Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 10

• I'll have to endorse the closure, as there was no consensus to delete the article. However, nothing about the AFD would prevent redirecting or merging the article, or opening a proposal to do so on the article talk page.
  talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse keep. I might have closed with a recommendation for merge, or I might have deleted. The truth of the matter is that there is very little verifiable information about the school, and what little there is should be covered in the article about the series. These problems all lie well within the scope of merging, not deletion. --TS 11:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no consensus Although I agree that the state of the article was not very good, there was a potential merge there. Some deletion commenters mainly referred to the trivia in the article while ignoring multiple references or without really commenting on their reliability, making their reasoning just as bad as some of the keepers'. Also, the article was severely shortened since it's creation. In its current form a merge is sensible and the possibility should be discussed. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but a merge might well be in order. The gutting of the article (rather than hunting for sources) was questionable. Hobit (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IfD|article

)

1. Deleting Admin (User:Peripitus) has deliberately gone against a clear consensus in the image IFD discussion; imposing his/her own personal opinion regardless of other editors submissions. This makes a mockery of the whole IFD process and is an abuse of admin privileges! The closing admin should be neutral and close the IFD in line with the consensus generated in the discussion. The consensus for this image was to Keep. At the very least taking into account the nominating editors comments there was No Consensus. This admin has overridden consensus in a number of other instances on the IFD same date which should be looked at by independent administrators, as the original uploaders may be unaware of Deletion Review Process. 2. Image should not have been deleted for reasons already listed in discussion which are still extant. andi064 ^{T . C} 07:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The arguments made by andi064 and Archivey were indeed on-topic with respect to the NFCC criteria. The closing admin was not free to substitute his own assessment of the NFCC-compatibility of the image for that established in the discussion.  Sandstein  07:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do note that Archivey's comment of The image's purpose is not to merely depict the band, but to depict the music video for the song which is visual and needs an image to complete understanding is really just saying - this is a shot of the music video and so we need the image. It doesn't say why and this type of keep comment, if heeded, would result in all such articles having a shot of the music video. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closure as deleting admin. in IfD determining consensus requires weighing the policy based weight of the arguments and in this case I found the keep arguments lacking. The image is a user-created pastiche of two images from the clip. In the article there is no sourced commentary on the image and in the image description page the justification was For use in Heart Like a Wheel (song) article to illustrate direct prose on noteble(sic) Music video.. Though andi064, in the Ifd, stated that the image supported the text there was nothing I took as convincing about how this significantly increased reader's understanding. I disregarded the last participant as they, largely, simply stated that the image was decorative and that we need the decoration...not a convincing argument. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse That last comment looks like an argument to delete to me. Having looked at the image and the article I can't see how this pastiche can possibly add to the understanding of the article or discussion of the video in ways that words cannot. I also note that the discussion of the video is wholly unsourced and that the whole section looks dangerously like original research and that sourced critical commentary of the issues that the image is trying to depict is necessary for this to be anyway justified for use as a non-free image.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. No number of !votes can override the NFCC, which is driven by the foundation licensing policy.
  talk) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment.That comment displays an appalling ignorance of what
    WP:IFD is about. Editors are not voting, they are either agreeing, disagreeing or commenting on the nominator’s rationale for deletion. In this case the deletion reason 'not add to the understanding of the article' is purely a subjective one. The nominator User:Stifle asserted that it didn’t; two editors I (the uploader) and one other disagreed. No other editors commented during the listing period, unlike some images that were uncontested or had diametrically opposed views, no one felt strongly one way or the other. This means that on the question of whether the nominator was correct in his assessment was No Consensus pure and simple! The result of which, according to IFD rules means a Default Keep'. The principle of 'assume good faith' means that debates are weighted towards ‘keep’ in the first place unless an strong argument for ‘delete’ is established. If a closing admin felt that two comments were not a sufficient then the image should have been re-listed for wider consensus. What is unacceptable is the conduct of User:Peripitus. The closing admin is the ‘sentencing judge’ to the debate contributors ‘jury’ and closes the debate on the findings alone regardless of their own personal feelings. What they do not get to do is override the debate consensus because they disagree with it for what ever reason. If this was an objective breech of NFCC then the image should have been speedy deleted, but it was not! it was a subjective interpretation of a guideline that is open to different interpretations. To which the closing admin has no input as they are 'Neutrally' closing the debate and actioning the consensus. If User:Peripitus felt strongly then he should have added a Delete statement to the debate and deferred the closure to an uninvolved admin. By his conduct in this (and I note on other images) he has compromised the IFD procedure and brought his competence as an admin into question. This is a deletionist attitude which is as damaging to this encyclopaedia as any other form of vandalism. One cannot make an issue of rigidly enforcing the small print in various rules, if you then breech major overarching principles. The original image isn’t worth dying in a ditch over. It was a good faith upload correctly licensed and provided with a FUR which has sat on Wikipedia for over a year with the aim of improving the encyclopedia. It is the principle of fairness, and that admins are breeching rules they are supposed to be enforcing that is the problem. andi064 ^{T . C} 16:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • One cannot make an issue of rigidly enforcing the small print in various rules, if you then breech major overarching principles. — Actually, that's your behaviour, not that of the closing administrator. Our
      Wikipedia:Copyright policy. You are the one arguing the minutiae of whether a procedure was followed whilst abrogating the overarching principle of the project which is to produce a free content encyclopaedia, which only includes non-free content as a exception under very limited circumstances.

      It is not abuse of administrator tools to remove non-free content from the project. That's one of the primary uses for such tools, in fact. The onus lies very much on you to provide a concrete and strong reason for the inclusion of non-free content, not on others to provide reasons for its deletion. It's-a-still-from-the-music-video-and-the-text-also-mentions-the-music-video isn't a reason that stands up to scrutiny. Uncle G (talk) 18:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

      ]

I’m not abrogating anything, as an established Wikipedian of 2 years standing I know and accept NFC rules, which is why the image was licensed correctly and provided with a FU rationale, and remember it was uploaded in good faith to improve the Encyclopedia, not for any other reason. I also accept IFD, and I have won, lost and nominated myself. You are missing the point entirely. If the image had obviously been breaching NFCC then like other debates on that day's IFD the consensus would have been a series of Delete comments. If that was the case I would have accepted the decision unreservedly! That is what the rules say. Even 50/50 I would have accepted begrudgingly. There were no Delete comments at all, just the opinion of the closing admin which ignored the consensus of two Keeps. I am not bothered about a small image on a minor article, this is about the important point that admins are in a privileged position and cannot just delete outside of accepted procedures. Otherwise an admin is able to delete in order to make a

WP:POINT or push a personal agenda, and by implication there is no point in having IFD debates at all if the results can just be ignored. This is the sort of thing that makes new editors lose faith in sticking by the rules of Non Free Licensing and upload under false free licenses, which causes much greater copyright problems for Wikipedia. Discussions that result in a Keep consensus should be respected, if an objective rule is broken then that image should be speedy deleted; if it is a rule that is open to subjective interpretation then the IFD debate has the final say. andi064 ^{T . C} 20:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse - The Promotional video section of Heart Like a Wheel (song) lacks inline references and the video is a secondary matter to the main topic of the article (the song). The article is referenced to a source that is not independent of the topic. The IFD continues this approach in that the keep arguments lacked links to independent reliable sources discussing the deleted image. Without independent reliable sources discussing the deleted image, claims in the IFD about critical commentary, styling, special effects are subjective opinions of Wikipedia editors. The IFD closer stated "those arguing to keep need to show how the image meets the NFCC requirements." The showing should be through independent, reliable sources. Without independent reliable sources supporting their statements, the keep arguments lacked strength. The delete reasoning was supported by NFCC and were the stronger arguments. The delete close interpreted the discussion correctly. If you locate independent, reliable sources discussing the deleted image, please post them in this discussion or return to DRV to request review in view of substantial new information. -- Suntag ☼ 17:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I considered changing my position in view of the comments below. I'm bothered that there were only two !votes, both were keep, and one was from long term editor Andi064, who has been editing Wikipedia since 3 December 2006, and the other was from an editor in good standing. A given IFD discussion usually receives relatively little participation and the NFCC requirements seem to carry much weight that overcomes discussion comments from people. Endorse seem the proper outcome, but what does that make of Wikipedia's discussion approach to resolving matters? There is an interest in editors on the opposite side of the close to reasonably feel that the discussion was fair, particularly when the participating editors are in good standing and make reasonable arguments in the discussion. Relisting may address that legitimate interest, even if a delete outcome seems likely at IFD2. That's what I was going to post as a basis for changing my position. However, I continued to look into the matter. Referring to the admins as a "pair of idiots who work as a double act"[1] isn't a way to seek equity. Perhaps the fairness interest can be sufficiently addressed in the close of this DRV. -- Suntag ☼ 17:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse -- the closing admin showed good judgement, and Suntag above makes the case very well. I'll note that I was put off by the tone of the notification used for this discussion. Jkelly (talk) 02:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse -- Closing admin is correct that the comments in the IFD fail to address the use rationale issue. Furthermore, if the purpose of the image was to support the section discussing the video, then it should be pointed out that the discussion of the video appears to be entirely unreferenced and contains significant editorializing. If you take out the bits that aren't referenced, or that simply don't belong (such as comments that the young ladies in the video are "in their prime"(!)), you're left with very little. I watched the video on YouTube and don't feel that my understanding of the topic was significantly increased by seeing it- doubt that a still shot would do any more. --Clay Collier (talk) 14:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Relist: In retrospect (and looking at the IFD discussion again), I think that the real problem here is that the discussion was closed after only two persons other than the nom weighed in. That isn't enough to establish consensus either way. There seems to be a legitimate disagreement over whether the image contributed to the understanding of the video between the nominator and the respondents; the proper thing to do is re-list and let more people weigh in, rather than try and settle the policy disagreement in Deletion Review. --Clay Collier (talk) 08:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Clearly beyond administrative discretion in interpreting consensus. A nomination followed by two keeps with some respect for policy, with not a single delete other than the nom is a discussion with consensus for deletion? Really? Relisting or voting delete, to make it a 50-50 split, would have almost certainly led to an uncontroversial deletion. Maybe it was a discussion where the delete arguments were stronger, but deletion policy, and an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, requires more. John Z (talk) 02:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn & Relist There are important principles at stake here:
  WP:CSD. The article or image is listed for debate as it is in a "grey area", which the community need to arrive at a consensus as to whether or not it should be deleted from the Encyclopaedia. On this image (which was uploaded in line with encyclopaedia policy) the discussion generated two Keep submissions and no Delete submissions. I challenge anyone to claim that the consensus was not Keep in that debate? Right or wrongly, depending on your point of view that was the result. Closing admin has taken it on himself to deliberately ignore this consensus because he did not agree with it and impose his own prejudiced individual view on the image's status. This is nothing short of an arrogant abuse of process. Integrity of the closing administrator in balencing both sides of a debate is sacrosanct in maintaining community belief in the probity of the iFD process, and prevents a single individual operating to his/her own prejudices. This is a collaborative project, Administrators are not higher beings whose opinions count more than ordinary editors they are just ‘users with additional tools’. Consensus is required for a reason. user:andi064 is correct in maintaining that the principle of assume good faith means that there must always be a positive consensus to delete when there is any margin of error. Wikipeda guidelines state that "Deletion" should always be a last resort. Of all the people who have commented on this debate, why has no one thought to improve the article to improve "significant understanding" for the greater good of the project. As far as the image itself is concerned, in legal terms this is a 'mis-trial', and the image should be listed again so the uploader user:andi064 receives fair treatment. If the image is deleted as the result of a consensus generated in the relist, then so be it. If User:Peripitus continues to ignore Wikipedia’s requirement for consensus then he should be relived of his admin status. Archivey (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Deletion discussion on Wikipedia are not a majority vote and consensus is not measured that way. The instructions to administrators are Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). In this case the arguments to keep did not have a strong basis of underlying policy and were rightly given less weight - Peripitus (Talk) 20:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the running issue with NFCC. The question of importance to an article is subjective and the closer replaced his subjective opinion in place of the subjective consensus. He should have either added a delete !vote if he wanted his subjective opinion to have weight or he should have closed with the subjective opinion. If an image is needed for an article is subjective and was the crux of the debate. There is no bright-line policy here that is being violated by the image. Hobit (talk) 15:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep to quote from above Editors are not voting, they are either agreeing, disagreeing or commenting on the nominator’s rationale for deletion. In this case the deletion reason 'not add to the understanding of the article' is purely a subjective one. And that subjective opinion was what was ignored. The issue, by definition is subjective. Two sides provided little reason other than opinion about how important the image is to the article (and frankly it would be hard to do so). So we are stuck with !votes. It should have been closed as keep. Hobit (talk) 22:22, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You know what, I don't care anymore. That there are people here who taken pleasure in deleting other peoples work means that I have completely lost faith in Wiki. There is no point in reinstating this image as the usual suspects will be gunning for it and will ensure that it is deleted again immediatly. Therefore no point in anyone wasting their time fighting over it anymore. I doubt I will be editing anymore cheers. andi064 ^{T . C} 20:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-list I can't see the image any more, so I can't tell exactly what it shows. However, the article talks about the article being

  "... cheaply shot in a blue-lit studio with graphic spinning wheel and spark effects... [in a] studio set [which] bore no relation to the lyrical content and only succeeded in reinforcing the song as 'bubblegum' pop in the minds of the public. Philip Oakey had by now rebelled against the 'male model look he was 'forced' to adopt during Crash and had taken to wearing biker’s leathers. He had also returned to his lopsided hair style of 1981. But now in his mid 30s the look was derided by the media at the time."

  In the IfD, andi06 wrote that the image specifically illustrated the styling and special effects discussed critically. Since nobody in the discussion dissented from this, it would seem the image did indeed allow the reader to assess for themselves the remarks made in the text, and therefore did indeed "significantly improve reader understanding". If that is the case, the image should definitely have been kept. If it is not the case, Peripitus should have explained why it was not the case, and then left it to somebody else to judge. But on the face of it, since nobody disagreed with andi06's assessment, on the basis of the discussion it would seem that the image should have been kept. Jheald (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant endorse despite andi064 robust defense the close as delete was still within admin discretion. Given the low participation in IfD, admins need to exercise wide latitude in enforcing our NFC criteria. Because of the legal and foundation issues at stake we should delete non-compliant images even if no local consensus for their deletion is apparent. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Why are you persuaded this image was non-compliant? It seems on the face of it entirely compliant. Jheald (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I support overturning the deletion and relisting at IfD (FfD now). While I agree with the rationale in the nomination of the FfD, and the interpretation of the NFCC in the closing, I am uncomfortable with an administrator being able to exercise his interpretation of the NFCC policy directly over all comments in a discussion (excluding the nominator). Particularly when interpretation of the NFCC, especially that point, is so disputed. seresin ( ¡? )  02:13, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]