Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 November 17

50/50 Twin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

According to WP:Proposed deletion this article must be undeleted automatically on request. Article was deleted by PROD on 12 May 2008. Although first article may have been written too early in his career, this artist has now released 6 albums. Whether or not he has now achieved sufficient notability should be decided through AfD. The same admin had previously denied a Request for Undeletion [1] on 21 October 2011 Ei1sos (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete as a contested prod and then immediately redirect to The Color Changin' Click#50/50 Twin as a non-notable artist. Since this article is constantly being re-created, protect the redirect until a well-sourced draft is presented to DRV.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per
  procedural grounds. I think "redirect & protect" or "keep deleted and salt" are equally good ways to proceed from here. Reyk _YO! 23:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse original deletion. I hate to say it 3 times already. If the person is suddenly now notable under
  BWilkins ←track) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'm sorry, but this makes not one bit of sense to me. For all I know, not being able to view the older article, it might contain reasonably useful biographical information without asserting notability. If the artist has become notable over the more than three years since the PROD-deletion (which is certainly not "suddenly" in terms of popular music), information about his early career certainly might be appropriate to incorporate in the article. And, frankly, those early speedies look pretty bad to me: membership in a notable band may not satisfy the notability requirements, but it's an assertion of significance sufficient to survive A7. The requesting editor can't write a new article right now, because the article is protected against recreation. This is a bureaucratic snarl that should just be cut away. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Reyk and BWilkins. If he's now notable and was not then it makes much more sense to start a new article. As for the contention that we must undelete if requested, it is long established that all Wikipedia rules
  talk) 00:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The redirect is clearly appropriate, folks. The
  WP:BURO violation is to refuse to create it.—S Marshall T/C 01:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• So create it, without first undeleting. Reyk _YO! 01:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• But then we're invoking IAR when there's a rules-compliant way to achieve the same thing. Part of our job at DRV is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed (emphasis mine).—S Marshall T/C 09:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete per
  WP:REFUND. Our process says we should undelete and I see no reason not to. Perhaps because I'm a horrible writer, but I never understand why people think that having a starting point doesn't help when writing an article. I'd say Either roll up your sleeves and and write the article or allow the person who is willing to do the work to have a starting point if they want it. If having a bad article offends so badly, do the undelete and immediately redirect so the history is available as a starting point... Hobit (talk) 17:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn/undelete. The article has never been the subject of a deletion discussion; the last deletion was via PROD; and it's currently protected against recreation. As S Marshall points out, at the very least this should be a redirect. Allow Ei1sos, who's a reasonably experienced editor not involved in the prior versions of the article, a suitable brief interval to create at least an acceptable stub, then take it to AFD if the result isn't sufficient. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• If the old history is restored for work, it should be edited in one page: either unprotect in article space or userfy. Please don't split the page history without a good reason. Flatscan (talk) 05:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but only because the article was an unsourced
  WP:REFUND. If someone wants to use it as a starting point for a new article then it can be done in userspace or the incubator. Once that is done, then we can discuss the subject's notability at AFD if somebody wishes to nominate it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:25, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think userfying makes sense in this case. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Makes perfect sense, it is the people who are endorsing the deletion that are perpetuating the bureaucracy. It was removed under a non-binding process, bring it back and let the user work on it. JORGENEV 13:06, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article|XfD|restore

)

This is a historic photo, one of very few that document an important event in Venezuelan history: the 1992 coup attempt, in which current president Hugo Chávez was involved. It was nominated for deletion with a frankly bizarre reason (that this was merely the record of two men meeting); then the deletion discussion was closed as "delete" even though there was nothing like consensus to do so. I raised the issue both with the nominator (who refused to respond while the nomination was open) and also with the person who closed the discussion, to no avail. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't endorse that. NFCC#8 is too vague for the closer to treat it as a question of fact. It's a matter of opinion, and in a matter of opinion, the closer's opinion isn't the opinion that matters. The FFD discussion is more than just an admin's suggestion box. There was no consensus, and the closer should have found accordingly. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, restore the file. Per S Marshall, NFCC #8 is a decision that requires 1) rational arguments to be set forth about why it applies, 2) an ensuing discussion, and 3) the closer to evaluate the consensus on the NFCC #8 argument as a part of the closing. I really don't see that done there--The one !vote that supports NFCC #8 failure is simply a
  talk) 16:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes, the delete vote was vague, but the keep vote was also a well know and documented mistake:
    WP:ITSHISTORIC. That leave us with my well explained nomination (and that was not "bizarre" at all) and the Admin's mission to enforce policy. In the worst case, this could be relisted to attract more !voters, but in the end, it will always be a policy-based judgement, and not a vote counting, and I don't see anyone making anything near of a policy based argument for keeping this image. Calling NFCC#8 "too vague" is a catch-all. --damiens.rf 20:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Absolutely not. NFCC#8 is not an excuse to purge the encyclopaedia of non-free material. Relevant images almost always enhance the reader's understanding of the topic.—S Marshall T/C 20:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or bar for non-free content is higher than just "enhancing the reader's understanding". The image should be something that is asked by the text, that conveys relevant information that could not be easily passed with text, and that portrays something that an average reader could not figure out by himself. This picture of two man meeting surely does not pass this bar. --damiens.rf 01:48, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • If that was what NFCC#8 meant, then that would be what NFCC#8 said.—S Marshall T/C 09:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You choose to follow the letter and not the spirit. --damiens.rf 16:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I choose to follow what the guideline actually says, rather than what you appear to think it should say.—S Marshall T/C 16:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well what the policy actually says is ""significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." which is substantially more than your stated above "Relevant images almost always enhance the reader's understanding of the topic". --82.19.4.7 (talk) 12:03, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Well, yes, I abbreviated. I believe that relevant images almost always significantly increase a reader's understanding of the topic, and I believe that omitting a relevant image is almost always detrimental to that understanding. Many readers relate to pictures better than text.—S Marshall T/C 13:37, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Well abbreviating where it alters the meaning, can be confusing, I've no difficulty seeing why damiens.rf would see your version as out of line with the actual policy. Your latest interpretation suffers the same criticism as you level at damiens.rf, if the policy merely required it to be a relevant image, then that's what NFCC#8 would say. If I replace your wording to damiens.rf view that "I believe that most images aren't required if the text can..." etc. As we don't do prescriptive policy designed to be so tightly written that it covers every possible eventuality (which would be a nonsense anyway), looking to the intent of the policy is important. The intent of the NFCC criteria and how they arose in the first place is of course to provide a greater restriction on what non-free content we can/should use. The idea of merely being to exclude non-relevant images seems somewhat at odds with that. That wouldn't be part of an NFCC, it'd be part of general image policy regardless of free status, we don't include irrelevant free images or text either. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 14:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Let's parse what NFCC#8 actually says. The wording is: 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. I'd break that down into two limbs: significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic and then omission would be detrimental to that understanding which is exactly the same thing said the other way around. (The second limb should long ago have been excised for being redundant, see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 34#Criterion 8 for a discussion about that.) My position is that relevant images almost always significantly increase a reader's understanding of the topic, because there are readers who relate better to pictures than to text, and because even readers who're very comfortable with text benefit from the additional context provided by relevant images. Therefore, I believe that NFCC#8 as written is passed by almost any relevant image. Your point that this makes NFCC#8 virtually meaningless is quite true, and my reply is that meaningless or not, this is what it says, and if we want to make NFCC#8 meaningful, it will be necessary to change the wording. I do think that as written, it's a test of relevance. It's also the only one of the non-free content criteria that does test relevance.

                      Your other point, that the NFCC criteria are there to restrict our choice of non-free content, seems uncontroversial but I do not think it enhances NFCC#8 beyond what NFCC#8 actually says.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

                      • I'm not entirely in agreement about the second part being redundant, it's a re-emphasis of the point. The fact that it was felt important to labour the point to my mind is indicative of it trying to impose a standard higher than the one you seem to propose it means. As to the rest about relevance of image, I understood your view point. Others have a different view point and interpret the criteria differently, they don't agree relevant images almost always significantly add to the understanding. Your criticism of the other view point is that "harder" application isn't what the criteria says, but they could equally well argue your "softer" view of it also isn't what it says - i.e. there is merely a difference of opinion in the interpretation of NFCC#8. It is your interpretation of the criteria is what makes NFCC#8 more of less irrelevant, if on the other hand you take believe the criteria are supposed to restrict the free content and the criteria would have been written with that in mind, it's not unreasonable to conclude the spirit of NFCC#8 is stronger than your interpretation. --82.19.4.7 (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - There was two editors arguing for deletion and one argued for keeping based on the well know failed argument
  WP:ITSHISTORIC. We need good reasons to keep non-free content, not to delete them. --damiens.rf 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Hi. I'm not sure you've read
    WP:ITSHISTORIC
    very carefully. It's not a "failed argument" at all. It says:

    "Being historic or one-of-a-kind is not, by itself, sufficient. Being of historical importance can, however, be part of a good argument that an image satisfies criterion 8 (contextual significance), and being unique may be helpful in satisfying criterion 1 (no free equivalent). It is also important to distinguish between an image that is, itself, historic and notable in its own right (such as the photograph Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima), and thus is very likely to satisfy criterion 8, and a non-notable image that illustrates an historic event, in which case passage of criterion 8 is a matter of editorial judgment and consensus." (my emphasis)

  • In short, the fact that an image is historic is not necessarily in itself sufficient, but it can indeed be an argument in favor of an image's retention. It can be "part of a good argument that an image satisfies criterion 8." In other words, far from being a "failed argument," it's part (if only part) of a good argument. What's important is gauging "editorial judgment and consensus." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 03:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • In short, you're still saying an "image is historic" when the case is actually that it's "an image of an historic event". --damiens.rf 16:14, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, you'll see that
        WP:ITSHISTORIC (which you keep on citing) covers both types of photo, and admits that there is slippage between them. Frankly, I think this image is indeed arguably "historic and notable in its own right," at least within the Venezuelan context. In any case, there is no doubt that it also "illustrates an historic event." Your argument, such as it is, seems to deny both the former and the latter: you say that this is simply a photograph of two men meeting. As I point out, that's like saying that this image is merely a picture of three men meeting. This is the argument that I think is bizarre. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Weak Endorse- I agree with S Marshall that there was no consensus in this discussion. However, in cases of non-free content I think no consensus should default to delete. Reyk _YO! 00:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn Jbmurray is correct, and since it's a matter of interpretation, the only way to decide whether to follow it is by consensus; nobody, correct though they may be, has the right to say "my interpretation is better". If the FfD was not sufficiently attended to get a good consensus, then relist is a possibility DGG ( talk ) 16:17, 18 November 2011 (UTC) .[reply]
  • Police ignorant votes are to be discarded. --damiens.rf 16:36, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Huh? --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it was a typo for policy-ignorant votes. DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, OK. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:44, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• weak overturn to NC (default keep) The nomination gives good reasons for deletion (no idea if they are true as I can't see the picture or its context). One keep !vote gives a reasonable reason to keep (same caveat). One delete !vote which doesn't explain its reasoning. I suspect the image meets NFCC#8 (as I tend to judge #8) because seeing a historical event places it in context and increases the readers understanding thereby. I don't think a consensus for deletion was formed. Was it within admin discretion? I'd have to say no. 2 to 1 with both sides having valid arguments isn't a consensus no matter how you slice it. Weak because I lack context. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn (to no consensus). I think that DGG is right, and it should have been relisted in an effort to get a clearer consensus. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. In the absence of consensus to include disputed nonfree content, such content should be removed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serious question: Is that stated somewhere? I know a lot of people treat NFCC that way (closing admins at FfD for example) but I didn't think there was actual consensus on that point. Is there something I'm missing (which is quite likely as I tend to avoid NFCC discussions)? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 20:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Off the top of my head, I'd say it follows from the
      WP:NFCC enforcement policy, which says that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created" and that "To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria" (my emphasis). I've seen it stated in similarly direct terms in various discussions (eg, here [2], where admin Kww says "Once he challenged the material, it needed to be removed until there was consensus to readd.") Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Thanks. I think that perhaps an RfC on the topic would be wise. I do agree you make a reasonable case, but none of that (other than one admin's opinion) says quite what you are claiming. Given our deletion policy very clearly states that we default to keeping things, I think it is actually less than clear, so clarification would be good. Hobit (talk) 00:34, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Jbmurray is correct. --Moni3 (talk) 22:00, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. NFCC#8 is a matter of opinion, and since there is no consensus opinion to be found in this XfD, the file ought to have been kept by default, as is policy; there is no rule in deletion policy according to which disputed unfree content is deleted in the absence of consensus to retain it.  Sandstein  07:52, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (or alternatively relist). Notability does not override the non-free content criteria. –MuZemike 21:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is there a way to un-delete or otherwise host a deleted file such as this for non-admin review? Any reading on the discussion would depend on NFCC number 8, which is subjective. For any non-admin who hasn't seen the picture, trying to discuss this is like taking a shot in the dark. ThemFromSpace 01:47, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can see the image (actually, rather better quality than the one we had) here. It's the black and white image, with the caption "Hugo Chávez and fellow rebel Francisco Arias Cárdenas, the targets of the intended murder plot." --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 04:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As anyone can see now, it just shows two men meeting. We don't use non-free content to convey such trivial information. --damiens.rf 18:07, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is the silliest argument I've ever seen on Wikipedia (and I've seen a few). So this is a picture of a man waving a piece of paper in the air, this is a picture of two men smiling at each other, and so on... --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 23:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • We have sources mentioning the notability and influence of the real "historic images", which is not the case for the photo being discussed here. In this case, the sources only talk about the event depicted. --damiens.rf 12:31, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]