1) no consensus to delete was ever produced (one delete vote vs a bunch of my counter arguments). 2)"CFD regulars don't understand it" is not a valid deletion criteria. 3) it is part of a copyvio screening mechanism and it's loss would potentialy leave wikipedia open to haveing more copyvios missed (this type of copyvio doesn't appear to be picked up by NP patrol very often.) Geni12:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE - As indicated in the deleted category heading, Fogen refers to the fogen system and images listed in the Fogen category were uploaded through the fogen system. For those Fogen category images that do not appear to be copyvios should have their tag replaced with {{MultilicenseFogenviewed}}. Others should be tagged for deletion. -- Jreferee t/c13:50, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I would be happy to overturn the deletion if there were a reasonable copyvio need for this category. I've read both CfDs. I have to agree with BrownHairedGirl. I can't make an sense of the purpose of this category or the documentation you developed to support it. The CfD explanation for the category was given as
"It tells us that there is a fair chance of the image being a copyvio. The upload process is described here. Since most of the uploads are from new users but at the same time will appear to be correctly formatted our normal copyvio detection process break down. Thus another process is needed. The cat is part of that process."
It is fair to have one category dedicated to helping identify a few copyvio images, even if that category is only used by one person. But I really can't figure out what is going on. Until the purpose for the category is clarified and the process explained in a way that others generally can understand it, I think the category should remain deleted. The is what the CfD consensus to delete brought out in the CfD discussion. The keep reasoning never overcame this, so the closer interpreted the debate correctly. -- Jreferee t/c14:25, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It assumes that people have limited understanding of wikipedia copyright policy and copyright law. Significant experence (my Genisock2 account that deals with this stuff has over 3000 edits) suggests this is a reasonable assumption.Geni15:38, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of get a sense that there might be a use for what you are doing, but I think everyone is turned off by your circuitous and obtuse responses and the lack of initial consensus to go forward with the Fogen effort in Wikipedia space. If seasoned Wikipedian's can't figure out what is going on, implementing the Fogen effort on new users would not seem to have an overall positive outcome, even if copyvio content is deleted as a result of the Fogen effort. New users especially will be turned off from Wikipedia if they do not feel they are being treated fairly. That is why it is important that all aspects of the Fogen effort - the process as well as those implementing it - be straight forward and clear. -- Jreferee t/c15:55, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. When you are explaining why you want it kept, and you say the following two things, it doesn't lend credence to your argument: The Cat is important because the form of image upload produces a lot of copyvios that get missed by the new image patrolers. As a result it is useful to have them all in one place and New image patrolled are an irrelevance. They missed another image today. Your arguments were not as solid as either Carlos' or BHG's. --Kbdank7114:46, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that "does not have an unrealisticaly high opinion of new image patrolers" was a deletion criteria. The shear number of problem images that turn up in Category:Fromowner without haveing any PUI nsd or db-copyvio tags added them strongly suggests that new image patrolers are not very good at spoting such images. please feel free to provide evidence to the contary.Geni16:33, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So if I can't provide evidence to the contrary, that means somehow that my reasoning for wanting to endorse isn't valid? And honestly, I have no idea what you mean by your first sentence. --Kbdank7113:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion this is not defining, is apparently not used for any maintenance - how an image is uploaded is of little interest, actually. Something along the lines of Metropolitan90's idea may make sense, but those get uploaded other than through the fogen subpage as well. Carlossuarez4620:05, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really? you have proof of that assertion? Methinks many people probably don't even know that it exists - little wonder that there were so few pages in the cat. Carlossuarez4603:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
endorse deletion - the closer correctly interpreted the debate. The category is an un-needed expansion of a system that is already a problem. The whole from-owner system with those distracting self-reverential images should also be deleted. Johntex\talk14:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Category is not viable. I don't know if the system is viable or not, but these categories aren't appropriate at this name, so deletion is appropriate. GRBerry16:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, although this may not be a great venue for it. I don't see any significant evidence that the system is working. Stifle (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This article was was nominated for AfD. The nominator stated that the term appeared to be almost unused off Wikipedia mirrors. Only a total of 768 Google hits even included all mirrors. The article had no references. I checked 2 dictionaries and did not find the term. Therefore, I speedied it as a hoax. The original author recreated the article. The new version had 5 references,[1] but two were non-notable blogs and two did not even contain the term. The other one appears to be a book which may or may not be a WP:RS. Someone else marked it as a prod. The original author removed the prod. I have redirected the article to Arson and protected the redirect. I am posting here to get more opinions as to whether this is a suitable course of action or if we should allow the recreation of the article. Johntex\talk05:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion/protection. If sufficiently reliable sources appear an author can come to DRV, but as of now this is just an unnotable protologism. It's possible to stick a prefix on terrorism for any number of imagined scenarios, but this really doesn't have much significance if there isn't anyone actually doing it and nobody is really studying it as a distinct thing. --Dhartung | Talk05:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist - There is no hoax speedy delete and hoax is specifically listed as a non-criteria in the speedy delete policy. None of the other speedy delete reasons apply. Pyroterrorism, pyro terrorism, and pyro-terrorism seem to be made up terms, which seems why no reliable source information is being found on the topic. However, merely because the article is misnamed is no reason to speedy delete it. The topic obviously is a legitimate topic (see for example Google search for arson+terrorism), but mis-named. A search of Wikipedia for arson terrorism shows that they usually burn objects (e.g., trucks), not large tracts of uninhibited land as claimed in the deleted article. The topic might attract original research claims (e.g. Southern California recent fires were terrorism), but that is an AfD reason to delete, not speedy delete reason. Information about the topic might best fit in the arson or terrorism article (neither of which even mentions the topic), but that not something for which speedy delete is designed. Removing a prod is merely a disagreement that the prod is appropriate and a proper response would be to list the article at AfD, not redirect it. Also, I do not see a reason to protect the article. The article had been around two months - since 28 August 2007 - so there does not seem to be a reason to speedy delete the article even in a general sense. -- Jreferee t/c15:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, relist Speculation about arson and terrorism goes quite a way back [2]. As sad of an indictment that is of our media, it potentially makes for a feasible article (finding a proper name is a different issue). ~ trialsanderrors22:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, relistHere is a citation to (and opportunity to buy a copy of) a journal article on the topic and using the term. Here and here are a pair of related New York Times articles about convictions for using arson as terrorism. This FBI testimony to congress is also related. GRBerry15:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the Studies in Conflict & Terrorism article ends up being our main ref for this, we should probably move the article to pyro-terrorism, which is how that writer (who appears to have coined the term for his article) spells it. No vote from me; just wanted to get the move suggestion in there. Heather20:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The DRV closer should move the article to whatever name seem the most appropriate. As for the topic of the article, the following seems likely: Pyro-Terrorism - The Threat of Arson-Induced Forest Fires as a Future Terrorist Weapon of Mass Destruction reads "Pyro-terrorist attack - when terrorists unleash the latent energy in the nation's forests to achieve the effect of a weapon of mass destruction." Every summer, it seems as though the nation's forests go up in flames. This might be a stand-in-line terrorist technique. I posted some notices of this DRV on the talk page of the significant contributors to the Terrorist article. Maybe they can figure out where this topic might fit best in the terrorist article scheme. -- Jreferee t/c00:57, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion/protection like it or not Wikipedia is now influential enough, thanks to its ranking on Google searches, and mirror sites, that it can easily create a neologism by creating an article on a subject that is not notable and we should avoid creating neologisms. There is no reason why the article on Arson, to which the page has been redirected, and wich is not very large, should not have a section on the use of arson as a terrorist method (the IRA often used firebombs that fitted in a pocket to burn out department stores, along with torching buses and cars) and this could use the given source to mention the potential of bush fires being used as a weapon. This allows the information to be included in Wikipedia without creating a neologism --Philip Baird Shearer14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
