Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 10
Flatpoint High School (Strangers with Candy) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))
Overturn and delete - Arguments in favor of deletion (that it fails the black letter of WP:N as not being mentioned in any capacity other than trivial as one sentence mentions in reviews of the series or film) were much stronger than the arguments in favor of keeping, which were that it's notable because it's the setting for the series and film (which is not the standard for notability nor even resembles that standard for notability), that there were pages full of trivia deleted in the past and the commenter didn't like that that happened (irrelevant), and various other variations on WP:ILIKEIT. Closing admin erred in giving any weight to these arguments and appears based on his comments on my talk page and lack of any substantive information in his closing statement to have totted up the votes and called it a night. Those wanting the article kept offered no basis in any policy or guideline, other than an interpretation of the GFDL which I believe is in error, thus, the side that is supported by policy and guideline arguments should have prevailed and the page should have been deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 23:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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. Stifle (talk) 23:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Endorse. No number of !votes can override the NFCC, which is driven by the foundation licensing policy. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 overarching principle here is free content, as explained in 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)
- 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 overarching principle here is free content, as explained in 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)