Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 29 Deletion review archives: 2008 November December 1 >

30 November 2008[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Template:Internet_memes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache))

Comments at Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_14#Template:Internet_memes were "no consensus" at best, certainly not "Delete." Inappropriate language and POV displayed by closing editor. Badagnani (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. I took at look at this while it was up for deletion, and it certainly is horrible and I concur with the closer's comments. However, the consensus was fairly strong for a keep so that's what should have happened. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:21, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse nominator's closure, which was a valid application of WP:IAR. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Nominator did not consider the option of splitting the template in multiple smaller ones with better defined inclusion guidelines. IAR does not apply when the closing admin appears to be biased. - Mgm|(talk) 13:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn- There was no clear consensus to delete, and closing admin showed clear bias with the closing statement, comparable to the close of List of bow tie wearers. Umbralcorax (talk) 15:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn to no consensus. There did not appear to be a consensus to delete and some of the reasons given for deletion could easily be solved by editing. Also, what are templates "for"? Protonk (talk) 15:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Protonk. That's exactly right -- the closer's rationale is the kind of thing that should be addressed by editing, not by deletion, especially against consensus. Mangojuicetalk 15:34, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing administrator statement. Navboxes are tricky subjects. It can be difficult to evaluate whether or not navboxes are appropriate for articles, but in this case, I would submit that it is clear this navbox is inappropriate and outside the regular boundaries of what we expect to do with templates. There are at least three dimensions of this template which are not suitable for the template namespace. The first of these is that the template does not link together salient articles which have some sort of intrinsic relationship. Navboxes are used for this type of navigation. This is why a navbox for a List of US presidents is appropriate, or a list of successive office-holders of any office or similar, or even a navigation between albums produced by a band. One preceded another, another followed; there is a sequence. A navbox of legislatures of states would also be appropriate under this criterion, there is a salient, concrete, categorical continuity between the items, which is absent from the template being discussed here. The second of these is that the definition of the term being used for this navbox, "internet meme" excludes the possibility of categorical distinction between its elements. There is no intrinsic relationship between emoticon, rickroll, and dancing baby. There is no upward limit to the number of things which may be categorized under the distinction of "internet meme", nor are there any hard criteria for inclusion. The implications of these can be seen in a future iteration of the template which is subject to edit wars by editors attempting to push a borderline-notable phenomenon into undeserved legitimacy by inclusion in a template, and as there is no upward bound on the size of the template, it could conceivably (and arguably already has) become too large for easy inclusion on pages and become too vast and unwieldy to be used for any sort of useful navigation, therefore defeating its own purpose. Thirdly, there is already a list of internet memes, which obviates the need for this template. In my closing I did not imply that no possible templates could be forged from this list, however, I strongly asserted that this particular template is inconsistent with template guidelines in accordance with its original nomination. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Examples of deletion of similar templates may be found at:
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_December_31#Template:Culture_of_China
Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2008_April_26#Template:Seconds_From_Disaster
Resulting Deletion review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 13
I hope these are helpful, or at least help to demonstrate, some of the points I lay out above. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 17:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The lengthy explanation above somehow fails to address the issue, or show any acknowledgement or compunction for what what was (and what the community clearly views, whether or not the template was any good to begin with) as an inappropriate close. That is the most disturbing thing about this entire situation. Admins absolutely must adhere to our own rules, guidelines, and principles for our community to have any sense of fairness. Badagnani (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - no reason to override consensus. (I'd vote for delete though). SYSS Mouse (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. No amount of "editing" is going to resolve the inherent problems with this template. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got no idea exactly whether or not to !vote to overturn here, but either way it seems like the best course forward is to split up the template into a bunch of different ones, such as {{YouTube celebrities}}, {{4chan culture}}, and whatever others are needed. To that end, I will be happy to usefy the most recent version of the template to anyone who asks in good faith, so that proceedings here won't hold up work unnecessarily. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not really interested in work myself, but I would certainly endorse such a solution. RyanGerbil10(Four more years!) 03:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm amicable to this solution, which would basically split the template up into several more focused templates. Therefore, I will endorse deletion of this template, without prejudice to the creation of multiple templates with a tighter focus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This ignores the question: was the closing editor out of line? It is of paramount importance that we uphold our rules, and that means voting according to the evidence in cases such as this; not do to so risks undermining the fairness that is so important to our project, and the smooth working thereof. Badagnani (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This is not a vote on whether we are deleting or not, this is a vote, as Badagnani has stated multiple times, on whether the decision was correct in light the consensus shown on the deletion page. And it was not, for the reasons stated above. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 18:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I !voted to delete this template, but looking at the discussion, it can't be said there was a consensus to delete it - this should have been closed as a 'no consensus'. It also looks like splitting it up into several templates may be the solution that would achieve most support, but that can be discussed separately. Terraxos (talk) 14:32, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, no consensus to delete. Mike R (talk) 00:32, 6 December 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.


David R. Hawkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

Unjustified deletion of article due to objections made by the article's subject.

David R. Hawkins is a psychiatrist and New Age theorist based in Sedona, Arizona who has built up a sizable international following. Hawkins is a highly controversial figure who has attracted significant criticism from both scientific skeptics and from others within the New Age movement itself. A summary of Hawkins claims are that reason and critical thought (or any “vain opinions”) are of no use to humankind with regard to establishing spiritual, religious, philosophical or political truths and that instead absolute objective truth can only be determined by using applied kinesiology, or AK for short. AK is widely regarded by mainstream scientists as a pseudoscience and quackery which has repeatedly failed to produce results better than random guessing during double-blind trials. Additionally, two of the leading practitioners of AK, Eric Pierotti and John Diamond, do not believe that AK can be used in this manner and have heavily criticised Hawkins. Some critics have suggested that Hawkins might qualify as a cult leader (or least have cultish tendencies), such as the renowned New England Institute of Religious Research and his own former colleague Peter A. Olsson. Until July 2007, there was a large, well sourced, neutral and informative article on him here at Wikipedia at David R. Hawkins. I am not aware of any debate as to whether Hawkins warrants a Wiki article and clearly he is indeed worthy of one given his considerable profile and following, I don’t think notability was ever an issue. However his article was deleted in July 2007, seemingly (as far as I can ascertain) without any discussion by a moderator tired of dealing with attacks from Hawkins' followers and legal threats from the man himself (there may have been discussion on the article talk page but this has since been deleted as well so I can’t tell). Hawkins has a history of intolerance to legitimate criticism and also of threatening legal action against his critics (or anyone publicising the views of his critics), usually on spurious grounds. One successful example of Hawkins using legal threats is in the case of the aforementioned New England Institute for Religious Research which removed its criticisms of Hawkins from their webpage after he threatened to sue – apparently they spend most of their money on helping victims of cults and don’t have the finances to “defend freedom of speech”. It appears that Hawkins threatened Wikipedia with legal action on the grounds of copyright violation. The moderator in question, apparently “tired” of the arguments and threats, then deleted the article. To my mind this deletion was totally unjustified and was simply giving in to largely baseless threats and bullying intended to silence legitimate free speech. (Hawkins himself has apparently said that his problem with his Wiki article was actually that it gave links to Robert Todd Carroll’s criticisms of him, which merely pointed out that AK fails scientific tests and that he earned his PhD at the unaccredited diploma mill Columbia Pacific University, both of which are verifiable facts and not in any way shape or form libellous). If copyright violation was an issue (which is a dubious suggestion in itself from what I can gather), then it should have been a relatively simple matter to remove any and all direct quotes from Hawkins’ own books, CD’s etc, which should surely remove the problem (and Hawkins’ supposed justification for his threats). There is no issue of libel – there was nothing remotely libellous in the article as far as I can see, the statements about the Religious Research institute merely pointed out that they had applied a well-known cult leader psychological profile test to him with no mention of whether they actually concluded that he was exhibiting tendencies of a cult leader and this could have been removed (without removing the whole article) if deemed defamatory (which I seriously doubt it would be under US law), and the statements about Columbia Pacific University and the legitimacy of Hawkins’ claimed Danish “knighthood” are simply verifiable facts (to my knowledge, Hawkins didn’t actually bother to claim the article was in any way libellous anyway). If Hawkins objects to Wikipedia pointing out that science appears to demonstrate that AK doesn’t work or that he got his PhD from a diploma mill that has been shut down, then that’s his problem. It doesn’t mean the article should be deleted, it should be there as a neutral source of information about Hawkins for people curious to learn more about him. It is one thing to remove articles copied from other sources or remove libellous material, but for Wikipedia to give into spurious threats made by a self-confessed opponent of free speech (“we don’t need freedom of speech, we need freedom from speech” apparently) who is seemingly determined to remove any or all legitimate criticism of himself where possible is extremely sad. The author of The Skeptics Dictionary, the aforementioned Robert Todd Carroll, has himself written on the subject of Wikipedia’s deletion of Hawkins’ article and sees it in much the same terms. I would like to propose that Wikipedia users seriously reconsider and hopefully overturn the decision to delete Hawkins’ article and restore it, if necessary with any material directly taken from his own works removed and any other appropriate editing done to ensure that the article contains no material that conflicts with copyright violation or BLP issues. This is what should have been done originally, rather than simply deleting the whole article to placate Hawkins and his fundamentalist disciples. Wikipedia cannot be sued by Hawkins for simply stating verifiable, sourced facts that he decides he disapproves of.

The original article is mirrored [here|http://domainhelp.search.com/reference/David_R._Hawkins#_note-80]. Further information about Hawkins, his history of trying to silence his critics and the deletion of his Wikipedia page can be found here: [1] [2]. 92.10.158.234 (talk) 23:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC) -->[reply]

  • Editors with access to OTRS can find the relevant ticket here. Right now, given the allegation of BLP concerns I'd like to see a neutrally worded and properly sourced draft before I would be willing to even consider this. Based on the nomination, I'd suggest that the nominator is too close to the subject to be able to provide a neutral draft. Endorse pro tem until something worth looking at emerges. Spartaz Humbug! 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. My recollection of the matter was that there were no obvious BLP violations in the final version. The biggest problem was that proponents of the subject were inserting extraordinary claims with weak sources and an opponent was adding negative material with equally weak sources. There is a general lack of objective 3rd party sources for the subject, but despite that fact he certainly seems notable enough for a Wikipedia biography. The article was deleted outside of process. I endorse overturning the deletion of the article and either fixing it or putting it through conventional AfD. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted; let's have a sourced draft first in userspace. Stifle (talk) 09:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Why was this article deleted to begin with? The mirrored version linked by the nominator has 98 footnotes, and is generally quite well referenced. If there was contentious material in the article, why wasn't this dealt with in the usual way by removing the offending sections or stubbing the article? The stated deletion rationale was:
"you know what, no matter what everyone does or says, I am always getting emails about this being a BLP violation or some copyvio. Take your matches elsewhere, I am done with this."
This isn't CSD G10. This is just an admin sick of dealing with the article. Let's get this back and deal with the issues in the same way as we do with all the other controversial BLPs. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 14:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - I am not prepared to fully review the full article but the deleted one was a sourced stub. We could at least go back to that, and develop the article from there, carefully, in compliance with WP:BLP. Mangojuicetalk 15:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, as the most recent version (admin only link) at least was stable. As long as there's a single stable version that can be reverted to, reversion is preferable to full-out deletion. Worst case here is that the article needs to be indefinitely and fully protected, which is still preferable to deletion. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, while the deleting admin has not responded here, he's indicated on his talk page that he would prefer to see a draft before restoration (diff). lifebaka++ 19:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Can someone please post a copy of this article (protected, if necessary) while this is under review? I cannot really judge either way right now. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, a mirror of a long version of the article is here. The short version was a few lines. For the purposes of DRV, the key matter is whether it was properly deleted. Since it was done outside normal procedures that question appears to be "yes". If nothing else, we can start over from scratch. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:30, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn if there was a neutral version to be rolled back too (as indicated by Lifebaka and Mangojuice) then I see no reason for deletion. It appears as if the deleting admin just got pissed off by all the POV pushers and purged the whole work at his discretion, which is not a valid reason for deletion. I would recommend the use of full protection in stabilizing the article as opposed for going for the nuclear option. Icewedge (talk) 05:36, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn' A deletion rationale of "you know what, no matter what everyone does or says, I am always getting emails about this being a BLP violation or some copyvio. Take your matches elsewhere, I am done with this." is a reason to ask some other admin to handle the matter , not a justification for deletion. As the person is clearly notable, removing this by administrative action is not a valid use of BLP policy. DGG (talk) 15:46, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see we are reviewing a July 2007 decision. Looking further, I see the article was a venue for contention back to at least 2005. At the time of deletion, the complaint at the BLP noticeboard was about inappropriate removal of "critical links". The page has since been protected, so an editor can't just start over from scratch in the article space, they will have to do so as a user subpage. Will Beback discussed the deletion with Zscout370 back in July 2007. That discussion is archived here. GRBerry 21:47, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted until an adequately sourced version is created in user space. I can see no good reason to restore the old version with the BLP concerns mentioned. RMHED (talk) 22:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are the BLP concerns? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those mentioned in the OTRS ticket, though obviously only not visible to me. Still if this marginally notable person has expressed concerns about their article then keep it deleted. At least until an extremely well referenced one can be produced first in user space, and even then I'd probably say keep deleted. RMHED (talk) 22:48, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do you think that current WP policy allows for admins to delete articles simply because they are tired of dealing with them? That was the reason given. The admin never said that there were BLP issues, only that he kept getting emails complaining about BLP issues. For those here who aren't admins, the entire text of the article when it was deleted and salted:
        • Do you see a BLP violation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If the OTRS ticket mentioned above by Spartaz is from Hawkins and he wants the article gone, then delete it. Hawkins isn't really notable, does any dead tree encyclopedia cover him? If not, then delete. The text above, if not adequately referenced is indeeed a BLP violation. RMHED (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The legitimate reasons for the speedy deletion of an article are listed at WP:CSD. None of them apply to this article. G10 doesn't apply because it was not "entirely negative in tone". Admins shouldn't delete pages just because they get tired of dealing with them (though there are times I wouldn't mind such a policy). ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Nor should poorly referenced BLP's be restored, invoke IAR and keep it deleted until such time as somebody can be arsed to reference it adequately. RMHED (talk) 01:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • Hawkins was never involved in the emails that I personally dealt with on OTRS. I don't have access anymore. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 09:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored last edit. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 10:31, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that Zscout370 restored the last edit, I recommend keep deleted but for GFDL compliance reasons put a list of the authors who worked on the prior version at Talk:David R. Hawkins/Prior Authorship and make a note about that in an edit summary for the next edit to the page. GRBerry 00:36, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't follow. The version that is there now was written from scratch by Zscout370 after he blanked it, and then there was maybe one ro two edits before he blanked it again. We can restore those back to the last blanking. He and I discussed it off-wiki and we both agree that it's unwise to restore the full history. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I restored an additional 13 edits, to take the history back to the sub-stub that Zscout wrote. I think that that should cover the GFDL sufficiently. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Skyzoo – Deletion overturned, with no prejudice towards a new AfD. – kurykh 00:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Skyzoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD))

I created this article from scratch with evidence of significant coverage in reliable sources, which was presumably lacking when an article on this subject was previously deleted at AfD. User:Orangemike speedy-deleted the article (A7), incorrectly I believe, and refused to restore it when requested, claiming that because of insufficient releases the artist was not notable, despite the agreed notability criteria at WP:MUSIC, not to mention the general notability criteria. Not being an admin, I do not have access to the deleted article but I wouldn't have created it if I didn't think ther was sufficient coverage of the subject in reliable sources, which included a biography at Allmusic among others. Since sources exist and were included in the article, speedy deletion was inappropriate. Michig (talk) 20:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC) I should also point out that Skyzoo has, in contrast to the deleter's comments, released a 'proper' commercially-released album, which has been released and reviewed, in addition to a mixtape, which I believe I pointed out in the article.--Michig (talk) 21:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This really comes down to the sourcing. DRV isn't really the place to discuss that so I'd support undeleting and listing at AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 20:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't an A7, but G4 would have applied in the alternative as the article had previously been deleted by a deletion discussion. Keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, a G4 would not have applied as the article is NOT recreation of deleted content.--Michig (talk) 13:15, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The articles were both about the same person. If G4 couldn't be applied unless the article was an exact carbon-copy of the deleted article, it would be pointless — the criterion was created to avoid having to repeat deletion processes when a deleted article was recreated by a user. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • G4 criterion is "A copy, by any title, of a page deleted via a deletion discussion, provided the copy is substantially identical to the deleted version and that any changes in the recreated page do not address the reasons for which the material was deleted". That's what the policy says, it does not state that creation of a completely new article about a previously-deleted subject is speedyable via G4. The original article was deleted due to lack of notability, a key factor being lack of significant coverage, which has been addressed in the completely-rewritten new article. This is not in any way a recreation of a deleted article. I don't really feel I should have to point this out.--Michig (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. Nothing Michig has said makes it sound as if the previous AfD discussion needs to be revisited. If Michig thinks notability can really be established, I suggest creating a draft in user space first to show so. Mangojuicetalk 15:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's worlds of difference between the sourcing of the older and more recently deleted versions. I'd much rather see another AfD, if deletion is still sought. I wouldn't be surprised if it fared well there, either. Overturn the G4 deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. If there is reliable sourcing on the subject I would like to see a draft in user space beforehand. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:20, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and start treating editors better. The version Google has cached[4] is sourced to articles about Skyzoo in allmusic[5], hiphopdx.com[6] and XXL[7] among others. That = non-trivial coverage in multiple independent sources. (And more sources exist for this, e.g. [8]). Deleting because some entirely different article was deleted is bad, mkay? And backing it up with a personal interpretation of notability at odds with the consensus interpretation doesn't fly, needless to say.(Original article probably shouldn't have been deleted either, if editors put energy into sourcing and not clicking fancy buttons and opining, but that's another story.) 86.44.21.140 (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging up the cached article. It's blatantly obvious that this was an incorrect A7 speedy deletion.--Michig (talk) 10:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, per lifebaka that appears to be the case. Mangojuice doesn't seem to have felt the need to look into it. Frankly I'm distressed that Stifle has both tools and his given interpretation of G4. Perhaps I'm reading him wrong but I don't see any other possible reading. Could someone have a word? And I think I've heard it whispered that this place is not AfD part II - some admin comments suggest otherwise. Thank goodness for lifebaka (and now DGG) or i would darkly theorize that this depends on which side the admin action is on.
BTW, Corner Store Classic was reviewed and given XL status by XXL, which is quite unusual and should be in your article. Also the Skyzoo myspace claims mentions in the August 2006 editions of XXL and the sadly-missed Scratch. The Aug 2006 XXL, presuming the dates are correct, is the Reasonable Doubt issue, a lot of heads will have this - indeed I had it myself at one stage. A non-godawful hip hop wikiproject would serve this up, if only one existed. There's also this 2007 list of interviews.<--edit: new link Mind you, his myspace also says he's female and 108. Oh, and a crack team of no less than three journalists have ascertained that he really really likes macaroni and cheese! 86.44.22.176 (talk) 16:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the deletion was requested for inadequate sourcing to show notability and substantial sourcing was added. It's not my subject,. so I don't want to say whether or not it actually constitutes notability, but it does on its face appear to justify a new AfD. DGG (talk) 15:50, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted the subject is still not notable; the administrative decision to remove this was correct. JBsupreme (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AFD again. This was not, apparently, a G4, and definitely not an A7. There are claims of notability made, supported by (at least somewhat) reliable sources; if that makes the article substantially different from the version earlier deleted at AFD, then it should not have been speedy-deleted, and should have been assessed at AFD instead. Hollis Mason (talk) 04:34, 5 December 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Elle williams 360.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore | cache)|IfD)

Image deleted and closed without discussion. Fair use of single magazine cover shows subject's work. This use is similar to the use of a music sample of recording artist, 2D Art for painter, comic cover for an illustrator, or quotation from a writer or poet. A fashion photograph is preferred for commentary in article about fashion model. The choice of ELLE corresponds to model's most significant client, as she was on the cover of the popular fashion magazine over a dozen times in 4 years and had a continuing relationship with editor and fashion photographer Gilles Bensimon, who worked at American ELLE during the same period. Full fair use rationale given on image description. Knulclunk (talk) 03:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • There was a discussion at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_November_16#Image:Elle_williams_360.jpg Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Policy is that non-free images must contribute significantly to readers' understanding of articles; this one didn't and it was absolutely correct to delete. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A photograph of the model's work very obviously contributes significantly to the readers' understanding of the article--one might even say it's critical to the understanding. This should be accepted as a fair use criterion. DGG (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Magazine covers should really only be used to illustrate a discussion of the cover and only if they add value. Otherwise this is FU replacable and is not going to fly under fair use here. Spartaz Humbug! 20:39, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This image's real purpose is to show what the person looks like. Sure, it's her work, but if that's an acceptable argument, we would steal copyrighted pictures for every article on a model, and we should be seeking free images. The image would serve to illustrate the text, not to enhance the reader's understanding. Her relationship with Elle and with Gilles Bensimon is interesting: I might feel differently about a copyrighted image of her being photographed by Gilles Bensimon... but this image doesn't illustrate a relationship. Mangojuicetalk 15:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. This violates/violated the spirit of our free use image policy. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 20:25, 1 December 2008 (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/2008_November_30&oldid=1138433985"