- File:Narang night raid.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Image is not uniquely historical, as there has been no critical commentary of the image. Falls under unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails non-free content criterion #8. Although three users !voted keep, none of their reasonings were based in non-free content policy, nor did they answer to the nomination. The first "keep" was the nominator essentially accusing me of bad faith, just like he posted on dozens of other images that were later deleted. The second only argues that the image depicts the casualties mentioned in the article. Depicting something mentioned in an article is not a valid reason to use a non-free image, per WP:NFCC. The third supported the second argument, and went on to say that because the organization RAWA looks for museums and art galleries to host photo exhibitions, it's okay to use their photos. Copyrighted art may be displayed in a gallery, that doesn't mean we can automatically include it on Wikipedia. And this isn't copyrighted art, it's a photo from a press agency (RAWA News), which is deemed unacceptable, it depicts a war, which is deemed unacceptable, and its omission isn't detrimental to the understanding of the article. The deletion discussion produced illegitimate reasons to keep non-free content. Consensus doesn't trump non-free image policy or copyright. Swarm X 13:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The instructions suggest your discuss any issues with the closing admin first, I can't see any such discussion having occurred, you also need to inform them of this discussion. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- My only reason for not doing so was that it wasn't their close that I'm disputing, I'm appealing the final decision - I didn't see how they could have helped at all. I'll let them know, FWIW. Swarm X 15:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, it sounds to me you are disputing their close, you are essentially saying they gave undue weight to arguments not in line with policy whilst your policy based arguments (and images have to meet all NFCC) weren't addressed by the keeps. If on the other hand you are merely trying to rerun the debate, then DRV isn't the place for that, DRV only considers the process, not xFD round 2. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 15:05, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You can't just nominate something again; per WP:DELREV "this includes...appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion". That's why I'm here. Swarm X 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- No you can't, it's not useful to have people continually having another bite of the cherry, that's either at xFD or here. You've read just the intro and not the main details here - "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate.". As I said I do think you are challenging the closers reading of the debate so this isn't really a big issue. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The discussion itself does seem faulty, the arguments given for keeping being rather weak - argument by assertion, talk of copyright law when that's not relevant - wikipedia's standards differ to copyright law, strange assertion regarding what the image depicts and a rather vague argument about commercial value. Your listing however wasn't the greatest either with basic assertion which could have done with being expanded upon. This looks like a discussion which needed more input rather than being closed one way or the other. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closing admin - I did in fact consider the arguments of the nominator. In short, I'll respond to each point the nominator pulls up:
- It violates NFC#UUI-5. First off, NFC#UUI is a list of both broad statements to be enforced (e.g., #12), and specific statements only meant to serve as examples (e.g., #8). NFC#UUI-5 seems to fall into the latter category, not the former, IMHO. I find it implausible that it means to bar any war related non-free photographs; in fact, precedence indicates the opposite. Rather this criterion seems to be simply providing an example of a failure for WP:NFCC#1 (i.e., for most war-related material, it's easy to find images). However, this is an exception to that, as there are no known replacements.
- It violates NFC#UUI-7 - this clause of the of NFC#UUI illustrates WP:NFCC#2. However, my research showed RAWA to be only marginally a press agency, and far more of an advocacy group. Their goal would thus be less to gain profit than spread a message. As such, the "harms profits" is a bit of a stretch to me, when the goal of the agency in the first place is not to gain profits but to spread its content; this would actually help such a cause, not hurt it.
- It violates NFCC#8 - precedent indicates a non-free photograph for a deceased person is acceptable, as it adds to the reader's understanding. This seems reasonably similar - an article about an event which a non-free image is illustrating should be quite within the realm of NFCC#8. The community's input in this FFD enhanced my perception as thus.
- Iqinn's response attacking the nominator - I ignored the majority of this person's argument, which had nothing to do with the image at hand. However, there were relevant snipets in his post: Highly important images that are not replaceable (as I showed above, this indirectly addresses the nominator's rationale for NFCUUI-5); the nominator should not forget the greater goal we have (seemingly an indirect reference to NFCC#8... our goal being to impart knowledge to the reader); none of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance (an overall statement).
- TCNSV's response directly addressed NFCC#8, and Rwendland's response (less directly) addressed NFCUUI-7.
I really don't particularly care either way if the nomination is relisted, but I wanted to illustrate how I came to the decision in light of the comments from the community. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On you point about NFCC#8 - precedent - wikipedia doesn't do precedent, if the community agreed and wanted the policy to say that there was a general exemption for dead people it would be quite welcome to do so, it hasn't and I doubt will. Regardless people often accept for a specific dead person that the image won't be replaceable since the person is now dead, for a set of "nameless" dead people this is no where near the same case. I can't imagine that people accept NFCC#8 for an image more so if the person is dead, being dead won't affect the signifcance of the image and impact on understanding. I really can't see how TCNSV's response directly addressed NFCC#8. Merely staging the content of the photo does nothing to address significance and how omission would be detrimental to understanding. (I fully understand that my father and grandfather died of heart attacks, I've never seen a picture of them dead). If merely stating the picture is relevant/related to and article were sufficient, then NFCC#8 would be meaningless. This looks to me that you've applied a huge amount of interpretation over the debate. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's my job, to interpret the community's consensus. And the community was saying the critical commentary was sufficient. It looks completely legit to me. As for the dead part, I only inserted that to distinguish it from violations of NFCC1 - which almost universally disallows images of living persons. Magog the Ogre (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree you've gone beyond what was said and applied *your own* interpretation. Saying that "Depicts the ten civilian casualties mentioned in the article." directly addresses "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.". The opiners statement says nothing about significance of understanding the topic, nor how ommission would be detrimental to understanding. You've added a "precdent" into the arguments which wasn't present (and as far as I can see doesn't exist).
- The dead part again shows that, a picture doesn't become more siginficant or more important to understanding just because they are dead. I think you are confusing this with NFCC#1, if people believe an image of the person is important for understanding (something which seems to be generally the case), NFCC#8 is passed regardless of there person being dead or alive), however NFCC#1 will usually prevent usage when they are still alive. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 16:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You seem to be interpreting WP:NFC#UUI rather loosely; they are all examples of images that are prohibited. Photos from a press agency are specifically referred to as unacceptable, with exceptions such as critical commentary (that would make the image itself notable, and thus necessary to include in an article).
- Whether you want to view RAWA News as a press agency is up for debate, I suppose, I personally think it fits the category but I can see how someone can disagree.
- I strongly agree that NFCC#8 wasn't addressed. #8 is quoted above by 82. The image depicts the victims of the subject of the article: obviously an image is going to relate to or depict the article, that's doesn't mean its omission is detrimental to the article.
- In response to what you took from Iqinn's statements: I didn't dispute replacability nor importance (both a separate debate altogether); on "the greater goal" I don't see how that references #8, it's just a vague use of rhetoric. And, most notably, "none of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion..." Ironic, since it's widely held that image policy is generally one of the most important, if not the most important issues on the whole project because of its potential legal ramifications. We shouldn't forget that we only allow free content by default and non-free content is the exception only when it's necessary. Swarm X 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment perhaps it would have helped in the closer had gone into some more detail in the close itself, rather than saying merely "keep". this might have avoided the need for this review, or at least gone some way towards clarifying it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
- It would have, but frankly that takes forever and is a pain in the ass to do with all the closes. But you're right, at the time I was thinking "If anyone ends up caring, keep is probably too vague." Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:41, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, if I had learned of your explanation before this review, I certainly still would have brought it up here. If this were some article, I would gladly let it go with an admin's explanation. This regards non-free content, however, so I feel the issue is important enough to appeal for a relist here (I explain more above). Swarm X 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This includes appeals to restore deleted pages and appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion. WP:DELREV Swarm X 01:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also an ironic thing, after the closer explained the closing rationale, I now dispute the close itself. Swarm X 01:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You dispute the close itself? What do you mean by that? IQinn (talk) 01:59, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- closing rationale Swarm X 07:17, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- closing rationale? What's wrong with that? IQinn (talk) 08:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse my own decision. I will not concede that this is a bad nomination - if a particular discussion doesn't get enough comments or doesn't properly address the issue, the consensus at that time may not reflect the community's overall opinion. However, as I explained above, I believe that I, the administrator, took into proper account the comments, which were properly grounded in policy/guidelines, even if the editors did not specifically wikilink to the guidelines themselves. And I do not see that they were poorly enough rationalized out for us to overrule that. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even if one takes the narrow view that only errors by the closer are appropriate here, it is an error by the closer if he fails to weigh properly the various arguments, or fails to evaluate the consensus, or misjudges whose arguments should be taken into account. This essentially opens the entire discussion, because one can not evaluate whether he has properly weighed the arguments without discussing the validity of the arguments in question, nor can one evaluate his judgement about which arguments should be ignored as not being policy-based without discussing whether they were in fact policy-based. DGG ( talk ) 17:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, and the whole discussion should be opened up. That is my point. Swarm X 00:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse I think the decision was the right one, and I basically agree with the closer's explanation, though I think the points about press agency and dead people only peripheral; I think consensus interprets a fairly broad interpretation for war photographs, though I would not go anywhere near as far as they did and say that NFCC permits all war-related photographs, nor do I think consensus would support such an extremely broad interpretation. Doing so would essentially reverse most of the present policy, since essentially any photograph of anything helps in the interpretation and understanding of the subject. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- More broadly, the ultimate question in a close is whether the close is in fact representative of the community opinion--everything else is a subsidiary question of how this is in practice to be determined without polling the entire user base. We necessarily use a process where we rely on limited participation and individual judgment to avoid gross errors. If in a wider discussion the wider consensus is different, the wider consensus must hold--again, I do not see how we could reasonably do otherwise. The rules at DRV have the intent of limiting such broader discussions to ones where there is a reasonable chance that the consensus will in fact be otherwise. To what degree they do this well is another matter, but I see no practical solution except encouraging wider participation. DGG ( talk ) 20:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
