feel we can possibly answer the question if it is copyrightable in this forum. OTOH, as I've noted, I will not object to interpreting this image as copyrightable but claim fair use per WP:LOGO (exactly as it is done for Burger King and Toyota); it is just IMHO, and I am not a lawyer, but I feel it is fairly reasonable interpretation. In particular, if I understand Wikipedia policies correctly, labeling it as copyrightable fair use will prevent using this image on pages which are not directly related to this company (and BTW, for such use on such not-directly-related pages losses are much easier to argue - for example, if it is used on a page of the competitor). Ipsign (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you're saying, but it is free (public domain), and it does have a trademark warning applied to the image, as with many, many other PD images on Wikipedia. Editor182 (talk) 13:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Hi. :) Images are not my thing; prior to coming to Wikipedia, my experience with copyright was entirely in text. But I do want to clarify one thing: this is not typeface. The US feds have clearly defined "typeface": "A “typeface” can be defined as a set of letters, numbers, or other symbolic characters, whose forms are related by repeating design elements consistently applied in a notational system and are intended to be embodied in articles whose intrinsic utilitarian function is for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters."(emphasis added)Copyright Law Revision (House Report No. 94-1476). This "M" is not part of a set of letters created "for use in composing text or other cognizable combinations of characters". It stands alone. Hence, it is not a character contained in a typeface. The real question is whether it in combination with other features is creative enough to merit copyright protection or, as otherwise suggested above, it is simply a variation "of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring". Frankly, I think this is the wrong venue for this discussion. If the image is not copyrightable, it should be on Commons and would presumably eventually be transferred there. (Trademark concerns do not apply; see Commons:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions.) The discussion over whether it is retainable should be held there. Based on the precedent of their threshold of originality casebook, I suspect it would be allowed, but who can say? That visual guide, by the way, was pointed out to me in a deletion debate some time back. Since there's no sourcing supplied, I don't know if all of the images in that list actually have been challenged and denied copyright in the U.S. FWIW, I would not be averse to asking our counsel about this. We don't bother them about copyright often, and that's one of the reasons why we have them. :) In the overall approach to this question, I'm a bit surprised by the heat here. We all have a common goal, I presume, of spreading free content. Indepth and thoughtful of analysis of whether content is actually free is a good thing. We take the goal seriously, and there's no reason to get upset with one another. If copyright were not complex, there'd be a whole lot fewer IP lawyers. :) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moonriddengirl, it is, in fact; lettering (one letter or more, in this case, one "M") and typographic ornamentation (the adding extraneous decorations to the "M").
I appreciate your friendly input. Editor182 (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a letter, but it's not a "typeface." :) A typeface is a set of letters. Above it's been asserted that it is excludable as "Typeface as typeface", and I want to point out that it doesn't fit that definition. It needs to be considered on other factors. I realize it is ornamentation on the letter M; as I point out, the only question is whether it rises above simple ornamentation. I think in terms of the threshold of originality casebook, the clearest analog here is the "Best Western" logo, which evidently was denied copyright protection. (I say evidently, because, again, there's no source.) But this really should be on Commons. I would recommend uploading it there and inviting review in that forum. There are many more contributors there familiar with copyright as relates to images, and as it will wind up there eventually (if restored here), there's no reason that it should have to undergo review twice. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:24, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following are examples of works not subject to copyright and applications for registration of such works cannot be entertained:
(a) Words and short phrases such as names, titles, and slogans; familiar symbols or designs; mere variations of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring; mere listing of ingredients or contents;
(e) Typeface as typeface.
It's point (a) that applies to this image - lettering - it applies to any and all letter/s. "M" is a letter, it's simply not copyrighted in the US.
It cannot be used on Commons, that is for unrestricted content only. This image is subject to trademark. Editor182 (talk) 13:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I attributed that statement to you. :) If you review the earlier discussion, you will see the contributor who asserted that "Based on any one of the three parts I underlined"--and you'll note that he underlined e. It had been refuted by others, but I wanted to provide verifiable reason why. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 13:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it can be used on Commons. :) See Commons:Commons:Non-copyright restrictions, and specifically "Commons hosts many images of trademarks, and as long as they do not violate any copyright (eg because they are too simple to acquire copyright protection, or are old enough that copyright protection has expired), they are OK here." (I almost missed this note; I had read it and was constructing my reply before you altered it to include the bit about Commons! --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see why it's not typeface, but no, it does not rise above simple ornamentation. It's a fancy "M". That's all.
The "Best Western" logo was denied copyright? Rightfully so. Editor182 (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, so I'm told. I haven't read the case myself. It would be nice if they cited an authority. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 14:00, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's an interesting case in point. Editor182 (talk) 14:27, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MRG's made me see that since it's my position that this image is trademarked but not copyrightable (and thanks for the pointer to Threshold of Originality which I think supports my point), then it must also be my position that it belongs on Wikimedia Commons rather than here. So now it's time for my word in bold. :)
Close this discussion without result and open a similar discussion on Commons.—S MarshallT/C 15:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The authority for the Best Western non-copyright status is given in the image file [14] and is at [15]Thincat (talk) 16:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree that the Best Western case is analogous to this one. The BW logo is simple, unadorned text on top of an, again, simple, minimally adorned pentagon. While we can have a reasonable discussion about the level of creativity for the green M, it's unreasonable to claim that the two logos meet the same threshold. Unlike the "Best Western" text, the green M isn't unadorned and is not used as text. It's designed to look like a clawmark AND the letter M. There's a clear distinction between the two logos. Mosmof (talk) 18:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's been suggested below that the image be uploaded to and discussed on Commons. If that happens, we have no reason to discuss it here. (Rereading your note, I kind of have to wonder: did you notice the stylized W in the shape of a crown at the top of the logo? That's where I see comparison.) --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Rather than uploading this image to Commons and discussing it, it might be better to join the existing (and decidedly low energy) conversation here or here. The copyright concerns should be the same. If consensus is that it's copyrightable, there's no need to have another image to be deleted; if consensus is that it isn't, there should be no problem with uploading a green version of the same there. --Moonriddengirl(talk) 18:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's some good work Thincat, hopefully it will help lessen any doubt on the copyright status of the "M" logo.. because doubt is all they have.
Oh, man - another discussion? I usually hang out in articles, not Talk pages and discussions, but thanks to one clown from a dispute in June who monitors my account.. and one daft administrator.. well, I appreciate your input on this review, but what I would really love is a CONCENSUS, as based on the information for and against, clearly the information sourced and presented for restoring the image is incomparably greater. Is there a 7 day minimum this topic has to drag on - or can an administrator with good judgement close this right now? Wishful thinking? Alright, I support the Commons discussion. Editor182 (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is unfortunate when all and sundry decide on quasi-legal issues, often in tones of considerable authority. I do not know whether this image (and related ones deleted at the same time) is allowed on English WP. It seems to me it ought to be allowed and might well be OK on Commons. It also seems to me the close of the FFD was reasonable but that the discussion was probably not well informed. This might justify an overturn at DRV (by WP:IAR?). An expedient would be to upload the image to Commons, and (if anyone has the energy) open a deletion discussion presuming it would be kept. I have edited commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States to link to the legal authorities. Thincat (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with closing. I think things will get straightened out properly on Commons. For the substantive issue, I agree that this is trademarked-not-copyrighted case. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 19:15, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So let it be done! ;)
ATTN: PLEASE CLOSE DELETION REVIEW AS PER CONSENSUS.Editor182 (talk) 05:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Chronology of the Harry Potter series – Just like the arguments in the XfD, arguments here are split almost equally and rather predictably. Restoring and remanding to AfD for additional discussion. – Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I don't feel that there was a clear consensus in this case either way. This should have only ended in a no consensus. Even when you eliminate the !votes there are only two arguments that have disagreement. Outback the koala (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that I did contact the closing admin regarding this, also I had requested to userfy the article after the Afd was completed, but did not receive a reply. Outback the koala (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Consensus for deletion, backed by appropriate arguments, was present. There is no reason that this material should not be added to the parent articles, but consensus that this should not stand alone as an article justifies the close. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn But for AGF, I'd think this resembles repeatedly nominating an article until it has a consensus to get deleted due to the random fluctuation of who has shown up. If something has gone through multiple AfDs, it should take more than a borderline consensus to delete. Given that multiple of the delete arguments carried no substantial commentary (such as just claiming that it was "unencyclopedic" which is a synonym for IDONTLIKEIT), the consensus is even less strong. While there was also not many secondary sources in the article they do exist outside (for example, Duriez's "Field Guide to Harry Potter" among others) which could be easily incorporated into the article. (And yes, I know that this last argument is more appropriate at AfD but it wasn't brought up then and is relevant because it constitutes new information). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with you that this is nonsense, it is repeated nomination until desired outcome is achieved. Spot on. However, the AfD itself is pretty clearly in favor of delete, and admin was within discretion to close as they did. Seems we are in need of a new policy? How about WP:REPEATED?Turqoise127 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately such a move is directly against the general principal that consensus can change. The deletion discussion prior to this one seems to be 18 months or so ago, so it's not like it's every week. It'd also have to go both ways, no keep recreating in the hope that you'll get a different outcome this time (I note the first discussion ended in delete). Realistically wikipedia has changed, articles which once were featured may no longer meet minimum standards etc. BLP jas come along, and the overall makeup of the community changes. There will always be articles on a borderline where some believe firmly they should exist, other believe otherwise. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - As the keep calls amounted to "keep I like it" and little more. While I am a fan myself and could likely rattle off some of these dates from memory (i.e. Dumbledore opens a can of whoop-ass on Grindelwald in 1945), this is just fancruft with no real-world applicability or notability. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as incorrect reading of consensus. Furthermore. a 5th nomination is almost always an attempt to rely on the randomness of results at AfD--If there's a 10% error, 5 or 6 nominations will result in a delete about half the time regardless of the merits of the article. This should not be permitted without some indication that consensus on the general issue has changed. (the same is of course true of 5 or 6 attempted recreations, but we would ordinarily salt an article after the 3rd time or so, specifically in order to prevent this, and require a prior deletion review before unsalting. The same should be required here--the AfD should have been speedy closed as an attempt to game the system. As for the merits, the complexity of the events,and the fact that the successive books describe many of the key events retrospectively, and not always reliably, makes the article necessary for understanding. It might not be worth bothering with an ordinarily important book, but this is way out of that class. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. First, your opinion on repeated XfDs is not relevant to this DRV. If you wish to change how repeated nominations are handled, then an RfC is probably the better venue to attract a broader discussion. You aren't going to change it within this DRV. Second, there is no such thing as an "incorrect reading of consensus". If you yourself would have read the consensus differently and arrived at a different conclusion, that is not a valid reason to overturn an other administrator's decision. That is, in principle, little different from wheel-warring. Tarc (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I humbly disagree, the opinion IS relevant, because it is AfD #5. Wow. How can you not see that? There without a doubt CAN be an "incorrect reading of consensus". If we have 10 policy based votes and 1 SPA vote for delete yet the admin closes as "delete" then that is incorrect reading of consensus. How can you not see that? Incidentaly, your comment to the above editor verges on rudeness in its tone, I would try to be a little nicer. (Pot calling the kettle black)Turqoise127 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A decision at DRV is not wheel warning, or anything like that. In fact, even single=handedly reverting another admin's decision is not wheel-warring, though inadvisable in most cases without some amount of discussion. It would be the first admin reinstating it without discussion that is prohibited, because then we need ANI or an analogous process. Pages like DRV exist to review administrative acts. Saying in good faith that a close is wrong for whatever reason is always in order here. Saying in good faith that IAR should have been used is always an appropriate reason. (of course, having given such a reason, it's necessary to convince the other people.) There is fairly general consensus on too often, though it's been hard to specify it exactly. One of the accepted ways of changing policy is changing gradually what we actually do by changing our interpretations of guidelines and policies--the effective policy on proper deletions is deletions that will be sustained at DRV. There is very much such a thing as incorrect reading of consensus--in fact, that's the usual reason for reversal here, that the admin did not properly judge the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"The admin did not properly judge the consensus" is entirely your opinion; you do not get to use DRV to substitute your own opinion over that of another administrator. Period. It is high time that you and others be prevented from abusing deletion review in this manner. Tarc (talk) 05:19, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a completely uninvolved bystander, I'm curious: if this kind of opinion is not allowed to be posted at DRV, what is a valid argument for DRV? If there are no possible arguments and closing admin is always right no matter what, then why DRV exists at all? Ipsign (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see user:DGG using or abusing this deletion review. I asked for the review, user DGG did not participate in the original Afd or even work on the page, to my knowledge. I see this as a personal attack that is not on topic. This is a DRV, not a discussion on them. Outback the koala (talk) 07:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the DGGs statement as overly problematic nor an abuse of process. His first "Overturn as incorrect reading of consensus." is a perfectly valid reason to overturn a deletion, however it's much like a bald assertion of "it's (not)notable", gives little context so any one closing the debate should weight it accordingly. No need for anyone to be prohibited from saying stuff, just let the closer look at the overall discussion and act accordingly. If you feel it's weak or irrelevant argument then feel free to flag it as such since that'll highlight it to the closer and/or allow DGG to expand on the argument. Surely this is exactly the way it's supposed to work? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I don't think that's a fair reading of the repeated nominations. This is not an article that has had repeated consensus to be kept; it's one that's escaped by the skin of its teeth through "no consensus" twice in over two years. It has not had a keep consensus since 2007, when our requirements regarding sourcing and original research were much worse than they are now, and so I don't think it's fair to try to misrepresent a good faith application of WP:CCC as a bad-faith attempt at re-re-re-re-rolling the AfD dice. ReykYO! 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- In my opinion the delete !votes were well grounded in policy, and the closing administrator did right in not allowing WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL to trump necessary core policies such as the requirement for reliable sourcing and the ban on speculation. ReykYO! 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Regarding the previous AfDs, the recent ones seem to have been closed with little more than a "the result was no consensus" with no further explanation. These closes shouldn't prevent further AfDs: (a) consensus can change, especially "no consensus"; and (b) if the closing admins haven't taken the time to give reasons for the close the closes are not really worth much. The closing admin in this case, on the other hand, clearly found one side objectively more persuasive by reference to core policies (like OR). There's no reason why this close shouldn't be allowed to stand.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
agreed there, consensus can change. Local consensus at a particular time may also be unrepresentative. The way to figure out which rule we should go by is to discuss the actual merits of the case at hand. DGG ( talk ) 02:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that the last thing Wikipedia needs is yet another article summarising the plot of the Harry Potter movie series, the "delete" consensus in that debate is not entirely clear and DGG's arguments about WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED strike me as well-founded.—S MarshallT/C 11:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have some sympathy for the keeplisting argument, I can't see that it applies fully here. The article has apparently been listed 4 times prior to this one, deleted, kept, no-consensus, no-consensus. I usually take no-consensus closes to mean there are problems or potential problems which need to be resolved and we believe they can be resolved. If they aren't resolved in a reasonable timeframe after that it does reasonably suggest we were wrong and those issues can't be resolved (or there is no will to resolve them) so relisting is reasonable. The latest debate is a fair distance over the previous, more so given it seems to have been raised by someone not involved in the previous debates. i.e. I don't see this as an individual crusade. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I agree with the comments made by the closing Admin - I note 7 !votes for delete, 4 for keep including a keep because 'I like it', and a merge. The closing Admin decided that the policy arguments supported deletion. It isn't the case that a few keep votes mean an article can't be deleted. And I'm a fan, by the way. Dougweller (talk) 19:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see where DGG has a point at all, no. If editors are interested in a particular topic or or article, then they can keep things on their watchlist, it isn't anyone else's responsibility to keep them informed. If fact, I'd say in some cases of repeated noms it may be better if old hands missed out on the next round of discussions, as sometimes a fresh set of eyes is what is needed to objectively assess the matter. There is far too much "it was kept before so we gotta keep it now"-isms out there, users with WP:OWN issues, and so on. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this culture of WP:OWN entrenched in DRV, though? I mean, closing admins get really quite hot under the collar if they aren't approached about a decision on their talkpage. There's a feeling that the closing or speedy deleting admin "owns" the decision and is entitled to be consulted before the DRV is opened. Why does that apply to administrators but not editors? Why aren't article creators, for example, required to be notified of AfDs on anything they write?
I do agree that it's necessary to watchlist any material that you create. It's not enough to write a decent article, you then have to defend it from good faith but mistaken editors, and brainless prats, for the rest of time.—S MarshallT/C 17:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your broad brush characterization of "good faith but mistaken editors, and brainless prats" is helpful. Sure there will be times when there are nonsense listings for deletion and hopefully these survive regardless, especially where there is a reaonable level of participation. Many articles get deleted because they don't meet the standards, cases like this with a delete, keep and two no consensus by nature suggests there is a reasonable amount of disagreement on, labeling those who think it needs to be delete in that way is inappropriate (I'm sure your point is broader, but in the context of this debate it would have to be applicable). On the issue with notification of closing admins there is a substantial difference (1) often the issue can be resolved without bringing it to DRV, I've seen plenty of case where discussion makes the person interested "happier" that the result was correct or the admin reconsiders and updates the result/reslists (2) Unfortunately some people come to DRV with a battlefield mentality, "that evil deletionist admin was out to get my articles, I'll show them...". It's more about getting even than about the result as such. It shouldn't be like that, mistakes happen and we shouldn't be scared of that, there should be no reason for an admin to be defensive of their close. With article creators, I don't see the same attitude, the article being deleted isn't the same combative approach. Not to mention that informing article creators isn't as easy as it sounds, I create a one line stub, 20 other editors over a period of time bulk it out signficantly, finally it's deleted, why inform me as creator? the vast bulk of content and effort was nothing to do with me. If we start making complicated rules about who to inform it becomes a nonsense, and notifying anyone who touched the article is probably not too useful either --82.7.40.7 (talk) 12:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Marshall, your framing of the situation is a bit off the mark. I don't think a closer thinks they "own" the decision, its more like when an admin blocks a user...another admin that reviews the unblock request usually does the courtesy of consulting with the blocker first. It's just a basic courtesy of "why did you decide this the way you did?" IMO it should be a requirement like AN/I notifications are, but I fully realize that that debate has been lost. Article creators are a whole different ballgame, as the IP noted above when there are many, many contributors to an article. Tarc (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Getting a little bit off topic here, but let's follow it up and see where it goes. First off, I was speaking more broadly than purely about deletion; I was talking about my experience of defending what I've done on Wikipedia and explaining the reasons why I've done it.
I've very little personal experience of attempts to delete my material. Nothing I've written has ever gone to AfD. I've encountered CSD—back in 2009 someone nominated an article of mine for speedy deletion in the same second as I started it (here), which was very annoying and speedy deletion taggers have stood pretty low in my esteem ever since—but that's about it. (Either I'm such a good editor that I've never written an inappropriate article, or else I've been lucky enough to never seriously annoy a member of the article removal cabal; which you believe depends on your personal level of cynicism.) However, I can tell you that whatever Wikipedia policies might say about it, I feel a very strong sense of ownership of (say) Agriculture in the United Kingdom and I'd be upset, angry and fairly sarcastic if it was subjected to a major reorganisation or tagged for deletion without any attempt to discuss the matter with me. In short, I'd react like an admin whose deletion decision had been challenged.
And in fact, the whole context of GAN and FAC is all about ownership; there's an expectation that the nominator will be the person who's written the material and that the nominator will run around fixing issues pointed out by the reviewers. It's a rare reviewer who'll undertake any major fixing for themselves.
In short, it's natural to take responsibility for, and feel ownership of, one's writing or one's decisions on Wikipedia and there's a conflict between our policies and our conventions.—S MarshallT/C 17:39, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having pride in your work is not a bad thing, and I don't think WP:OWN intends to disuade that. As already mentioned informaing admins here isn't about ownership of the decision (or shouldn't be) it's about expedient dealing with deletion disputes, no one will know better the underlying reasons than the closer - I'll also note that some admins couldn't care less about the discussion with them first - something I disagree with on the same basis. Interesting that you bring up GAN and FAC (not everyone agrees that these are good things BTW, their standards for what makes an article "good" differ), although you are right to a point it's also contradictory, it involves criticism (hopefully constructive) of "your" work, the fact that "you" may do all the fixing rather than someone else shouldn't make that much of a difference. You also refer to the "article removal cabal" in line with your comments here about those seeking to delete this, whereas your direct personal experience seems to contradict such a problem, I haven't reviewed your work but I'd suggest you assume it's because it's been done to a good standard. Rather than wander even further away from topic, I'd suggest most people listing stuff for deletion do so in an effort to do what they see as improving the overall quality of the encyclopedia, not merely for "fun" --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus per DGG, and because a significant share of the delete !votes and arguments (particularly with regard to sourcing "independence" requirements) would be inconsistent with consensus-accepted practice if applied generally to articles incorporating in-universe content of fictional works. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, what? Now matter how important something is in-universe, it is just that; in-universe. Finding reliable sources independent of that is a basic requirement for establishing notability, and many of the delete calls are quite in line with that. Just what are you trying to pull here? Tarc (talk) 14:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Keep arguments did not address the problems with the article and merely avoided the policies and guidelines with arguments claiming it to be useful and popular, that because the books are notable therefore the article was notable enough, arguing that Wikipedia does Fandom or making comparisons with other articles without validating the individual merits of this article. More importantly, there was a consensus in favor of deleting the article. Jfgslo (talk) 06:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I do not see consensus in the AFD. In this review I find two editors' arguments particularly persuasive. User:DGG persuades me that overturn is appropriate here. User:Tarc even more strongly presuades me that his type of endorse argument is not helpful to the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
QQ more, pls? What I endorse is the notion of administrator being able to make a reasonable judgment call when closing a deletion discussion, and not have that judgment overturned by simple-minded second-guessing. Discussions are not votes. Discussions are not head counts. Discussions are where opinions to keep or delete an article are made, and these opinions are weighed by the closing admin. Sometimes, regrettably, even consensus can override this, i.e. Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 17, the plane crash incident. Even though the keeps in that AfD were IMO profoundly asinine, the close was correct. In cases like this though where the keep/delete ratio is narrower, then the strength of argument gets more attention. Just because another admin may have closed ti differently does not give them the right essentially overturn another's close. Short of something egregiously and explicit wrong...a policy unambiguously misapplied, a close opposite of a crystal-clear consensus, etc...I rarely support overturns in this forum. "I disagree" is not a valid reason. Tarc (talk) 14:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Best_Western_logo.svg){kind=link}
