Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 29

< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log
< 2011 June 28
2011 June 30 >

29 June 2011

edit
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sabrina Deep (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted by User:Timotheus Canens. There was not consesus for deletion. When i tried to solve the matter on his user talk page i was liquidated with a vague Delete reasons seem strong to me when i clearly pointed out that one of those Delete reasons was a mere offensive statement towards Sabrina Deep and that two of the other Delete reasons were anachronistic since i had enriched the article with information and sources which rejected the objections. As soon as i enriched the article as per Wiki policy, the article was deleted 24 hours later not even giving others the chance to judge on the new information and sources.--Engenius (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request Can we get a history-only undeletion? Hobit (talk) 03:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I second your request because a last extensive revision to the article, based on previous objections, was made just 24 hours before the article was deleted and a discussion on the revised article didn't take place.--Engenius (talk) 13:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - "A record gangbang such this satisfy criteria 3" (of WP:PORNBIO) was a fraudulent keep rationale that was rightly discarded, along with the others that cited it. Fans of the self-styled "Queen of Bukkake" will have to find another venue for free advertising, sorry. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Engenius's revisions to the article did nothing to resolve the BLP/RS problems, and the heart of his keep argument -- "About her world record claims, there is no such thing like an official adult records database: all records related to the adult industry are claims and are given for granted until otherwise questioned or proven untrue" [1] -- is so far removed from Wikipedia policy that the closer would have been justified in giving it zero weight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 04:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is my understanding that AVN and Xbiz are reputable news source for the pornographic industry. If this is not the case, it would be nice to have a discussion on which are considered reputable news sources. If AVN, just to talk of one of the two, is indeed a reputable news source, let me explain to you how it works with press releases versus articles. AVN features a section for press releases where every company can add theirs and a section for articles which are written by AVN editors based on noteworthy news. If you look at Sabrina Deep on AVN she has 3 press releases and 9 articles and 1 interview: i used most of these (and not the press releases) to source the revised article. A record claim, although there is not an official records-keeping institution in the adult industry, when widely accepted within the industry itself still satisfies WP:PORNBIO at number 3: has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre. Gangbang is indeed a specific pornographic genre and Sabrina Deep is considered within the adult industry the record holder. WP:PORNBIO at number 4 states: Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media and Sabrina Deep has been main guest on the Howard Stern in two different occasions. I would like to conclude saying that Sabrina Deep has been nominated for an XBiz award in 2011 and that such nominations are decided by adult industry insiders. You say my revisions did nothing, but you don't explain why, point by point. Wiki policy on WP:AfD says at 4: Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. Tell me why AVN is not a reputable adult news source. Tell me why the Howard Stern Show is not a notable mainstream media. Tell me why an aknowledged by the industry world record is not a unique contribution to a specific pornographic genre. My point on the Sabrina Deep article is mainly to understand the policy on pornography related articles. I read Tarc saying above that Keeps on the article were by Sabrina Deep fans, but i could argue that the Delete ones were by Sabrina Deep enemies and we wouldn't go anywhere. It would be nice to see detailed arguments rather than offenses and generalistic personal statements. There are many many articles on Wiki in the same situation and i see that all those related to the adult industry get that superficial treatment and rarely an explanation which goes beyond the personal feeling is brought into the discussion. WIki is not about personal feelings imo and as much as you should argument the creation of an article based on solid evidence, so you should argument a deletion with the same accuracy.--Engenius (talk) 16:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you should review what you wrote three weeks ago, during an earlier stage of this discussion: Media coverage in the adult entertainment business works differently than in other fields: they all start from a press release; there is little or none independent coverage of news and characters especially by the two major players AVN and XBIZ. A piece of news covered by Gram Ponante at Fleshbot makes it today much more relevant and independent and therefore reliable than if it was covered by AVN. An "as is" press release is published only on the Companies Press Release section at AVN and XBIZ and it's never endorsed by an AVN or XBIZ writer, but a piece of news covered by XBIZ and AVN and endorsed by their editors still starts from a company press release (except for interviews) and it still follow the original press release draft for a good 90%.[2] That's about as strong an argument as I would make against using AVN/XBIZ sources generally. Wikipedia requires reliable, independent coverage of subjects to establish notability, particularly for biographies of living persons. Since, as you say, there's very little genuinely independent coverage -- and touched-up press releases, typically coming from advertising clients, certainly aren't independent -- it's very difficult to establish notability for these performers, and the WP:BURDEN rests with those who want to establish notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You surprise me, honestly. When Apple launches Iphone they do it through a press release or a press conference by Steve Jobs, owner of the company, believe it or not. Is that marketing? Yes, but ultimately reputable news sources decide if it's noteworthy (they make an article on it) or not (they just or just not publish the press release). It is exactly my point above. And that is why AVN and XBiz have two sections: to divide the noteworthy news from the self publicity. Even The Financial Times and all the major daily newspapers have a section for press releases. Those that i cited are not press releases, they are articles, noteworthy news in the adult industry. Per your statement there are no reliable and reputable news sources in any category of human life and you should delete almost the entire Wiki. News different from a natural happening all start from a press release or a press conference. If a media uses one of their employees' time to write an article it means that they considered that piece of news noteworthy. A press release is nothing else than a news communication which then the media will judge or judge not noteworthy.--Engenius (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Including the nom, we have five delete and four keep !votes, which seems close until you realise that only one of the keeps (morbidthoughts) makes a reasonable attempt at a policy-based argument - and even that was strongly refuted by others. A proper closing rationale would have been nice, but I can't see a reason to overturn this. Alzarian16 (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hope that you agree with me that a Delete request stating Just a publicity page for a prostitute-on-the-road who's made a handful of porn films and seems to be marketing video of her own sessions with her clients has not much weight. Actually it shows how Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) request is just based on personal feelings, unless calling a person a prostitute on a Delete request is part of Wiki deletion policy, which i don't think. That's a mere personal and offensive judgement on the person which is the object of the article and i'm surprised that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is even allowed to decide the destiny of Wiki articles, with that attitude.--Engenius (talk) 13:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, the wording of the deletion request is a gross violation of WP:BLP policy, and I'm surprised it was not acted on. It is not NPOV to consider a sex performer automatically and necessarily a prostitute, and this is the sort of statement for which unquestionably RSs are needed. The deleting admin explained fully on their talk p. at [3] why they did not consider the sources sufficiently reliable; I am not qualified to dispute that, and it seems a reasonable conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 15:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus The AVN and Howard Stern references (amongst all the other press releases) appear to have met the GNG, and a closing admin should have checked that at the time of closing. Jclemens (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I'm far from persuaded that AVN is a reliable independant source. Its got far too much form to reprinting press releases and publishing incorrect bio-data to meet my personal expectations for an trustworthy reliable source independent of the subject. The last couple of porno DRVs have tended to support this position and I'm actually wondering whether we are approaching the point where AVN will become depreciated as a source. Is Howard Stern a reliable source? Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I keep reading personal feelings. If you think AVN is not a reliable source you should seriously discuss that with solid arguments on WP:RSN because all and i mean all the articles involving WP:PORNBIO on wiki use AVN as a reliable source. Said this, the article in question cited also XBIZ. XBIZ company representatives are frequently cited in mainstream media articles about business trends and practices in the industry is written on Wiki. I have the feeling (yes, it's my turn to have one) that you will not aknowledge any source as reliable reguarding Sabrina Deep article, no matter what. Your prejudice is clear at the end of your comment, when you question Howard Stern as a reliable source: The Howard Stern show is not about sourcing, but about satisfying WP:PORNBIO at number 4 (Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media). Hopefully you won't deny that The Howard Stern Show is a notable mainstream media.--Engenius (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse per my comment on sourcing immediately below Jclemens' vote. Spartaz Humbug! 06:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are endorsing based on personal feelings and not based on arguments; further, you endorse based ONLY on one aspect of the discussion, omitting the fact that the Sabrina Deep article meets WP:PORNBIO at number 3 and at number 4.--Engenius (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that the prevailing opinion at DRV is that we ought to start deprecating AVN as a source, and I also think we ought to demote PORNBIO to essay. However, in these days when we have AVN specifically listed as a reliable source in a SNG, I'm having trouble deciding whether it would be better to endorse or to overturn in this specific case. We ought to do what our guidelines say we'll do, but equally, AVN is not a sufficient source for a BLP.—S Marshall T/C 08:11, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I appreciate your balanced comment, here. As you say, all the articles involving WP:PORNBIO are sourced through AVN and XBIZ, on Wiki. Given that Wiki policy suggests to try to expand an article when there is no consesus on its deletion and given that AVN and XBIZ are widely used to source WP:PORNBIO articles on Wiki, the deletion should be overturned, especially considering that the article meets WP:PORNBIO at 3 and 4. Until a discussion is started in the appropriate Wiki sections about reliable sources for WP:PORNBIO and a decision is taken and new guidelines are given, i don't see how a massive articles deletion can be ignited based on three people concerns.--Engenius (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • policy is descriptive not prescriptive so if the prevailing view is that AVN is being depreciated then policy needs to reflect that, we certainly don't wait for the policy to catch up with practise before we continue what we are already doing. Spartaz Humbug! 09:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is not a prevailing view. There is a three people's view which are the same people who voted for deletion. The prevailing view is that AVN and XBIZ are reliable sources and this is proven by the thousands of articles relying on WP:PORNBIO existing on Wiki and sourced through AVN and XBIZ. I would also like to point out that those sources are listed as reliable at WP:PORN and that the final revision of Sabrina Deep article can be easily sourced through many more among the listed sources. I used AVN and XBIZ because they are the most widely used sources for WP:PORNBIO articles on Wiki and i didn't surely expect hostility on that.--Engenius (talk) 14:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The depreciation relates to more then just this one discussion. There is an organic process as our policies and guidelines shift where community expectations move and the policies slowly follow them. From my view, this is pretty much an extension of the wider acceptance of BLP where the community now expects a much stronger application of our sourcing rules then hitherto for BLPs. Spartaz Humbug! 15:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • You keep talking about community expectations while i have brought in existing and black on white wiki policies. Your opinion, believe it or not, counts for me, but it remains an opinion and it does neither speak for the whole community nor it should overturn existing wiki policies. AVN and XBIZ are widely used as reliable sources reguarding the adult industry, on wiki, and they are listed as such at WP:PORN. Sabrina Deep meets WP:PORNBIO at 3 and 4. Last, but not least, i offered to add additional sources, as listed in WP:PORN, to the Sabrina Deep article. Please explain why we should go against policies only for this article; please explain why The Howard Stern Show is not a notable mainstream media; please explain why being recognized by the adult industry as a gangbang world record holder does not fit into having made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre; please explain why the opinion by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz who started the AfD process, if i'm not wrong, should be considered as balanced and impartial given that his reason to start the AfD process was: Just a publicity page for a prostitute-on-the-road who's made a handful of porn films and seems to be marketing video of her own sessions with her clients; ; please tell me why Tarc vandalized my motivated critics to User:Timotheus Canens on his Administrator Review discussion page; please, tell me how can you sustain that there was consensus in deleting the article. Let's not get personal. Let's evaluate things based on existing policies, please. I have brought in arguments based on existing policies and facts to support my DR request; i keep reading objections by the same people who motivate their agreement to delete the article solely based on smokey and generalistic personal feelings and assumptions as well as on futuristic policy changes. Again, don't forget that if you let pass the idea that there are no reliable news sources within the adult industry, you create a very dangerous precedent which will lead to question the whole lot of PORNBIO articles and i can bet you that that naive idea will be promptly objected and discarded.--Engenius (talk) 16:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • (EC)I don't want to patronise you but your responding to every opinion in such a hectoring manner doesn't really leave much alternative. You currently have 20 undeleted edits. By any description that means you are an inexperienced editor who has not been deeply engaged in how wikipedia's (admittedly Byzantine) polices and guidelines interact. Please don't presume to lecture experienced editors about how we should interpret or apply wikipedia policy because while we may not agree with you in your interpretation it doesn't mean that we are wrong, or even that you are because there is always wriggle room. You should also try applying some assumptions of good faith in the motivations and intentions of other editors. It is entirely possible for two equally good intentioned editors to be 180 degrees apart in how they approach a discussion. That doesn't mean a fight it means a discussion. Please don't apply a battleground mentality because it disturbs the tranquillity round here. As recently as 21 May DRV endorsed the deletion of a porn related article at least in part because of concerns raised about AVN as a source - It clearly is becoming depreciated to an extent. I closed that AFD and I also participated in the DRV and have been a regular participant at DRV since the middle of 2006. During that time I have opined on many deletion discussions and closed a fair few as well. Opinion does change, I have seen it. I can clearly see the BLP requirements hardening and that this is having a noticeable knock on for BLPs as they are now much more likely to be deleted for inadequate sourcing then every before and we are, as a community, becoming much harder about what sources we will accept for a BLP. You can disagree with my analysis but please don't ascribe petty motivations to my actions and comments because that's just a massive failure to assume good faith on your part. Spartaz Humbug! 17:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I don't feel patronised and i have never ever used any offensive word torwards you or any other editor/admin. I disagree with your analysis, but i respect it. Especially reguarding this last comment of yours, which certainly goes to the point of the matter like no other comments by you on the matter did before. This discussion seems to turn into a sources matter, while it wasn't exactly like that when the article went into AFD. I might be an inexperienced editor in relation to the vast universe of Wiki technicalities (and yet that should not lighten the weight of my arguments), while i surely see that you are an experienced editor reguarding those things. And i'm not being sarcastic. But going back to the point, i'm still not convinced of your arguments. If i'm not wrong, you are resting your case more and more based on AVN not being a reliable source. Although i don't agree with that (and i have explained above why - EVERY mainstream or not very reputable media rely on press releases to pick the noteworthy news and writing articles about), i have offered to enrich the article with added/different sources, if the source is the problem like it seems it is for some of you Wiki editors/administrators. Now, i have no problems to re-create the article with added info and sources, but i wanted first to get a final and officially agreed point on why the article was deleted. Since the article met PORNBIO at point 3 and 4, it seems that the only reason which justifies its deletion is the reliability of its sources. Since there was clearly no consensus about its deletion, even if you wanted to consider reasons for Delete such as Just a publicity page for a prostitute-on-the-road who's made a handful of porn films and seems to be marketing video of her own sessions with her clients and A claim to Wikipedia notability of being a bukake record holder? Ummmm, I don't think so reliable, and since it appears that the problem is a sourcing one because some of you start questioning AVN reliability, given the notability of Sabrina Deep according to PORNBIO 3 and 4 and given the existance of many different sources related to the article and given your proven experience as a Wiki editor, i just don't understand your hostility towards enriching the article as per wiki standards and policy.--Engenius (talk) 20:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The core problem is that the article did not contain references to any reliable sources about this living person, and this WP:BLP issue overrides all notability-based "keep" opinions.  Sandstein  17:20, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to WP:PORN those news sources are reliable; according to thousands of established articles on Wiki those sources are reliable; i have numerous times said that if more sources are needed, the number of sources can be extended because they are indeed available reguarding that article and that is exactly what Wiki policy suggests at WP:BEFORE: Some pages should be improved rather than deleted and Before nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist. But this was never done on first instance because a destructive and superficial attitude took over a constructive one. When proposed for deletion the main reason given was lack of notability. Now that that objection has been proven wrong according to PORNBIO the reason in lack of sourcing. Of course nobody has even tried to look for more sources when that was still possible, but now those same people use the sources reliability here. I repeat myself: it is very dangerous to deny the credibility of sources based on an alleged incoming discussions and revisions about their reliability and doing so ignoring current and existing standards and policy. A precedent will stand and a huge chunk of valuable existing information risks to disappear before alternative policies are decided.--Engenius (talk) 17:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wiki-projects don't get to determine their own notability standards, so WP:PORN is out the window as far as I'm concerned. If all that can be found out there about this...actress...are press blurbs from porn industry sources, then no, she isn't article-worthy. Tarc (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • And again you don't explain why AVN and XBIZ would be press blurbs only in relation to the Sabrina Deep article, while they are clearly reliable sources in relation to other thousands of wiki PORNBIO-related articles. And again you avoid to aknowledge the fact that i offered to enrich the article with added sources.--Engenius (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure for now. We hold biographies of living persons, including those covering performers in pornography, to a higher standard of sourcing. There are significant doubts about the reliability of AVN as a source, so overturning this deletion based on the existence of AVN articles alone would be inappropriate. Engenius, would you mind linking to the XBIZ articles you believe establish the notability of the individual in question? Also, it is presently unclear to me whether there are other non-AVN sources with which you have repeatedly "offered to enrich the article," but, if there are, please link to them. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:FARC-child-soldiers.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Admin counted votes to a strange "No Consensus", failing do dismiss votes that show a mistaken understanding of the police, or that fail to even adress it. User:Andy Dingley pushed the wrong idea that it's justified to use non-free images for "documentation of a fact that is central to that article". The fact in question is that the FARC used child soldiers, and we should document that fact with reliable sources, and not with a non-free picture of children dressed as soldiers. User:DGG claimed this is a "well-known image used to indicate the subject". Even if this was proven truth (which he didn't bother to do), this does not means the image is usable in Wikipedia. Many photojournalistic pictures are widely used by the press and books but that in no way means its use passes NFCC - We have our own rules. The nomination dealt with NFCC#8, but both keep votes failed to even try do address how the removal of this image would be detrimental for the understanding of the article. The closing admin was asked to review the this and other equally objectionable closings (two of them already overtrhown) but he stood by his mistake. damiens.rf 14:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unless a proper, non-dead link image source is added by the time this DRV is up, I'm going to delete this per WP:CSD#G10 no matter what the outcome of the NFCC matter is. NW (Talk) 14:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm certain I'm missing something important. Could you explain for the slow among us how having a non-dead link is relevant to being an attack page? Are you worried that the image might be something other than a FARC thing? (I see this is explained below, striking) In any case: [10], [11] are among sites that use the image if that's helpful. [12] lists some 65 sites that appear to use this image. Not sure if any of those are a link to the "image source" (or what an image source is in this context--do you mean the original photographer or publisher?) Hobit (talk) 03:35, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [EC with NuclearWarfare, who seems to have seen the same issues I am seeing.] Question: In attempting to evaluate the arguments presented in the XfD, I am hitting a dead-end -- I think the discussion participants and the closer may have had some information that I don't have. The fair use justification states that the "image is being used for non-profit educational purposes" and "is already widely used under fair use on dozens of web sites, and it's use on Wikipedia will in no way interfere with ability to profit from image in the future" and it was stated in the deletion discussion that it is a "historic well-known image." That all may be true, but I can't find any information trail identifying who made the image nor where else it has been used. The source link on the File page is 404 and the URL listed there does not take me to the image. Can someone provide some backup for the assertions made in the deletion discussion and fair use rationale? --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • support the no-consensus decison, which judged correctly the consensus. The delete argument was adds to relevant information,: but that's such a vague phrase that it 's applicability in any particular case has to be judged by consensus. It adds an understanding of the nature of the ASRC role in the conflict more clearly than words can convey. fixing the image trail is necessary, but I am assuming it will be completed. That a link as gone dead is no reason to remove a reference, just to indicate the problem & try to fix it, and the same goes for anything else that becomes inaccessible. We can AGF that the information was previously present. As links go dead, do we remove items that were previous accepted? That makes Wikipedia a web guide, not an encyclopedia Nothing is presented to dispute the other parts of the rationale. As for G10, it does not apply; this are participants in a conflict, young people or not, who are clearly proud of their roles--neither they nor anyone else is being disparaged. If the objection is valid, I do not see that a source will help. So an admin starting off discussion promising to ignore the finding and delete the item anyway does not speak well for their neutrality. As this problem was not raised during the IfD, it could and should simply have been presented here as an additional rationale for deletion. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG: Your comment in the XfD suggested that you had some outside knowledge of this image, so you may be able to address its sourcing. The source attribution is a bare URL that apparently no longer points to the same website, much less the specific content. From the Internet Archive, I've determined that the source was a website called Panorama Mundial. Can you help track down the source? --Orlady (talk) 16:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • These children are being accused of participating in a guerrilla war against their government. Armed revolution is treason. We have no right to insinuate that someone is committing such an act without a valid source. For all we know, this could be a screenshot from a movie.

    If you're worried about links going dead, there is many a way to fix that. But a source that is not verifiable has a worth of exactly 0. NW (Talk) 17:55, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • It could be replaced with a different, reliably-sourced, picture of a Colombian child soldier. For example, the BBC have published one here. Would that resolve your concern, NW? (I ought to add that it's replaceable with other non-free content. It's not realistically replaceable with free content, because we can't send our volunteers with their cameras into a war zone.)—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming that editors are fine with such an image meeting NFCC #8, I would be fine with that. It's a tricky matter, because while news agencies (like the Associated Press) are famously quite protective of their copyright, we need their backing to host images without violating our BLP/unwritten ethics policy. NW (Talk) 02:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm growing quite gravely concerned about what I see as the misinterpretation of NFCC#8 at DRV. Let's be clear here. NFCC#8 is a matter of opinion. Specifically, one user's opinion that it "doesn't significantly enhance readers' understanding of the subject" does not trump another user's opinion that it does. NFCC#8 is not a magic wand that makes an image deletion discussion default to delete!

    I'm sure that damiens.rf was motivated to raise this DRV by the surprising and unconventional outcome of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 17, involving the same nominator and the same closer. With all due respect for Eluchil404, I found the outcome of that DRV completely bizarre. I think it's very important that DRV doesn't allow users to destroy our non-free content repository with just the allegation of failing NFCC#8. The principle must be NFCC#8 is a matter of opinion and it requires a supporting consensus before it can operate.—S Marshall T/C 16:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I had been waiting for someone to request an explanation of the close of the prior DRV but no one has so this is as good a place as any to go into more detail. The foundation has stated that we are to make only "minimal" use of non-free content.[13] Therefore NFCC#8 must not become the exception that swallows the rule. While it's exact operation is a matter for consensus, it is not simply an untrammeled vote count. Opinions that argue for massive, rather than minimal as dictated by the foundation resolution, amount of fair-use are properly given less weight. This is not anyone can claim an NFCC#8 violation and get an image deleted or even no-consensus defaults to delete, but rather a judgement that in some cases those arguing for an expansive interpretation of the criterion are making arguments in considerable tension with the foundation resolution and the spirit of the NFC criteria which countenance the use of non-free content in limited circumstances, and only there. Further discussion of the general principles of NFC policy is probable better left to the policy talk page or an RfC (which I think might be helpful) rather than this specific DRV which is concerned with the necessarily fact-specific case o a particular image. Eluchil404 (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • That strikes me as poring over policy rather closely in the face of an obvious lack of consensus. But it wasn't my intention to rehash the June 17 DRV. A key difference in this specific case is that in the June 17 DRV, I felt the image did not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic. In this case, I think it probably does: an image of what are clearly child soldiers in a significant conflict is a very different thing to a picture of a chess match.—S Marshall T/C 17:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that there's a level of subjectivity to something does not mean that our judgement of it has to come down to simple headcounting, and nor does it mean that all opinions are equally valid. Compare; there's clearly a level of subjectivity with regards to how good a painting is, yet art critics can still meaningfully debate the issue without it coming down to "well that's just your opinion". Same's true of books, video games and such, and, for some, a whole lot of other things. Something similar is true here here. Andy Dingley did not argue in favour of this image, he merely questioned Damiens about his view. That vote may as well have just been "Keep. [sig]". He does imply that he believes that the image is there "to provide clear documentation of a fact that is central to that article", but what precisely this means, I am not sure. Clear documentation should be provided by referenced text, it is in no ways clear why seeing this image significantly increases reader understanding of the topic. DGG makes a number of vague comments, asserting that the image is "well-known" (for which I see no evidence) that it is "used to indicate the subject" (well, yeah- why does this subject need to be "indicated"?) and that "[p]ictures usually are" "better than a verbal description" (how this view relates to this picture is not clear). He closes by saying that "we are justified in using [pictures] whenever they have a substantial contribution". I agree, but he has failed to establish that this picture in particular does have a substantial contribution, unless he hopes to argue that all pictures which are "used to indicate the subject" automatically "have a substantial contribution". Such a view would not be inline with our current non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Our process is that it's for the participants in the XFD to form a rough consensus about whether the policies and guidelines are met. It's for the closer to implement that rough consensus. Where no rough consensus exists, the only available close is "no consensus." An FFD is not a sysop suggestion box, J Milburn. The closer is clerk to the discussion, not the chairman of it. And invoking NFCC#8 does not change the default to "delete".—S Marshall T/C 16:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist While there is wide latitude for an administrator to interpret guideline and policies when closing, but here (as mentioned above) there was not sufficient reasons given by the participants for him to do so. The nomination was clear, the participants failed to rebut, but I can't bring myself to say "delete" as I agree we're often wrong in our over-strict NFC reading. Relist, get the sources sorted out, make a more consensual decision. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks to S Marshall's comment of 16:49, 30 June 2011, this is what I was trying to say above. If the closer wants to highlight a policy argument that has not yet been raised, participate instead of closing. (With the caveat that the administrator may choose to expand on arguments presented. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it's not the same as when they need to discard an opinion as not based on policy--they are obliged to say why, and there is no clear demarcation line between explaining that, and expressing their own super-opinion. But raising a new issue is alweays improper unless its explicitly a speedy that meets the speedy criteria. DGG ( talk ) 15:24, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - "Non consensus" was an accurate assessment of the discussion, which was posted for 3 weeks before it was closed. However, this DRV indicates the existence of a raft-full of topics deserving to be hashed out more fully. Relisting would be the best way to address those topics. --Orlady (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist There's no question the image is replaceable fair use. The image's rationale is "Illustrate section of FARC-EP article related to child soldiers." Unless child soldiers are in the past, the image is replaceable in its purpose by a free license alternative. Total failure of WP:NFCC #1, and ignoring that serious issue in an FfD closure? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure as no consensus - DRV is not XFD#2 even if I believe the image should have been deleted per NFCC#8. No prejudice to Relisting again to gain more input. --MASEM (t) 16:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete – Notability doesn't override the non-free content criteria, which has not been addressed by those arguing for retention. I also have a hard time seeing the one reason for retention as nothing else than a personal attack. –MuZemike 17:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum – Isn't the FARC still around, and as such, isn't there a possibility to obtain a free version of such an image (which in this case, as the others mentioned above, imply that this image would fail WP:NFCC#1)? –MuZemike 18:00, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends how realistic you think it is to expect one of our volunteers armed with their personal digicam and their good intentions to go into a war zone so as to take a photo, I suppose.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no consensus close. What do we have in the FFD? A few good faith, well-founded opinions to the effect that the image significantly adds to reader understanding, and a few good faith, well-founded opinions that it does not. There is no policy basis whatsoever for ignoring any of those opinions on either side, and with NFCC#8, opinions are all you're going to get. Of course "no consensus" was the appropriate close. There was no consensus! Sometimes it really is that simple. Thparkth (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse given that the discussion did not establish the required consensus to delete, that is, no consensus that the image is not compatible with NFCC8.  Sandstein  17:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, per MuZemike. NFCC#8, as a Foundation-level policy, supersedes any local consensus. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- There were good faith arguments on both sides, and the relevant policy is not a black and white one. Since neither prevailed, no consensus is correct. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per S Marshall. A) I think that NFCC#8 is met here and B) I think the AfD concluded the same thing. Also, I believe the sources I've provided above show that many RSes use/have used this image as a group of FARC child soldiers, so hopefully the G10 issue is dealt with. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would have been nice if you added the sources to the image description page, but no matter. I have added them myself, so that takes care of the G10 issue. I'll leave you all to be to discuss NFCC. NW (Talk) 03:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have, but I don't really understand image stuff very well (were those links enough, what if the exact image was slightly different resolution etc.) and I was loath to touch a BLP-related issue without being darn sure I was getting it right. Thanks for doing so! Hobit (talk) 02:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with leave for immediate relist. NFCC#8 is a wholly subjective criteria, and it's not not met just because Damiens says so. Given the fact it's not an open and shut case, and the arguments made during the XFD, I don't see how the closing admin could have closed it as anything other than no consensus. With that said, there are obviously further grounds for discussion raised here that are better discussed at IFD and not here at DRV. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:16, 3 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse closure as "no consensus," with the image retained as a result. As I wrote in the last DRV initiated by Damiens.rf, "I'm not willing to say that 'no consensus' should default to delete for non-free files, especially since NFCC#8 is so subjective and many debates over files' NFCC#8 compliance have solid arguments on both sides." This is an example of a debate where the "keep" and "delete" camps were numerically split, with both sides making valid points. In particular, DGG's argument that this is a "historic well-known image, generally used to indicate the subject and better than a verbal description," since supplemented with a statement that "it adds an understanding of the nature of the ASRC role in the conflict more clearly than words can convey," makes a reasonable case that WP:NFCC#8 is met here. The counterargument that "a non-free image of young soldiers marching is not necessary for a proper understanding of the article about the FARC and its allegations of using child soldiers" is also reasonable, although whether it is correct is simply a matter of opinion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_June_29&oldid=1150994864"
  NODES
Chat 1
Done 1
eth 11
games 1
News 31
orte 5
see 32
Story 5
Users 2