Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 May 2

2 May 2011

User talk:David Tombe – Decision endorsed – Peripitus (Talk) 10:07, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User talk:David Tombe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Speedy deletion of user tlk page contra-policy, so there was no XfD page to link to. User talk pages should be deleted via MfD. I have discussed this with the deleting admin, who indicated that he disagrees with the policy. DuncanHill (talk) 23:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC) This page was deleted by me. My general position on current policy is of no relevance to this particular deletion, as this deletion was made pursuant to policy, and in particular was made in consultation with ArbCom. This was not a speedy deletion contra to policy. Separately, I think that the policy is flawed in significant respects, but that's a question for a different day and a different venue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Comment - Per the reason given the reason given(fixed to correct diff), it appears that the process defined at Wikipedia:Vanish#Deletion of user talk pages was followed in the deletion of this talk page. --- Barek (talk) - 23:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion - per confirmation (below) by Coren (talk · contribs) who is a member of ArbCom, that ArbCom had been consulted in the initial deletion. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Wait for ArbCom input; if there are overriding privacy concerns, we ought to hear of them before deciding on the action. In the absence of those concerns, restore as user talkpages, particularly those of editors who have been involved in significant matters, are important project history, and thus require serious mitigating circumstances to delete absent community consensus. Skomorokh 23:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC) That is contrary to the usual privacy issues, since they are normally, er, private, particularly where ArbCom and Jimbo are concerned. WP:RTV is normally invoked in such circumstances, and is respected. Without any reason to divert from the norm, that policy, in my view, should prevail, if only for the personal effects upon, if not the personal wishes, of the editor involved. I cannot see the deleted page, obviously, but I don't believe that it was deleted capriciously. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I have emailed ArbCom, as it seemed quicker than putting the DRV notice on all their talkpages. DuncanHill (talk) 23:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Policy requires that user talk pages are deleted by deletion discussion or per WP:CSD, and no speedy deletion criterium was invoked in this case. The guideline Barek cites stipulates that "While user pages and subpages may be deleted, the deletion of user talk pages is invariably controversial, and should be the rare exception, not the rule. ... User talk pages should not be speedy deleted by admins. Whenever there is a request to delete a user talk page, a bureaucrat should be consulted." This procedure was not followed as far as I can tell; in particular, Jimbo Wales is not a bureaucrat. Consequently, restore but wait for ArbCom input first per Skomorokh. (Disclaimer: I have no knowledge about the background of or reason for, if any, of this deletion.)  Sandstein  23:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC) – Update: keep deleted per arbitrators' input below, though if arbitrators decide to make a habit of this, the policy issue should be submitted to the community, as currently or rules say we don't normally delete vanishing user talk pages.  Sandstein  05:47, 3 May 2011 (UTC) If there are issues of privacy, ArbCom should not, and will not, respond except in suitable neutral and uninformative mode. And that, perhaps, is what they should be doing. Either way, I don't see this going much further forward. Hengist Pod (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Certainly. If there are good reasons why this page should (exceptionally) be deleted, but these reasons cannot be made public for reasons of privacy, ArbCom can tell us so and we should abide by that. If not, standard deletion procedure should be followed.  Sandstein  00:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I agree, await input from ArbCom - for now, my post remains a "comment" until clarification is received (neither an endorse nor a restore for now). I've also corrected the diff in my post above, where Jimbo Wales stated the deletion was done "after consultation with ArbCom", which would resolve the requisite bureaucrat consultation, if confirmed. --- Barek (talk) - 00:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Having no reason to assume otherwise, the declaration made by Mr. Wales is sufficient for me to suggest, with confidence, that policy was not disregarded, or circumvented in this action. Those with less ability are welcome to wait for a bureaucrat an ArbCom member to validate statements made. For my part, I will now continue having fun. My76Strat (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The policy linked says the right to vanish is typically accorded to users in good standing, which I would understand as not including those subject to blocks or arbcom actions, relevant as the talk page is one of the main records of those blocks. I would note also that the user rename seems to have split the account, as there are now two contribution records, [1] and [2].--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC) DRV needs a certain minimum level of transparency before we can review a deletion. There's no transparency in this; everything was done and decided behind closed doors. So either we take Jimbo's word for it, as policy and common courtesy require, or we wait for an ArbCom member to pop their head in and tell us that this deletion was ArbApproved. But the Arb's approval won't constitute a deletion review either. It will constitute an assertion that ArbCom are satisfied, and that's all. So there's no way the nominator can possibly receive anything that could meaningfully be called a "review" of this deletion, is there? Sending him here was a wild goose chase and I propose that this DRV should be closed at once, without result, accordingly.—S Marshall T/C 00:40, 3 May 2011 (UTC) As regards your second paragraph, there is clearly an issue of trust here, whether it be in ArbCom or Jimbo. As I see it, opinions are currently divided on both, and there is clearly some scope for clarification; however, issues that are personal to an individual editor, which cannot be explored on-wiki, such as, for a recent example, User:Rodhullandemu, should be treated sensitively and without community input. There are other routes by which some issues should be resolved, and community input is not necessarily one of them. I agree that this is likely to be a fruitless discussion. Hengist Pod (talk) 00:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC) The deletion of those pages was agreed to by the committee as the best thing to do for the concerned editor and, indirectly, the project. Honestly? This DRV can serve no useful purpose and would probably be best closed. — Coren (talk) 04:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion. I candidly don't understand the purpose of a nomination like this one. Broad principles, such as "don't delete user talk pages," can be overridden when there are specific reasons for doing so. It is obvious from the circumstances that such reasons existed in this instance, and this fact should be accepted in a drama-minimizing manner. As I have written more than once recently, one of Wikipedia's most precious resources is the community's time, particularly the time of our most dedicated and knowledgeable users who might come across a discussion like this one. That time ought to be marshalled for highly productive pursuits, whether content creation related (our most important output), quality related, or policy related. A DRV like this one, by contrast, is a digression: a weeklong discussion of whether to restore a page that was deleted at the request of a controversially departed editor, whose contents are of nil or at best minimal current relevance. In the absence of any practical, rather than entirely theoretical, explanation of how overruling Jimbo and the arbitrators he consulted with on this issue would serve any useful purpose at all, I do not understand why this discussion is necessary and I certainly don't see any argument for undeleting the page. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I'm unable to give practical reasons as the page and its history are concealed from me. Restore it for the duration of the review and you might get a more detailed argument. DuncanHill (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Brad, I'd also point out that as you are very well aware, more often than not deletions like this go straight to ANI, not DRV. I came here because I didn't want the usual shitstorm that happens there. I'm truly sorry that you don't understand why it is necessary for editors to be able to ask for review of admin actions. DuncanHill (talk) 09:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Of course I understand why editors must be able to ask for review of admin actions (if you don't think I understand that, you really have very little understanding of my history on the project). However, there are lots of admin actions taken all across the project every day, and we can't review all of them. Therefore, it seems to me that before asking that an action be reviewed, an editor would want to make sure that the disputed action was (1) incorrect, and (2) harmful. I haven't seen a case made that this deletion was either of these. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC) As other arbs have said, this is an instance of the "right to vanish" (meta:RTV). Requiring that a bureaucrat be consulted is a good policy guideline; in this case, we have a few bureaucrat on ArbCom, and Jimbo did consult ArbCom about this. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:28, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Are the Arbs saying that the editor was in good standing as RTV is expected to require? DuncanHill (talk) 09:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I was looking for the description of this good standing but didn't find it at WP:RTV. Is it specifically described somewhere or is it open to consideration and interpretation? Off2riorob (talk) 13:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Not specifically defined, but it does say "Vanishing in this way is not a right. It is a courtesy extended by the Wikipedia community to make it easy for users to exercise their right to leave. Sometimes the community will not extend the courtesy: for example, if the user is not actually leaving, or if the user is not in good standing. The right to vanish might not be extended to users who have been abusive or disruptive, who left when they lost the trust of the community, or who have been banned. Note also that the Wikimedia Foundation does not guarantee that an account's username will be changed on request. Decisions to rename an account or allow a Right To Vanish, if contested or in dispute, are determined by community consensus." Thanks for the detail. I might as well add my position then that I endorse the deletion and trust all parties that came to this decision that it is a correct within guidelines of not something that occurs often and with careful consideration - for the user and the project. Off2riorob (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I see this has been reopened. Spartaz was right to close it and I urge that it be closed again. There really is no point continuing, folks. It doesn't matter whether we endorse or overturn. DRV doesn't have the authority to overturn ArbCom or the power to inspect ArbCom's decisions. This was decided behind closed doors and we can't review, inspect, or affect that decision in any way at all.—S Marshall T/C 15:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC) There's nothing particularly closed doors about it. This is a departed user who had a very difficult time in Wikipedia and who was concerned that these pages were turning up high in google searches for his real name. He'd already been gone from Wikipedia for a pretty long period of time and showed no signs of returning, though he was not banned and had every right to edit Wikipedia. It was explained to him clearly that the deletion was based on his staying gone from Wikipedia. I do agree that, as a constitutional matter, DRV is generally not the right venue for this, but I did invite DuncanHill to take it up here if he wanted, as I am generally open to review, inspection, etc. This should not be viewed as a top-down imposition on the community. The deletion was 100% consistent with policy, for one thing. And it was just good judgment for another thing. There is nothing wrong with questioning it, either, although as someone else noted, the time of experienced editors is a precious commodity and not too much time should be wasted on dramatics. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Any deletion, including deletion by bureaucrats, can be challenged and overturned at deletion review. is the constitutional point. I cannot find the ArbCom decision to which S Marshall refers - it's not an Arbcom decision, it was a decision by one admin after consulting ArbCom, which is not the same. Courtesy blanking, together with oversight of problematic edits, and the rename, would in my opinion be sufficient to protect the user. DuncanHill (talk) 15:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for raising the issue for discussion. As you can see, consensus is not with you. I hope that doesn't make you unhappy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC) He was banned, from physics, immediately before he stopped editing in February. The discussion is archived here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Yes, he was topic-banned from physics. He was not banned from Wikipedia. And so he decided to leave. I think he will be happier now. And I think a lot of other people will be happier too. Certainly, we wouldn't want the ongoing existence of pages in google to keep him emotionally invested in the project and continuing to try to argue in favor of being allowed to edit physics, etc. Sometimes people's interaction with Wikipedia just doesn't work out. If it helps them, and us, to allow them to walk away with dignity, we should all support that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Is there content on that talk page that's valuable to you for some reason, DuncanHill? Or is this simply a matter of principle?—S Marshall T/C 17:26, 3 May 2011 (UTC) That's a little hard to tell when it's invisible, ja? So, did Tombe leave "in good standing", or not? And I don't understand the google reference. Talk pages can be excluded from google's indexing, right? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC) They can, and they can also be anonymised by removing the offending name and replacing it with a neutral substitute. And even if these technical measures are deemed insufficient, the content can be emailed to users who have some reason to need it. The purpose of my question was to find out whether the effort involved would be worthwhile.—S Marshall T/C 22:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Note: user talk pages on the English Wikipedia are not indexed by search engines. Graham87 07:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC) If so, then Jimbo's google argument is bogus. So they must be wanting desparately (and perhaps justifiably) to hide something that's in either the talk page itself or its history. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion Valid application of WP:RTV, also within the remit of Jimbo and ArbCom to handle private issues privately. If details were made public so we all could see it, it would, of course, ruin the private nature of the issue. --Jayron32 20:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion Same rationale as Jayron 32. Sometimes it is impossible to review Arbcom's actions without revealing the material that has been deleted and thus defeating the whole purpose of removing the content.--Diannaa (Talk) 20:46, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Question: Was jwales acting on behalf of arbcom? I'm not clear on "within the remit of Jimbo and ArbCom" - which?  Chzz  ►  21:16, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I got the impression the user contacted Jimbo, and then Jimbo discussed his proposed action with Arbcom before proceeding. Correct me if I'm wrong --Diannaa (Talk) 21:24, 3 May 2011 (UTC) If, indeed, it is on behalf of Arbcom - that's fine; no problem. I just think we need to be clear who is acting here.  Chzz  ►  21:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC) I don't see it matters at all but as it seems to have been explained by Jimmy and confirmed by others - Jimmy got a personal request from the user and Jimmy supported it and asked arbcom for support to do it and he got it, as arbcom members have confirmed. Off2riorob (talk) 22:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Per Coren, I (now) agree that This DRV can serve no useful purpose and would probably be best closed - thus, Endorse deletion. The arguments on procedure belong elsewhere.  Chzz  ►  22:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion. I can see a reasonable argument that the deletion was out of process, but I'm not seeing any compelling reason that the page should be restored. "I don't know what's in it, but if I did, I might have a compelling reason" isn't, to me, sufficient grounds for overturning the deletion. 28bytes (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion, a valid application of WP:RTV. Can't see what all the fuss is over, really. Lankiveil (speak to me) 21:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC). I'm guessing (I don't claim to speak for others, so correct me if I'm mistaken)that most of the fuss is over the lack of transparency. One possible outcome of this could be for the community to request a posting at WP:AC/N with the outcome of any future consults with them over a WP:RTV issue (or any other decision that leads to a page deletion). No details need to be given, just a mention that ArbCom was consulted and that they recommended or supported the deletion. That way, if there's ever a question in the future, it can be referred to that noticeboard posting rather than starting a DRV. --- Barek (talk) - 22:13, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion. With ArbCom's input here, it is clear that the deletion was appropriate. Peacock (talk) 22:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion. I'm a little surprised that this is here. Jimmy acted in a situation that deserved intervention. I don't know what it is, but I ~do~ know that if I needed to know - or if the community did - Jimmy would tell us. Since he has been purposely vague, I conclude that there's enough here that required intervention, but that neither I, nor the community, has need to know. Jimmy consulted with the community's elected representatives, and they supported this action. That's enough for me. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion The input from ArbCom clears up the fact that the deletion was appropriate. Although it has been mentioned that the user is no longer editing here, I assume that should he start editing again in an area in which he was topic-banned, he would be recognised and action taken as appropriate PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 09:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC) The only deletions we cannot review are those specified as being due to WP:OFFICE, Neither Jimmy nor arb Com has any power over content. However, there seems to be consensus here by those who understand the matter in hand that the material should be deleted, and that consensus is sufficient. But it's our communal decision. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

WU LYF – A7 overturned, any editor is free to nominate the restored article at AfD – Jclemens (talk) 05:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
WU LYF (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) A7: No explanation of the subject's significance (band/musician) This acticle was speedily deleted minutes after its creation. The article is on British band and there were many references in the article from very reliable sources (eg, NME, the Guardian, the Observer, etc) to establish notability. I think this should have, at the very least, gone through an AfD process if the deleting admin really thought that it should be deleted. It's my understanding that CSD should be reserved for articles with no references. I have tried contacting the deleting admin, as required in the DRV instructions, but he is not interested in discussing the matter, which is why I'm here. Robman94 (talk) 19:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Overturn speedy, list at AFD if desired. Coverage in multiple reliable sources is normally sufficient to defeat a db-band speedy, and the deleting admin's reliance on prior A7's was inappropriate, particularly since the article cites coverage in The Guardian published after the initial speedy noms. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Overturn, per HW Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Overturn. The new version was a complete re-write and was heavily referenced. --Diannaa (Talk) 20:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Overturn. This had been tagged as a PROD, I removed that tag expecting the issue to then go to WP:AfD. I'm disappointed that this wasn't the course taken -- especially due to notability issues concerning the subject, which need to be discussed not dismissed with handwaving. -- llywrch (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Overturn clearly not an A7 candidate. Contrary to what the deleting admin said there is no requirement that recreations of speedily deleted articles go through DRV, provided the recreation addresses the original reason for speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 23:08, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 separate images by Edward Hopper – Deletion endorsed. The consensus below is that these images do not, and cannot, meet the strict NFC criteria and that no further discussion is needed to determine that. As such as the speedy deletions are endorsed. – Eluchil404 (talk) 05:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper Detail 4.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper Detail 3.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper Detail 2.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) File:Hotel Lobby by Edward Hopper Detail 1.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) F7: Violates non-free use policy: article does not need five non free images wrongful speedy, DI process not followed; no notice. the images were in strict accordance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, each illustrating a point of critical commentary for the Hotel Lobby article. if the assertion is that one and only one image is to be used, then the policy should be changed. Slowking4 (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse. I don't see a case being made that the multiple images are used in a way which significantly improves the reader's understanding of the critical commentary involved. The claim that a discrete image is needed to increase the reader's understanding that one female figure is blonde jumps out at me as invalid. The proposed uses strike me as more illustrative than explanatory/amplifying; the latter functions are required for NFCC uses like these, when going beyond identification. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:04, 2 May 2011 (UTC) The explanation "article does not need five non free images" fails in and of itself, because the absolute count is irrelevant; some articles don't even need one non free image, while others might have ten that are integral to an article and comply with NFCC. The images are also actually all part of the same work: they exist in multiple files, but each shows a higher resolution detail of the same copyrighted painting that the article is about. So the effect is just to use more of one non-free work, not more non-free works. That said, I don't see commentary in the article that particularly justifies the use of these details. All of the figures are visible in the single low resolution image of the whole painting, and Hopper also isn't really known for having intricate detail or brushwork. The files probably shouldn't have been speedy deleted, but undeleting them would just be a pointless exercise of process. So endorse deletion'. If you want to use them in the article, then write more sourced content specifically about what those details show that might justify it. postdlf (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC) <ec>Being unable to see the images, can someone explain what they were and why a free image couldn't do the same thing? Heck, what made them non-free? I very much doubt the 5 images in one article is or should be a speedy criteria as I'm sure we have 5 non-free images in other articles. But without understanding the context it's really hard to say. Hobit (talk) 02:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC) They are details of a copyrighted painting, Hotel Lobby, by Edward Hopper that were used in an article about that painting. Really, that's fairly clear from the file names and the article that they were used in. postdlf (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2011 (UTC) So it is. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC) restore, list at FfD Not a speedy case as it doesn't clearly break our NFCC criteria. It's clear that the rational used for deletion here (too many free images) isn't one that can trivially be applied to any given article. Further, I question if blow-ups of small sections of an image already shown in the article should really count as a new free image. Maybe it should, but I'd like to hear a discussion on the topic. So basicly "per PostDlf," but I honestly think a FfD discussion would have a fair chance of resulting in a keep. Hobit (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Comment I have looked at the rationale of the nominator (User:Future Perfect at Sunrise) and am posting it here as it give a little more information than my shorthand version that I entered when I deleted the files: "Concern=Non-free image overuse. Used merely in a gallery, not the object of specific commentary. FUR is inapplicable, as this detail crop is not being used as "primary means of identification". --Diannaa (Talk) 12:20, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Comment speedy deletion procludes discussion; images no longer in gallery [3]; not all images deleted were nominated by User:Future Perfect at Sunrise; they certainly add to my understanding of the critical commentary. Slowking4 (talk) 16:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Comment Yes, all four images were nominated by FPAS. --Diannaa (Talk) 18:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Comment. Note that I tagged these images at a time when all four detail images were being used in a mere gallery at the bottom of the article [4]; the uploader was duly notified and indeed then removed the images herself [5]. Somebody else then re-inserted them further up in the text [6], where admittedly they made somewhat more sense, but you could still argue they are redundant with the main image (which is not in dispute, and I believe the analytical discussion can be understood without the enlarged details). My original tag was "{di-disputed-rationale|Non-free image overuse. Used merely in a gallery, not the object of specific commentary. FUR is inapplicable, as this detail crop is not being used as 'primary means of identification'}" Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Comment. I am not lobbying either way but I would like to give a little more detail of my thought process when I deleted the pics so people can have more information. The detail pictures are indeed mentioned in the text, but they were not enlarged much more than the copy in the info box. I did not feel they added to my understanding of the text any more than if I looked at the copy of the image in the info box. Now that the pics are not there any more it is not so obvious, but having them all there in the same section made the text get squished in between; thus I felt these images were overwhelming the article and actually detracting from its clarity. They are non-free images and need to be used judiciously; I thought this was overkill. I will be interested to see how this debate turns out. --Diannaa (Talk) 13:52, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Restore. This should have gone to WP:NFCR for discussion. Potential image overuse doesn't render the fair use rationale on any individual image invalid. F7 did not apply here. Thparkth (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Why would F7 not cover a problem of over-use? F7 covers any situation where any one of the NFCC is not met, including the one about minimality. FURs don't exist in a vacuum; their validity or non-validity is always assessed against the whole context in which they are used, including what other images are present. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC) F7 covers any situation where any one of the NFCC is not met - I don't see that in WP:CSD#F7 at all. Please tell me which of the criteria under F7 you feel applies to overuse. Thparkth (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC) ... I see where this comes from but I believe that guideline mis-interprets the actual F7 wording. I stand by my opinion that overuse of non-free images does not render the FUR for any one image obviously invalid. A problem like that needs to be resolved by a higher-level discussion that considers the best option for the multiple files and for the article, not by arbitrary speedy deletion. Thparkth (talk) 18:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC) I felt it violated Criterion #3a: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." --Diannaa (Talk) 19:28, 4 May 2011 (UTC) A subjective judgement like that is contrary to the basic principles of speedy deletion policy. I have started a discussion here about the apparent contradiction between WP:CSD and WP:FUG that this discussion reveals. Thparkth (talk) 19:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC) 'Restore As pointed out, that 5 illustrations are used when one might arguably suffice is, even if perfectly obvious, not reason to remove all 5, but to discuss which one to keep. But in any case, "feeling" it violated the rules is not sufficient for speedy by any criteria. It has to be obvious, or it needs a discussion. This applies to copyright policy as everything else--even the basic rule, G12, copyvio is for undoubted copyvio. I speedy thousands of items a year, but only if I can say I'm reasonably certain. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC) You are mistaken: all five weren't removed. There was one obvious privileged candidate to be kept, namely the one that showed the whole painting. That one was never contested. There was never a reason to debate whether to pick that one or any other. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Correct application of WP:NFCC#Enforcement+WP:CSD#F7, whose language unambiguously does call for these kinds of judgment calls on the part of administrators. Even if some editors have been saying here they don't like it to be done this way, that's what the policy says, and it's been done like that in thousands of cases, for years. Long-standing policy. Also, none of the voters above have so far brought forward any policy-based argument on the merits of the case itself, i.e. explaining why they think the images actually do meet the criteria. Restoring them on purely procedural grounds if there is no indication at all why they wouldn't be a SNOW case for re-deletion in an ensuing FFD is not productive, even if the argument about procedure were valid (which it is not). Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 5 May 2011 (UTC) The objection, in policy terms, is that speedy deletion policy requires that "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." In the case of alleged image overuse, it is not "obvious" what constitutes overuse, and it is not obvious which of the non-free files should be deleted. Speedy deletion for overuse therefore breaches the wording as well as the spirit of speedy deletion policy. Thparkth (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse Clearly showing subsections of an image is not increasing understanding, since you've got the original image and can see those same sections. If the sections are at a higher resolution then the original image it also fails the minimal usage i.e. I cannot see any argument that both parts of NFCC#3 don't fail. Arguing about if the precise process was followed seems to fail WP:BURO I can't imagine any situation these would survive a deletion discussion where it seems fairly evident this fails multiple NFCC where failing just 1 is more than sufficient. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2011 (UTC) If (as I believe) these images were deleted out of process, then the community was robbed of the opportunity to have a discussion and form a consensus on the appropriate number of images to use, and which ones should be retained. This is contrary to the intention of speedy deletion policy, constitutes a real harm, and diminishes the encyclopedia. You might like to read WP:BURO again with that in mind. Thparkth (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC) I'm quite happy with my understanding of WP:BURO and I've seen enough debates and understand the NFCC well enough that it's just a complete waste of time arguing the toss on images like these. What's really harmful to the Free encyclopedia is including loads of non-free stuff. What's really harmful to the encyclopedia is encouraging pointless debates and people stomping around trying to be indignant. Sure people can try and argue stuff at the debate but that doesn't mean such arguments will be sane or worth entertaining. NFCC#3A - Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. I can see no reasonable argument a piece of a picture gives more significant information than when presented as part of the whole picture without it failing NFCC#3B - Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse. I came here to close this, but the debate thus far is on the fence, and I am not comfortable undeleting these images. The NFCC is not just a list of things one shouldn't do, it sets out the limits for our use of non-free content, and this kind of "detail" image is clearly and, yes, obviously and indisputably outside of those limits. I am influenced by my knowledge that authors or publishers of art history textbooks generally have to pay extra for permission to print details, beyond what they pay for the low-res image of a whole work. Under these circumstances, I cannot imagine the community allowing this usage, so we should properly endorse this deletion as correct and necessary. Chick Bowen 20:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC) In my opinion, that would have been an excellent and powerful argument at the FFD discussion which should have taken place. It doesn't seem to directly address whether or not process was followed correctly. Thparkth (talk) 21:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse Like Chick I came to close but found that I'd prefer a stronger consensus then the one here so decided to consider the issue instead. I would also be unhappy undeleting these images as it would simply be an exercise in process that would result in us infringing the rights of these images while we inevitably agree to delete them. There can be no justification for these images under the NFCC so we should not host them. As an absolute mission directive there is no room to shade that. Spartaz Humbug! 05:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Shinese – This was a very unsatisfactory AFD discussion and the close is understandable but the consensus is that the policy based delete arguments were not well refuted and that further discussion is encouraged. Since both the close and the request to relist this are both reasonable I am closing this without endorsing or overturning but specifically encouraging the nominator to relist this in the hope that the next AFD has a clearer policy based outcome. – Spartaz Humbug! 02:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC) A new AfD was initiated by the nominator at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinese (3rd nomination). Cunard (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Shinese (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Both the closing admin and another editor have advised me against opening a DRV on this AfD, but I'm being "bold" because I am somewhat frustrated with the flimsy keep rationales and complete lack of response to my policy- and guideline-based concerns. I don't know where else to go to contest this, but I feel it would have benefited from more participants and would like it to be relisted. First of all, I know this is not a place to rehash arguments, but I want to clearly explain why it is not notable since I suppose my last statement was unclear. The sources in the article are as follows; I was unable to find any others that did not have boilerplate mixed-breed text: Four designer dog registries or lists. Please note that two say that other crosses will be added on breeder request, and one says "All new combinations are welcome to be submitted for review to be included." None of them give any information about the Shinese whatsoever aside from it being a Shih Tzu x Pekingese cross Two articles that literally mention its name and nothing else A page on dogster, the sole content being "Shineses are hybrids of Shih Tzu and Pekingese dog breeds." along with random dogs with "Shinese" listed as breed Dog Breed Info page. This is not a reliable source, but even if that is ignored, the only content is their boilerplate text for mixed-breeds and some user-submitted pictures. Take a look at another, like the Afollie, for evidence A broken link, archived in the Wayback Machine here. Fails the policy on self-published sources http://www.mixedbreedpups.com/about/ Finally, we have a slew of books + one website related to Shih Tzu and Pekingese individually. This is the crux of the issue -- although a significant outcross to a Pekingese within the Shih Tzu breed may have occurred, it does not mean it has any relevance whatsoever to the current designer dog known as a "Shinese". In the 1940s, a significant outcross to a Newfoundland was made within the Bernese Mountain Dog breed, and I've seen crosses of the two. Does that mean that it's notable in any way, any more than a Dalmatian-English Pointer cross is notable because of a health-related outcross? It's significant to the breed in question, undoubtedly, but that does not mean that the modern-day designer dog has anything to do with it. In fact, I have seen no evidence of a relationship whatsoever. I'd be happy to see evidence to the contrary, but nobody has given any so far nor have I been able to find any myself. Other generalized books relating to dogs or mixed breeds. Indeed, I have read through most of these myself in the past, and know that they do not cover the Shinese; the citations can be looked through on their own. None of these are used to support specific information about the Shinese itself, which is supposedly the article's topic. There is some information about how the two breeds (Shih Tzu and Pekingese) are similar, but this does not cover the Shinese as a (prospective breed)/cross. Three editors participated in the AfD. One, the article creator, explained that there was evidence of a Pekingese outcross within the Shih Tzu breed, but did not explain how that was relevant to the modern-day Shinese designer dog, as opposed to the Shih Tzu breed specifically. I commented on this and got no response. The second only commented that it was "well-written" and sourced and deletion seemed "extreme", and did not reply when I asked them to look at the validity of the sources instead of the quantity alone. The third was not particularly constructive: "What's wrong with that? Keep", no further input. None of these concerns were addressed at all despite being substantiated, so I feel relisting would be appropriate. Thanks in advance to anyone who comments. – anna 02:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Relist I think the best possible action here would have been relisting the debate for a second time rather than closing it as "keep." Anna offered arguments for deletion which seem fairly strong. A reasonable case for keeping the article was made by Theornamentalist, but Anna poked major holes in it with this comment, which drew no rebuttal. Wikipedian2 then commented that the article should be kept because it is well-written and sourced; his failure to address the notability question makes his a flimsy argument. At this point, there was clearly no consensus either way; the AfD was relisted. One more participant showed up; he simply wrote, "What's wrong with that? Keep." That vote, obviously, is not at all grounded in policy and should be discarded by any closing admin. Therefore, nothing really changed between the relist and the closure of the AfD; I think it's evident that this should have been relisted a second time in hopes of eliciting a consensus (or at least a more substantive debate) on the notability question. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I guess you were advised that DRV won't carry on the debate but look at the deletion and see if the process was OK. What I can see in the debate is that you challenged the article on the basis that the sources were weak/not reliable etc. Of the keep responses one acknowledges that some sources are weak, but claims there are other sources which are substantial and provides a gbooks search. (This is far from ideal in my mind, pointing people and saying it's over there often isn't helpful, pointing out specific examples is far better, but I digress), your follow up on this weren't addressed. The next argument is merely an assertion that it's sourced and cited, without addressing any of your points about the quality of sourcing, this should have been given little weight. The final keep after a relist is "What's wrong with that?" which is a complete non-argument and should be disgarded. I'd agree with User:A Stop at Willoughby, a further Relist would have seen the best course of action, at worst a "No Consensus" result rather than "Keep" (Technically there is no difference between the two the article stays, however "No Consensus" tends to imply that a further relisting in the no too distant future will be ok to try and gain a consensus one way or other.) --82.7.44.178 (talk) 08:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Thank you for the comments so far. It may be worth noting that the Google Books link used the search term Elfreda Evans, who is related to the old Shih Tzu-Peke outcrosses; her association with the Shinese designer cross hasn't been established. I did look through the results and couldn't find a connection. – anna 08:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse outcome, don't relist at this time. While the argument made by ASaW is valid, I don't see any reason to expect that further relisting would result in a "delete" outcome; at best (from the nom's perspective), this might shift to "no consensus." Theornamentalist's point in support is well taken; there does seem to be enough coverage of the general subject to merit retaining the content, with the more valid question being whether to keep the article under the current title, or convert "Shinese" to a redirect to a more generic title like "Pekingese - Shit Tsu crossbreeding." There's no suitable single merge target; neither parent breed is preferable to the other. In cases like there, where we're not dealing with BLP content or any other sensitive subject; where we're not dealing with a policy transgression, and where the underlying deletion rationale is essentially "not notable enough," the case for expressed disregarding community sentiment is the weakest.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:53, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Relist Having read the AfD, I concur with anna that the deletion arguments were more solid than the keep arguments. At the same time, the problem was that only the nominator supported the deletion, which made it impossible for the closing administrator to close the debate with a deletion result. Even a no consensus might have not applied since a majority of editors supported keeping the article. It is an inherent weakness of the deletion process. It can't be helped that, sometimes, even the best arguments will be overruled by a majority of opinions when no other editor expresses support for the nomination arguments. In this case, I think that a relist is the most reasonable option at this point. Jfgslo (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Endorse There was no consensus to delete and so the close was quite correct. There is no issue here which requires any further procedural pot-boiling. Please see WP:HORSEMEAT. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Fair enough, but I'm not sure how I'm beating a dead horse when there was no real debate to begin with; however, I will, as that page says, back away from the carcass if the close is endorsed. – anna 17:38, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Relist though this debate couldn't have been closed as delete keep wasn't appropriate either as the keep opinions didn't address the concerns of the nominator. "It cites sources" is a weak argument for countering notability concerns because notability requires more than the mere existence of sources. If the debate had to be closed at that point it would have to be as no consensus, but as participation was limited further discussion has a good chance of producing a result one way or the other and relisting is therefore appropriate. Hut 8.5 17:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Comment - wow, as the primary author, I apologize for this! When I started writing it, it felt unfinished and I was hoping to find more sources but as usual I got sidetracked; in fact, not even at en.wp; I've nested into wikisource for the last half year. I am going to try and head to look for more sources this week. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Comment - it's possible the closing admin was also taking into account the result of the previous AfD which closed with 2 keep votes. Robman94 (talk) 20:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Relist- I agree with Hut 8.5. There is no way that a one nomination statement and two keep votes that latch onto entirely different issues can be considered to have reached a consensus. Reyk YO! 21:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC) As the closing admin, I didn't relist the discussion because it had already been relisted once and the chance of another relist attracting enough "delete" opinions to obtain a "delete" consensus appeared slim. If people here think otherwise, feel free to relist it.  Sandstein  21:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Yeah, I'm not quite sure why we are at DRV. The obvious thing was for the nominator to relist (with you indicating no objection).--Scott Mac 21:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC) Er, I don't think that the nominator can or should relist the discussion, as such, that's an admin decision. But they could have started a new AfD and argued that it was justified because of the poor arguments made in the previous one.  Sandstein  21:54, 2 May 2011 (UTC) I think we're agreeing on all but semantics. The nominator can relist the article on afd. Relist tends to mean start a new debate (as opposed to "reoppening", which is to reverse the close.) But as I say, this is semantics.--Scott Mac 22:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC) We can stand on process here. However, the nominator has made a very solid policy-based argument for deletion which has not been properly examined. If there are no proper sources (as opposed to their being multiple improper ones) then policy mandates deletion. Nothing should stand in the way of relisting this, and continuing to relist it, until either the article is deleted or until the deletion argument is properly examined and rejected.--Scott Mac 21:39, 2 May 2011 (UTC) This article ought to be a disambiguation page. Someone typing "Shinese" into the search box has probably made a typo for "Chinese" or "Shinies" or something, but it's plausible that they might want the dog crossbreed, in which case the disam should point them to the List of dog hybrids. This could be done without an AfD, so I don't see why relisting is a good idea.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus or relist. The keeps were weak and rebutted. As one of the users who advised against listing here, I am pleasantly surprised by the responses. I expected a WP:SNOW of responses like "Since no one agreed with the nominator, this is a no consensus at worst, and no consensus is the same as keep (the delete button isn't pushed), so endorse." Flatscan (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Relist- Obviously, there was no consolidated consensus. --Rirunmot (talk) 00:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Relist and demand significant RS. This is a clear failure of the deletion process where strength of argument loses to WP:ILIKEIT by numbers. Shame. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.