- File:Supermushroom.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
The file was deleted and the discussion was closed without giving any reason. When asked, the closing admin gave a reason that amounts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
The photo is verifiable and notable, and was sourced as the most prominent example of its class, thus making it not replaceable with a free image with the same encyclopedic purpose; I want to take the image to an RfC to gather wider consensus for its intended use at Power-up, and also reuse it at Mario_(series)#Recurring_gameplay_elements where the Supermushroom is covered. For that I'd need to retrieve the fair use rationale that was in the deleted file page. Diego (talk) 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been reviewing the process to close a FfD, and none of the criteria listed to build a rough consensus was met (no bad faith !votes, no sock puppets, no addressing of policy in the reason for deletion, no copyright violation since there was a fair use rationale). So, given that:
- There was no consensus for deletion
- The reason given for the discussion closure was one of personal opinion
- The discussion was closed without attention to procedure. First the file was deleted without notice, then I asked at the deletion discussion why the file had been deleted (see my comment at the bottom) and asked the administrator to undelete it, and only after that would
the administrator a bot close the discussion without giving a deletion summary; he couldn't be bothered to close the discussion himself.
Diego (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For these reasons I think the deletion process was invalid. The administrator has shown muchh less than the needed attention that a contested deletion requires. There's an open administrator noticeboard discussion showing that this behavior is usual for this administrator. Diego (talk) 09:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Update: the administrator has since agreed to abstain from closing this kind of discussions. Diego (talk) 11:05, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse – Being a longtime fan of Nintendo myself (full disclosure), the deletion was valid. Notability does not override the non-free content policy. --MuZemike 02:15, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability alone doesn't, but having a non-replaceable encyclopedic content does meet the non-free content policy, which was the case here.
- In any way, that's irrelevant to this DRV since its purpose is not to reassess the arguments in the discussion but to examine the behavior of the closing admin. What's relevant is that the admin deleted the image without being aware of the discussion that was going on, and that he wouldn't provide a valid reason when asked for it, which is against the spirit if not the letter of the deletion process. Diego (talk) 07:22, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If he wasn't aware of the discussion, how did he manage to link to it in his deletion summary? 74.74.150.139 (talk) 07:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As of today he hasn't given proof that he has actually read it beyond the first sentence. And the link was likely created by the bot or automation tool he's using. Diego (talk) 09:12, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist - Notability may not override the non-free content policy, but there was insufficient participation in this discussion to substantiate its reading. The deleting administrator's rationale explicitly stated that the uploader failed to make a convincing case, which is tantamount to a supervote because that view was never expressed by anyone other than the nominator. — C M B J 13:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! If it is relisted I will drop a note at WikiProject Video games to get wider feedback. Diego (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (as nominator)—I've noticed at FfD that there is a trend of administrators deleting images at the conclusion of a deletion discussion (with a log entry referencing the discussion)and leaving it to AnomieBOT to close the discussions. When the deletion is uncontroversial or the rationale is straightforward, this is understandable. However, with regards to this deletion discussion (where only two users participated), the administrator should have closed the debate manually with a specific analysis of the arguments brought forth. While this is moot now (because Fastily has now provided a rationale for deletion), I do agree with Diego that Fastily should have manually closed the discussion before deleting the file with the rationale provided. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Being the "most prominent example of its class" does not make an image non-replaceable. NFCC does not specify that a free replacement must be at the same quality of the non-free image. If the education value can be portrayed by another free equivalent, then this deletion is valid.--v/r - TP 03:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- First, that's not relevant to this deletion review, which is not about the arguments in the debate but about how it was closed. Second, "being notable" was not the argument for keep but "being used in a non-replaceable encyclopedic way". The article still shows "The Super Mario Bros. Super Mushroom has been described as the quintessential power-up (source)". Exactly which free image would you put to illustrate that sentence? You may want to think about it if this discussion is relisted. Diego (talk) 07:19, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relist - The arguments as to whether the use of this file constitute fair use/dealing are complex, and I think more participation is needed to determine consensus. --He to Hecuba (talk) 12:06, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- relist in hopes of getting wider input (due to this DRV if nothing else). I suspect this will end up deleted, but as "He to Hecuba" says, it wasn't clear where consensus was and a new discussion might get us there.
|
