User talk:Courcelles/Archive 36

Some Concerns, Please Help
I was looking to update a wiki I created last year and see it as recently deleted in a matter of days without any chance to defend it (I'm surprised there is not at least an email sent to a creator's account as not all of us can be regular active members). I understand that you have proven processes that work most the time however I really do believe a mistake was made here and I would like the chance to provide a defense. The deletion notes don't even make the reason for deletion clear....as it is indicated that it should be part of another wiki that is not the same at all. This is why I would like the chance to address this as I believe the deletion was done quickly with predisposed ideas driving the process.

I am talking about "Secure Digital Forensic Imaging" deleted on September 27th, 2010 (this entry was also previously approved). One deletion reviewer somewhat correctly identified this as being relevant to sexual assault but then everyone seemed to agree that it was part of forensic photography and deleted it. This is not correct at all....a lot of forensic photography does not have to take privacy laws into consideration. When privacy laws become relevant (Examples: sexual assault, domestic violence or anything related to medical), a whole new process is necessary for the secure storage and lawful handling/sharing of information. Secure Digital Forensic Imaging is driven by legal requirements and privacy laws, it is definitely its own entity. Forensic photography in Wikipedia is even incorrectly defined as a alternate term for crime scene photography (only relevant to law enforcement), in fact, crime scene photography is a specific type of forensic photography which is much more limited in scope than secure digital forensic photography is. Not only is "Secure Digital Forensic Imaging" valid, it is very clear that there are serious problems with the "Forensic Photography" wiki (this was obviously written by a law enforcement officer from that perspective only, not including a medical perspective involving privacy laws). Also, the two wikis were very different for the already stated reasons, not to be rude but I have to really ask if the reviewers read the two wikis before deciding they were so closely related or if the words "forensic photography" in both led to a rash decision.

I am a novice as far as wiki coding and policies so I hope I am posting this in the right place, I did read however that the proper process is to speak to the individual responsible for deletion first. I would appreciate any direction you may have to offer to address this and I would be happy to help as far as improving the forensic photography wiki as well.

Wace96 (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the relevant AFD so I don't have to keep looking for it; Articles for deletion/Secure digital forensic imaging (2nd nomination). There are two major problems with this article.  First and foremost is that there were absolutely zero sources present in the article.  The second is that the article doesn't appear to focus on any central point, rather it appears to cover several related topics in a rather confusing manner.  Now, I can place the article somewhere in your userspace to work on those points, but this article will need a great deal of work before returning to article space; if there is a valid article here at all. Courcelles 21:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I understand and am willing to work on it, I also hope I could get further guidance to meet wiki expectations as the article summarizes an emerging but proven professional process. If this is not translating well to the layman then it needs work....but the point is to describe Secure Forensic Digital Imaging. Just like many other wikis, including the Digital Imaging wiki which again I must stress COMPLETELY misrepresents digital imaging only to be relelvant to law enforcement and not medical (which changes A LOT due to privacy laws and the federal rules of evidence). My writing style may well be at fault but this is absolutely not several related topics, it is a topic comprised of known components that work together to achieve a neccesary goal through their combination. In effect, virtually every technological topic involves known parts or processes that interact in a new way,....again I must have communicated this instance in an awkward manner.

I would be happy to work on it however I am also hoping to get some advice as to how to bridge this gap with positive ends in mind. If it needs a lot of work, fine, not a problem. With all due respect, it is happenning in hospitals across the U.S. and is becoming more and more prevalent due to Obama's push for digital documentation (which includes photodocumentation) and being medical, falls under privacy laws. Even from a layman standpoint, not only is this valid, I would think it would be expected given the technologies at our disposal and the formal push towards digitization of information in large institutions......in some forms, this has been happenning for near 20 years.....

So, where can I find positive guidance as to how to make this work and what do you need me to do? I should also mention that this is primarily coming from the United States (again because so much of it is driven by federal law) so if it is not happenning in other countries yet then perhaps that would lend to the confusion?

Thank you. Wace96 (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletionist vs. Due Diligence and Good Faith
Please don't take this as a personal attack. Because the articles that are deleted by deletionists no longer have a talk page, and therefore receive no attention following the short speedy deletion process, deletionists never see the negative effects of their habit/philosphy. I believe it is my duty as an ex-wikipedia contributor to bring awareness of the effects of this detrimental deletionist viewpoint. Therefore, my case analysis follows: You deleted the article on Video Copilot. Unbelievable. You state that it just seemed to be a promotion, and that it is one of millions. Video Copilot is a website that has sparked revolution of top-quality vfx in micro-independent films, which is an essential part to it's mother - the explosion of micro-independent filmmaking. You say not notable!? Are you kidding? Do a simple youtube search of "video copilot" and you will have hundreds of thousands of videos pop up that are all paying tribute in their credits to where they learned their craft - Video Copilot and/or Andrew Kramer. Honestly, I'm sincerely surprised that you haven't heard of this website/company and its founder yourself. Additionally, a simple, good-faith, due dilligence google search will reveal that the vastly popular "Creative Cow Magazine," and it's sister project, creativecow.com have featured and adhored Andrew Kramer for his contributions to the industry time and time again over the last decade. So there are print periodicals that regularly detail and praise Video Copilot's efforts, products, and effect on the industry. Along the lines of any objective standard - this meets notability guidelines - as a matter of fact, it is likely more notable than 75% of wikipedia. Now let's analyze your efforts, that I would quickly and effortlessly label - sub-due-diligence. You merely looked at a few forum posts, and did a quick Google search. You (naturally considering the subject) found advertisements, and proceeded to quickly delete the article. This can only be described as 100% sub-par research, has no scholarly merit to it at all, and only worked to make wikipedia a less helpful and less connected source. This type of deletionist behavior is lazy, destructive, and alarming. Again - this is not a personal attack, but a person appeal for a more thorough look into articles you are about to delete. And please remember that behind these articles typically exists a good-meaning person, trying to make wikipedia a better place, just like you, who has put their time and heart into the articles. Thank you for your time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinBrister (talk • contribs) 02:53, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whoa. Actually, the article Video Copilot, as you may view in the deletion logs, sat for seven full days- 168 hours- with a tag on it that said all anyone had to do to stop the deletion was remove the tag. This was not a speedy deletion at all.  It can be restored with a polite request for it to be done.  Courcelles 03:07, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, I wasn't the one that proposed the deletion here, only the one who was cleaning out the category of PROD's that were over 168 hours old. Courcelles 03:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply. I have to admit, most deletionists would not have come back with a good faith reply; they would, instead, have come back with a troll-worthy comment.  I understand that the article was there fore 7 days.  however, I would bet that most wikipedia patrons don't log in for weeks at a time.  Factor in that they don't typically look at the same article each time, and the statistics get even worse.  What I am saying is that 7 days, in and of itself, does not mean that the deletion should commence.  Which brings me to my next point - I understand that you didn't propose the deletion, however, you are the one who followed through.  I am suggesting that articles should be given a real and careful look before deleting just because no one objected in a time period that, as you just stated, can reasonably be measured in hours.  You can restore it?  If you originally felt that the article didn't meet notability guidelines, then I'm sure it won't pass on the second pass.  There is an entire pit of savage deletionists waiting to prey on an article.  However - in the near future, I will likely write this article myself, from scratch.  That way I can be sure to include a lot of references, and do it on a week that I have a lot of free time to fight of the hoards of deletionists.  I know I sound sarcastic with much of this, and I apologize for that.  Rather than preaching to who may possibly be the only decent mannered and polite deletionist that exists, I should be commending your politeness.  Anyway - I have finished.  :)  You may delete this section from your talk page upon reading it.  Thank you for your time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AustinBrister (talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here you go- User:AustinBrister/Video Copilot. You really shouldn't write me off as such a deletionist.  (Just like anyone who doesn't think deletion is ever necessary ought to spend a week cleaning out the hoards of "My girlfriend is a really sweet person" pages that get created.) Courcelles 16:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The AniMatsuri festival
Hello. While searching for it, I noticed that you have deleted the AniMatsuri article on November 9th, this year. The Reasoning on Articles for deletion/AniMatsuri_(Estonia) seems somewhat reasonable, but I still ask you to reconsider it. Firstly, the issue of non-notability. Google search indeed comes short on linking to any third-party sources, however there are some. This article in a local and also the online version of one of the biggest newspapers in Estonia, for example, talks about this years festival. This article in one of the biggest online news portals in Estonia, talks about the then-upcoming (this years) festival (though the picture misquotes the name). I know it's not much (and they are both in Estonian), but if you take into account that we are a small country (~1,3mil people) that just recently was behind the iron curtain, then it's no wonder that the scene isn't that big yet. Secondly, since it is a growing festival and we do wish to increase the number of visitors each year then the importance of being 'out there' on the internet is big and since Wikipedia is one of the most used websites for finding information it's really important that the festival is represented. Thank you for your time. PrunedSamurai (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't read Estonian, but I do know the Postimees- and that they had covered the event may well have been enough to sway the discussion. I don't know that, however.  I can place the article in your userspace for a rewrite to add these two- and hopefully other- Estonian sources you can find, however. (Even two sources is borderline, the usual standard is "multiple".) After you're done, we can re-evaluate things, either here or at WP:Deletion Review.  (It is fairly common practice to show a sourced draft to deletion review after a deletion at AFD.) Courcelles 16:22, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See User:PrunedSamurai/AniMatsuri (Estonia)- you can add the sources there. For the record, though, none of the sources given already are going to help at all with notability. Courcelles 16:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll try to find more sources and add them to the page somehow. It's not going to be easy since, as I said, the scene here is small. Also even if there is coverage, it won't be too detailed, most of the relevant (and reliable, I could vouch for that, though I know how the stance here is about that kind of stuff) information comes from either the main Estonian anime forum (baka.ee/forum, often referenced in the article) or the organizers webpage (asashio.anime.ee or animatsuri.anime.ee; again, something I expect you don't like). I'm fairly new to editing Wikipedia (beyond simple tasks as fixing grammar or adding a few sentences), but I'll try to manage. Thanks again! PrunedSamurai (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Snake Creek
Pardon my intrusion, but when Snake Creek was moved to Snake Creek (Pennsylvania) and then back again, the talk page was never moved back. So any content that may have been on the talk page has been deleted, while Talk:Snake Creek remains a broken redirect when it could be a valid talk page. If Talk:Snake Creek (Pennsylvania) had any preservable content, could you please undelete it and move it to Talk:Snake Creek? Thanks, Dylan620 (t • c • r) 18:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The only content was . Courcelles 18:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup
Thanks for the cleanup of the Krazy Bread redirect; I should have done that myself, but I've been deleting brand-new articles, and slipped out of the good habit to check what link here.-- SPhilbrick T  19:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It happens. I've done it myself a couple times.  We used to have bots to clean up after us, but it hasn't seemed to work for a while now. Courcelles 19:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Deleted Wikipedia entry
Dear Courcelles,

I am a chess fan and small contibutor to Wikipedia. A few months ago I made a major update to an article about a chess master and teacher who is very famous in my country, but because of different reasons, his Wikipedia page didn't exist and it has been deleted repeteadly. I was provided with a copy of the article in question which I reformatted and submitted for review. After that, the article was approved by Wikipedia contributors and put live on Wikipedia. Now, a few months later I received a message saying that since the article was previously deleted, it has been deleted again. My question is: Is there any way for this article to go Live again and who I may turn to, in order to request the article to be reviewed and reforematted even more if needed. Here is the link for the article in question - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valeri_%22Tiger%22_Lilov. I am asking you, since you were the one who closed the 2nd deletion review and I hope you can help. Thank you for your time!

Sincerely,

Dejan Stoynov --Chesszorro (talk) 07:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC) An editor has asked for a deletion review of Valeri Lilov. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Chesszorro (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What you see at Articles for deletion/Valeri Lilov (2nd nomination) is a tricky debate; it was absolutely full of sock-puppets and SPA's with clear conflicts of interest with the subject. If you look at FisherQueen's comments in the debate, she really managed to summarise the situation very well, the sources just aren't there.  Courcelles 16:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your response. However, the article was updated by me since then and placed as a project at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Chesszorro/Valeri_Lilov. It has updated information, sources, etc. We can consider that there are at least three sources to be independent of the subject. Determining  significance in this manner is subjective. Please, let me know what else is required. --Chesszorro (talk) 09:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Pre-deletion copy
Could you put the last pre-deletion version of Noisebridge in my userspace here: User_talk:Lexein/NB for my reference? I have sources to establish notability. Thanks. --Lexein (talk) 22:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Since it's been recreated, what you're asking for would be rather difficult. What I can do, and therefore did do, is restore the old history to the new article. See here, all the old revisions are now visible under the current article. Courcelles 23:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As a direct link, this is the last version of the "old" article. Courcelles 23:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Restoring the history is great. I've edited for tone, and added RS for some claims, and think this satisfies notability as-standalone-article. More RS are in the chute, and just need to be added. Your thoughts? --Lexein (talk) 02:42, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's got a chance to survive AFD at this point. Thanks for the work adding actual references. Courcelles 04:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)