Bell's prime number theorem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Firstly, this AfD was closed quite quickly, giving me no time to make a further response. Secondly, I believe that the closing admin misunderstood the issues. Nobody denies that the theorem is correct. Dhaluza has found references to the theorem, so it is clearly not original research, still less a hoax as Ten Pound Hammer alleges. PrimeHunter alleges that the result is trivial, yet he did not know it until he saw the article. Anyway, what is trivial to a specialist on prime numbers is not trivial to most people. Surely Wikipedia should cover all information about prime numbers, not just what PrimeHunter knew already. As Dhaluza says, "Also deleting every math topic not interesting to a mathematician is ridiculous--WP is for everybody." The key dispute is whether Bell discovered the theorem. If he didn't, then the article should be renamed, not deleted. Bedivere 23:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the closure was reasonable in view of the material presented. -- I think the decision was wrong, but that's another matter. I'd simply try to write a stronger article with more references from nontechnical books & presentations.DGG (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fully endorse There are quite a few things to point out here: first the AfD was unambiguously in favor of deletion and the closure itself is completely appropriate. Secondly, there are a number of excellent scientific reasons for deleting this

• There was never any evidence submitted that this "theorem" is in any way connected to Eric Temple Bell.
• The result is trivial. Whether or not Bedivere finds it trivial is a moot point: from a mathematical standpoint it's a completely uninteresting random factoid, the kind of random factoid that never has any name attached to it because no serious mathematician would ever have the chutzpah to give it a name, much less its own. Not having an article about it is not, as Bedivere seems to suggest, some sort of elitist math conspiracy. In many ways, this is the mathematical equivalent of keeping an article about the cornerstore from which you buy your milk carton. It is verifiably true that this cornerstone exists but it is of no interest whatsoever to have an article about it.
• The theorem itself has nothing to do with prime numbers as was pointed out during the AfD since it is true of any odd integer greater than 3. So there's not a snowball chance in hell that anyone has ever referred to it as Bell's prime number theorem, especially since the prime number theorem is a central result of number theory. If this is not a hoax, I don't know what is and Bedivere has not provided, despite repeated requests, any sort of scholarly reference mentioning the result and given his recent clashes with WikiProject Mathematics, I am very tempted to throw WP:AGF out the window and assume that the article, the removal of the prod and this DRV come dangerously close to trolling. Pascal.Tesson 01:19, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nitpick: that's odd integer not divisible by 3. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Consensus was obvious, and WP:NOR is a very important policy even if consensus had been ambiguous. GRBerry 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree that I cannot find any evidence that this is due to Bell - I have said so repeatedly. However, this is grounds for renaming, not deletion. I did not say it is an "elitist math conspiracy"; I merely quoted Dhaluza. And Dhaluza has found links referring to this result explicitly in terms of prime numbers. The fact that it is also true of other numbers is irrelevant. Surely PrimeHunter knows about pseudoprimes, which are non-primes to which certain results true for primes are also true. What are my recent clashes with WikiProject Mathematics?--Bedivere 08:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, I know about pseudoprimes and have written an upcoming paper about them with Harvey Dubner [1]. This trivial observation (which I refuse to call a "theorem" when no source has done it) holds for all numbers not divisible by 2 or 3. No mathematician would call such numbers "pseudoprimes". It is 1/3 of all numbers while primes have density 0. PrimeHunter 17:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - legit AfD, what little information there was in the article can surely be sent elsewhere. Moreschi ^Talk 11:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. While the result is not quite as "trivial" as Pascal.Tesson makes it out to be (note deep connections between the divisor 24 and Ramanujan's tau function), it does not deserve its own article. Work it into the article about divisibility or something, Bedivere, if you really think it's an idea that belongs in an article somewhere. DavidCBryant 12:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse & redirect to Prime number theorem, unless the WikiProject on Math speaks up in favor of the article. >Radiant< 08:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I would not redirect; the prime number theorem is quite different, and I see no evidence that Bell did any work on it. WikiProject Mathematics provided several of the delete votes. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn, just because I have a vague feeling I've came across this before..... but I'm no prime number theory expect, but I am a graduate in mathematics and have taught it at Uni for several years. Not really too surprising when you consider what I have as my username...... Mathmo ^Talk 06:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and do not redirect, per WP:V. The statement "this theorem is due to Bell" could not be verified. The theorem itself appears to be an easy property. So, the closure of the debate was correct. Tizio 14:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out Now Consulting (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

New information has come to light. Three of the people participating in the AfD have been shown to have been acting in concert on various occasions and the nominator of the AfD also has a close personal relationship and they each voted strenuously to delete in this AfD, making it very difficult for the closing admin to be able to decide consensus correctly. Also, the closing admin has conceded being somewhat close to one of the people involved so as to reduce his neutrality. That bothers me quite a bit, for as well as the above instance of admitted meatpuppet behaviour amongst individuals - who each in this AfD voted delete and heavily supported each others' arguments - the geographical proximity -Western Australia - of all of these same particular delete voters was specifically raised during the AfD, but this was then discounted in the AfD decision from being a sufficient cause for concern by the closer, who is himself also from this region. (Note though that I am not claiming lack of good faith on the part of the closer, just that the closing admin, having a close personal relationship with some of those in the AfD, might have better considered referring the AfD decision to someone else.) In addition, new WP:RS have become available, and have been added into a newer version to verify the article subject's notability under WP:CORP. As the AfD was very long, I have created two pages that show first what the page looked like last I had kept a copy of its code (may not be final version relied on by closing admin.) The issues required to overturn have been more than met I think in a revised version of the old article and I would be grateful for people to consider this new version, with its additional reliable sources as the closing admin of the AfD advised me it would need to clear DRV so I made a new version with the additional notable sources. I believe that the International Herald Tribune article here should have been considered as establishing clear notability but was discounted by those involving themselves with the AfD and now also the newly added Adformatie article here and Sydney Morning Herald articles here and here and The Australian article here, as well as several other new additions in the new version all establish more than sufficient notability. I submit that all up, given the recent problems with some of the delete voters, and in light of the new WP:RS material establishing notability, the article meets the requirements needed WP:DRV to overturn the delete decision, and request that the new version of this article be created as a new WP article in its stead. JeffStryker 18:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow re-creation on the basis of the new material. DGG (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation. The AFD appears to have been difficult to close, even discounting the tainted !votes. But Google and the material above indicate there should be enough for a sourced and NPOV article. --Dhartung | Talk 13:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation on the basis of material not considered at AFD. That said, the closure was reasonable based on the debate's contents however. Carlossuarez46 01:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation on the basis of the new material. Got confused for a second when I looked at the initially linked AfD... the article is deleted, but was no consensus. Oops, was looking at the first AfD. The most recent was the 2nd. Mathmo ^Talk 06:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lenta.ru (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

The major Russian language online news website. Check mentionings in Wikipedia or in Google for notability. The user who deleted it seems to be mass-deleting many articles (judging by usertalk). Please stop him by administrative means. ssr 16:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Notified Tregoweth of DVR. Whispering 18:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Now that I've seen the number of other articles referencing Lenta.ru, I see I was too hasty in deleting it. I've restored the article, and moved it to Lenta.Ru, which appears to be how it is generally spelled. I apologize for my mistake. —tregoweth (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jp01.jpg ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

As discussed heavily on the image talk page. The image, nominated for deletion out of vindictiveness, was deleted in an absence of consensus. It seems clear from the discussion that the image is allowable if it serves a function within the article other than just showing what the person looks like. The reasons why it serves another function are laid out extensively on the talk page and the deleting admin just blew all of that off. In attempting to explain the deletion, admin stated that if it weren't deleted no one would feel motivated to go out and find another image. It strikes me that it is not the role of an administrator to selectively "motivate" editors in this fashion. The admin failed to assume good faith on my part as the uploader of the image, accusing me of trying to get around the image policy. It was explained exhaustively that the image was not simply about his appearance on a magazine cover but was instead about the very significant event of the subject's coming out as gay. Closing admin does not appear to have any understanding of the significance of this and faultily bought into the claim that the image was only illustrating his appearance. Admin was wrong on every count and the image should be restored. Otto4711 15:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion Looks like a classic replaceable fair use, WP:FUC#1. Policy based deletion. Until(1 == 2) 15:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Describe specifically another image that illustrates his coming out on the cover of the magazine. What specific image other than the magazine cover fulfills that function? More importantly, where's the consensus in the deletion discussion that it's replaceable? There is no consensus. Otto4711 17:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You fail to understand WP:FUC#1. By "replaceable", the policy doesn't mean only replaceable by another image. If it can be replaced by free text with the same encyclopedic value, than it's still replaceable. (And no, this does not means that every image can be replaced by text). As this image is only being used to illustrate a point that is perfectly done with text only, it's unnecessary. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"As little non-free content as possible is used in an article"..."Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.", you don't need a non-free image to show that he came out, the magazine cover does not even convey any information that the text does not. This is about a fundamental misunderstanding of fair use on Wikipedia, it is not to be used decoratively. Until(1 == 2) 02:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I'll restate here what I find to be the crux of the argument: WP:NONFREE lists as acceptable use "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item." The phrase appears to have been recently changed after some discussion, the details and history of which I'm only briefly familiar with, but the discussion seems to indicate that it is indeed the item, not the cover, that must be the subject of "critical commentary" for the image to be acceptable. The deletion rationale given does not seem to assert a lack of critical commentary in the article, and Otto4711 has explained the notability of the image above. --Maxamegalon2000 17:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - we don't need to see the magazine cover to understand the point being made about the "very significant event of the subject's coming out as gay". Please understand WP:NFCC#8. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is obvious from the discussion that there is no consensus for your viewpoint. Otto4711 19:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not obvious, sir. That's just your opinion. --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I was the deleting admin, I won't "endorse" deletion, but I do stand over it. For those who don't know the background, the image was in the article J. P. Calderon — a living person. It is the cover of a magazine, which covers the story of Calderon "coming out" as gay. If it had been a photo of him without being a magazine cover, it would not have passed the fair use criteria, since it is possible to get a free image of a living person. The image was tagged as {{non-free use disputed}} by a bot on 5 June, and was tagged as replaceable fair use by Scorpion0422 on 19 June. There was some discussion on the image page and the image talk page, saying that it was not just a picture of the man, showing what he looked like, but it illustrated an event mentioned in the article — that he had come out as gay, and that the magazine had covered the story in a particular issue. An admin decided to keep. Abu badali then disputed the fair use on new grounds, on 20 June, asking if the "iconic moment", justifying the use of the image, had been discussed outside of Wikipedia, or was it original research. By tagging the image, he automatically placed it in Category:Disputed non-free images as of 20 June 2007. There was a huge, huge backlog of images waiting to be deleted, and eventually that category had just that image left in it, and admins were all ignoring it and moving on to other categories to delete images. I had noticed it days before, and had realised that it might be a complicated decision, so had postponed it until such time as I would have enough time to examine the case in detail. When I finally did examine this image, which I suspect other admins had been shying away from, I decided that Abu badali and Scorpion0422 were right. So I deleted. And could I gently suggest that speculating on the motives of the person who originally nominated the image for deletion is not helpful. Thanks. ElinorD (talk) 00:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Normally I would not speculate on anyone's motives in nominating anythign for deletion, however, Scorpion has a long history, literally pre-dating the creation of Calderon's article, of hostility toward Calderon's having an article. Otto4711 12:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How could I be hostile to an article before an article exists? I was originally going to stay out of this, but only if Otto could avoid insulting me, and he didn't, so here I am. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You repeatedly deleted links to his name from his Survivor season article. You continued to de-link it after the article was written. You unilaterally redirected the article multiple times. You repeatedly deleted a link to it from the Survivor contestants template. You nominated it for deletion less than an hour after the first AFD on it closed. You deleted the image from the article several times even after you were asked to stop. And then you finally got the image deleted on a lack of consensus. Your hostility to this article is clearly in evidence from the edit histories of several different articles so please, don't insult everyone by pretending otherwise. Otto4711 17:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

• Here we go, I knew this was coming. What does my history have to do with the relevance of this article? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your history has to do with your acting in bad faith regarding both the article and the image. I don;t believe your nominating the image had anything to do with your good faith belief that the image violated Wikipedia policy and had everything to do with your bad faith desire to remove both the image and the article, which bad faith you have expressed repeatedly through your continued campaign against the article. It is certainly relevant to take the actions of the original nominator into account; it's just too bad that your bad faith history was ignored. Otto4711 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing, nothing at all. I don't think you are "insulting everyone", or even anyone. Until(1 == 2) 17:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed, and I suggest again that we should try to focus on the arguments of whether the omission of the image "would be detrimental to [the readers'] understanding" of the topic, in accordance with Criterion Number 8 of our policy, rather than focusing on the motives of the people who tagged the image for deletion or who deleted it. ElinorD (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fine, and we still come back to the simple fact that regardless of the bad faith of one of the participants the discussion did not establish a consensus against the image. Otto4711 22:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, fair use on the basis of commentary seems to be asserted. It was in fact the magazine appearance which constituted the individual's (public persona) coming out. Had it just been an illustration of someone already known to be gay in other contexts this would not apply -- it would just be an illustration. If the article had an additional independent source confirming the importance of the appearance that might help, though. --Dhartung | Talk 13:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion You can say "It illustrates an iconic moment" all you like, but that still doesn't change the fact that it is mostly being used to show what he looks like. Being on a magazine cover could be an iconic moment for anyone, but you don't see an image of their first magazine cover on the page for every single famous person that has ever been on a magazine cover. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The point remains that you did not establish a consensus to that effect in the discussion. Otto4711 17:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither did you. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• And "no consensus" closures should default to keep. Otto4711 17:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Deletion discussions follow policy, not consensus. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus dictates policy, policy doesn't dictate consensus. There was no consensus for your position and closing admin ignored the lack of consensus to impose a faulty solution. Otto4711 22:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lack of consensus should not override the preexisting consensus of policy. Until(1 == 2) 00:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. The deleting admin is to be commended for tackling this one, it was obviously tough. But I just don't see how the point illustrated by the cover can't be stated equally well in words, per WP:NFCC#8. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The work in question is the magazine cover, and we're not discussing that, we're discussing the subject of the work. If you need to reference the magazine article, do it through a link, not an image. Jkelly 21:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. Textbook case of WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #7. The cover itself is not notable. howcheng {chat} 20:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn - listing an image under discussion for IFD is not the correct way to end a dispute. Will ^(talk) 18:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Sinclair computers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|UCFD)

I am requesting deletion review on this Category and all others which were deleted from the Category:Wikipedians by Personal Computer on the grounds that I believe the deletion "vote" was misinterpreted by the closer. It was 6 delete, 5 keep and the closer went for a full delete when I believe it should have been interpreted as no consensus, since the "vote" was so close. Plus, the categories were not originally "former" categories, but were listed for current and previous owners of the machines listed. Thor Malmjursson 09:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I "used" to own lots of stuff, none of which is useful in any sense of the word, including collaboration. Closer made the correct decision. Reminder, consensus does not equal vote counting. --Kbdank71 01:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse self - For now I'm just going to re-copy my closing text here, as I think it well represents my rationale. The result of the debate was delete all 5 subcats. Collaborative potential could be valid if these PCs were used by editors and people needed to address concerns to allow them to edit or display pages, but these categories do not meet the standard set at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians who use Macintosh computers. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 01:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Keep votes were rather vapid "ilikeit"s IMO, and were rightly given less weight. Tarc 03:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I kinda disagree with Kbdank71 here. I think previous ownership of such things gives the Wikipedian a quicker "in road" for research, and should be able to instantly see irrgularities, or other problems in such topic-related articles. I think the commenters above, are stuck on "used to own", when the category descriptions could have easily been those whow own or used to own. And while shying clear of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I have to suggest that this is little to no different than any other experience-related category, whether it be location-based, alma-mater-based, sport player-based, or whatever. My sincere question to the group is why do you think that such experience/knowledge is not helpful for collaboration? - jc37 10:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem with "such experience/knowledge" is that it constitutes original research. It doesn't matter how familiar one is with a topic ... their additions must still be attributed to reliable sources. As for the location-based categories, I think that their primary usefulness is related to editors' ability to take and upload pictures people and objects near their place of residence. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not OR to have knowledge that helps in research. WP:OR deals with drawing conclusions based on that knowledge, but not the knowledge itself. Knowing the names of all the works of Shakespeare isn't WP:OR, though it means that if doing a search for information about the works of Shakespeare, you're a "step ahead", because you know what to look for. This is, afaik, the whole purpose of user categories: a collection of those whose knowledge base/experiences may be useful to us in bulding this encyclopedia. And this is actually covered on the WP:OR page. WP:COS, for example covers this directly. We encourage users to add information from watching a television programme, or a motion picture film, or listening to a song, or a radio programme, or reading a book, newpaper, graphic novella, or whatever. How is the using of a computer and/or its software any different? This really sounds like a subjective demarcation to me. - jc37 18:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Tarc. XfD is not a vote (so the 6-5 tally doesn't mean much) and the keep arguments did not have a strong enough basis in policy or merely asserted usefulness without demonstrating it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I was the original nominator for these cats, so it's natural that I endorse, but I stand by my original nomination; four of the cats SPECIFICALLY stated that they were "former" categories, and the fifth was for the ZX Spectrum, which should have been a subcat of this (Sinclair) cat. Since Iceflow recreated this category instead of running it through deletion review first, it's impossible for non-admins to retrieve the original category text, which I believe will support my original claim. Horologium t-c 20:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I own a Sinclair - actually, nearly all of them - but I can't imagine what possible use this category would be to anyone. Deletion was the only reasonable outcome in this AfD. -- ChrisO 00:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Hyatt Hong Kong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Actually, I believe the deletion was entirely appropriate. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hyatt Hong Kong concluded to a lack of notability of the hotel (closed by Coredesat (talk · contribs)). The sole editor favoring keeping the article was Kappa (talk · contribs). He recreated 30 minutes following deletion and three times in the past 24 hours although I asked him to come here first and I think it's best if I do it for him. All three recreations were deleted, once by Anthony.bradbury (talk · contribs) and twice by myself. I should note that Android79 (talk · contribs) declined the last speedy on grounds that the article was significantly different than the deleted versions. I believe that this is only superficially true: Kappa did add a few references but they are from travel guides or travel sections of newspapers and magazines. I should note once again that newspaper reviews of hotels do not constitute reliable sources in our sense as they are generally written from a voluntarily subjective point of view and more often than not are glowing reviews produced after the writer is invited to the hotel. In Kappa's new version, notability is argued for through notable guests although that argument was contested during the AfD and thus does not address the concerns raised in the AfD. Pascal.Tesson 04:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse all deletions, appropriate G4s since they did not address any concerns raised in the AFD (hotel reviews from travel guides are not reliable sources, and guests who are notable do not confer their notability to wherever they happen to be staying). --Coredesat 05:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  OK you bastards won't even let me see the article and you think this is a fair trial. Kappa 05:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A simple "could you undelete" would have also worked. In any case, done. Pascal.Tesson 06:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse No notability established in article or references. -Nv8200p talk 13:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete, relist. "During the worst weeks of the outbreak last spring, average occupancy rates at hotels, including world-famous prestige properties like the Peninsula and the Grand Hyatt Hong Kong, dropped to the point where on some nights, some prominent hotels were said to be empty of guests". This is not evidence of notability, because we are supposed to assume travel writers for the New York Times are just writing for the perks. Right. Bullshit like this should be judged by the community as a whole not a single editor with an agenda. Kappa 15:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"single editor with an agenda". Is that me? I did initiate a cleanup of the hotel articles about a year ago. A few were deleted through AfD in the summer of 2006. Some that I'd tagged for notability were nominated and deleted later on although I rarely participated in these debates because I was not following AfD as regularly. Still, it's not like the only articles I've submitted for deletion are hotels and they constitute a tiny fraction of my involvment in the deletion process. Pascal.Tesson 16:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Pascal, it is not the first time Kappa has taken a deletion personally and played the blame game. Until(1 == 2) 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Deletion. I have no doubt that this hotel is one that carries an international reputation and can see where Kappa is coming from in that regard, but I have seen nothing provided that makes this particular hotel stand out from the crowd. Every major city is going to have a luxury hotel or two or five. These hotels will naturally house celebrities. These hotels will naturally be reviewed or noted in newspaper or magazine articles. If this hotel were not Grand Hyatt Hong Kong, it could just as easily be another hotel, another city and everything provided so far would be virtually interchangeable. For me, something more historic or unique is required. Was it a pioneer in some area of hotel management or facilities? Did it radically change the luxury hotel business in Hong Kong or the world? Why THIS hotel? What makes it different? If something like that were provided then it would be worth keeping, but housing a head of state and having a better view than its competitors does not strike me as sufficient, and "world prestige property" is just a term some New York Times writer or editor made up that has no context and therefore no use in evaluating the property. Indrian 18:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment incidentally, in my early Wikidays I started writing a notability guideline for hotels. It was received as being generally sound but probably unnecessary, which in retrospect is probably true. It fell in the black hole of aborted policy attempts and I deleted it recently. Pascal.Tesson 20:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn as unreasonable close "I have no doubt that this hotel is one that carries an international reputation ...but I have seen nothing provided that makes this particular hotel stand out from the crowd." I consider that self contradictory. the "2 or 5 super-luxury hotels in each city" which do frequently serve as the locale for heads of state and the like are self-evidently notable, and arguments to the contrary seem a little as if determined to delete the article notable or not. If such hotels arent notable, none are. The NYT is not the sort of paper to use "world-famous prestige properties" (the actual wording) loosely, nor to write articles based on travel writers perks. It's a RS, even if it says something notable that you privately think otherwise. It's certainly more reliable than the individual opinion of a WP editor.DGG (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many hotels have an international reputation? Fifty? One hundred? Five hundred? One thousand? I really do not know, but I know it is not small. So no self-contradiction. In this case, I measure notability by those articles that have something unique to say. We do not need five hundred articles saying that X hotel is a five-star hotel in Y city and provides Z serivices while these famous people stayed here. There should certainly be a section in the Hong Kong article or as a sub-article describing accomadations in the city of which this hotel should be a part. There is a difference between notable information to place in an article and subject notable enough to have its own article. Furthermore, how was the close unreasonable? There was consensus established. It was a small group and deletion review is certainly proper here to get a wider opinion if possible, but I see nothing wrong with how the AfD was closed; it followed all procedures. Indrian 01:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that I'm the one who started the DRV and I think most will agree that the AfD itself was closed appropriately. There is, however, a disagreement on whether or not Kappa's recreation of the article addresses the concerns raised in the AfD. I'm less concerned with reviewing the AfD deletion than I am with reviewing the ensuing speedy deletion of the recreated article. Pascal.Tesson 02:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I realize the distinction between the debates here (I was not even part of the original AfD and got involved in the recreation stage), but speedy deletes are not "closed", they are deleted or not. By stating that the article was "unreasonably closed" and going on about notability, DDG appeares to be attacking the AfD and not the multiple speedies. Indrian 03:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • By saying that the hotel passes WP:N but should be deleted anyway, you appear to be endorsing abuse of process. Kappa 23:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see no one saying the hotel "passes" WP:N. WP:N is a guideline anyway not an offcial policy. It provides guidance and can be one useful measure in evaluating notability, but it is not the exclusive measure. Second, WP:N creates a rebuttable presumption not a hard truth. Articles satisfying WP:N are presumed to be notable. Satisfying WP:N does not, in fact, create notability all by itself and is, at best, a minimum threshold. Take your process debates elsewhere. Indrian 23:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Right, so despite a presumption of notability, it can be speedied at will without the communiy getting to express their opinion. Kappa 02:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • The article had its chance, the community did express its opinion, and consensus was reached (as stated before a consensus of a very small group making this review quite appropriate). I know that the version you recreated is different in several respects and attempts to satisfy concerns raised initially, but the way you went about it is odd. You joined the AfD debate on July 31 and the article was not deleted until August 3rd. You had several days to add material that the rest of the community would consider enough to pass the notability threshold, but instead decided to recreate the article just a half hour after it was deleted. I know this was with a true belief that the article belongs, but even if done with all the best intentions this is highly irregular. I think both the admins who speedied the article and the one who did not were acting appropriately under the policies in place, but I personally would defer to deletion. That being said, I reiterate that this hotel should be mentioned somewhere such as a hotel section in the Hong Kong article or in a sub-article about accomadation in the city. Indrian 03:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • The article did not have its chance, the nominator was, and probably still is, flooding AFD with copy/pasted unresearched nominations about hotels. I just saw it, like you thought "this hotel is one that carries an international reputation ... These hotels will naturally be reviewed or noted in newspaper or magazine articles." so it should be an easy keep if anyone can be bothered to fix it. Verifying Hu Jin Tao staying there is a start, I thought there might be some other good guys around who would find some more verifiable notability and fix it. OK that didn't happen and it got deleted - fair enough, it wasn't fixed. That doesn't give anyone the excuse to delete a new fixed article would would have survived AFD. Even you don't object to discussing the hotel. Kappa 23:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorsed A hotel needs to demonstrate notability with reliable sources, not travel guides, to be included, valid deletion. Until(1 == 2) 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Not sure if this establishes notability, but Five Star Alliance says that the hotel is a Conde Nast Award winner[2] (I assume the Conde Nast Award is given by Condé Nast Publications), and Hyatt's website says that this hotel is Hyatt International's flagship property[3]. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 08:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can anybody comment on this? Or is everybody too wrapped up with holding up their ends of the dispute? Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Conde Nast Award is a step in the right direction, though I would need more information on the significance of the award itself. The Hyatt website is biased and the context of the statement smacks of advertisement, so I would not personally accept that one. Indrian 06:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Firstly let me say I am still undecided on the notability of this hotel. Having said that, however, I would think there is not a more reliable source than the Hyatt website itself to back up the statement that Hong Kong's Grand Hyatt hotel is it's international flagship property. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Look at the context. The page is trying to sell the viewer on staying at that hotel. If Hyatt wants to push a particular hotel, it is going to use language like "flagship property." Maybe the hotel is doing poorly and Hyatt thinks it could do better. In that case, they are going to want to create an image of success in the customer's mind. I of course have no idea what has led the company to label the hotel as a "flagship property" in this context, but the company will always be biased in describing its own property. If this were an internal corporate document or financial report or something that would be one thing, but this is a website attempting to entice viewers to use the company's hotels. Indrian 19:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would agree with you if somebody is trying to use Hyatt's website as fair assessment of how good the hotel is, but for the mere fact about it is labeled as the international "flagship property", well Hyatt really has the highest authority on giving one of its hotels that label. Any other source labeling the hotel as the international "flagship property" of Hyatt would really just be using Hyatt as a source itself. You're right, there could be a number of reasons why Hyatt chose to give it that label - but the fact still remains that it is giving the hotel that label. I'm not trying to argue that this "flagship" label automatically means something positive about the hotel, or that we should insert some text about how great the hotel is. The reader is free to interpret for himself or herself what that label could mean - the fact remains that Hyatt labels it as the international "flagship property". Does that make the hotel notable? I don't know. But is there any inconsistency on Hyatt's website about this label? Meaning, is it giving every other hotel it owns the "flagship" label? Not that I noticed at least. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 19:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Major hotel in a major city. Golfcam 18:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not AfD round 2. DRV is for discussions regarding AfD procedure (or violation thereof), not content debates. —Kurykh 20:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorsed I believe that the hotel may be notable due to its size, class and location (if anyone can access this article), I would fault the AfD for having been closed before the expiry of the 5 day window for debate. Having said that, however, there does not seem to have been much interest in the article during the time it was up for deletion, so debate was not cut short in actual fact. Kappa had the opportunity of bringing the article to DRV BEFORE reposting, but it appears he chose not to. Not only has Kappa failed to address any of AfD's concerns, his aggressive action - reposting 3 times in one day - in the face of consensus, may constitute edit-warring and may even warrant a ban. Ohconfucius 05:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You do realize that the AfD began at 12:59 on July 29 and was closed at 2:23 on August 3 right? That is five days as far as I can see. Indrian 06:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the point of bringing the initial article to DRV, when it had no evidence of notability? Kappa 16:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The AFD close was, as almost nobody disputes, quite reasonable on the facts then present. The article at that time was spammy (though not quite to the speedy deletion level), and didn't clearly describe any notability. The revised versions by Kappa are significantly improved, and are at least good enough to merit reconsideration afresh, avoiding G4 deletion. So, endorse the close and overturn the G4 deletions. Remember, the best outcome of an AFD is an improved article, and if deletion is a temporary step on that path, so be it. See also WP:HEY. GRBerry 17:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with GRBerry on all counts. Overturn the G4 deletions of Kappa's new article which is not merely a reposting of the narrowly deleted original article but is a new article which shows the notability of the hotel and contains independent reliable sources. -- DS1953 ^talk 05:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion, as per kappa and DGG. Mathmo ^Talk 06:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alan johnston button.png ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Image was speedy deleted as invalid fair use rationale using Twinkle. Associated talk page similarly deleted using Twinkle. However, there was discussion on the now-deleted talk page and a general agreement between those who discussed that the fair use rationale was valid as the tagger had thought the usage of the image was for something different. Fair-use rationale was not to identify Johnston, which is what it was tagged invalid rationale for. The fair-use rationale, and actual usage of the image, was to show the BBC's efforts to keep Johnston's case in the spotlight.

I did bring this up to the deleting admin, who replied rather uncivilly to it. The talk page which contained this discussion was also inappropriately deleted under CSD G8 but G8 does not apply if the talk page "contains deletion discussion that is not logged elsewhere", as is the case here. The talk page should be undeleted so people can see the discussion for themselves, and then decide on the image ([4]).

Undelete both. – Chacor 04:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete permanently - Johnston is free, everything has been sorted with regards to his release, no need for it to be here. Thor Malmjursson 12:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you understand - this isn't a deletion vote for the article. The button was used in the article to show how the BBC kept his case in the media spotlight. Thus it is encyclopedic and was used properly. The question here is about the deletion, whether or not it was proper. I urge the closing admin to ignore this blatant "vote" (quoted from the user himself in the edit summary) that misses the point. – Chacor 12:25, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, Chacor - I did miss the point. I will say that I call it a vote cause I don't know what else to call it however, since it looks like a vote, behaves like a vote and acts like a vote (even if it isn't one!). For what its worth however -

Undelete both - people need to be able to see the deleted discussion before they can make an informed decision. However, I do believe, having read SchuminWeb's comments, they were not uncivil; blunt, yes. Out of order, no. Thor Malmjursson 13:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed - Undelete Image - Have read the discussion, and in my opinion, it does meet fair use criteria, as it illustrates the subject, and meets resolution criteria as low res. Needs to be categorised as non-free media and have the relevant Fair Use Rationale with it per the guidelines. Thor Malmjursson 12:21, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is slightly misguided. Again I stress the purpose of the image was NOT to illustrate the subject, which is what it was tagged replaceable fair use for, but rather to show what the subject's employers, the BBC, did. – Chacor 14:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thor's language may be slightly unclear. It illustrates the subject of the article, which is not exactly the same thing as being a picture of Alan Johnston. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Septentrionalis...I know what I mean, even if its not quite clear to everyone else! My first language isn't English and sometimes I still get muddled when I try to explain something. What you described is exactly what I meant. Thor Malmjursson 10:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have restored the image talk page so participants can see the discussion that was taking place prior to the image being deleted. The image page's history can be found at User:Coredesat/Johnston history. --Coredesat 05:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]