Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 April 14
2009 April 16 >

15 April 2009[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Mars Black (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contesting PROD, as he does not fail WP:MUSIC (two releases on Team Love Records). Chubbles (talk) 17:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored as a contested prod. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • File:Goatsehello.jpg – Continued deletion endorsed. There is consensus below that the image is not appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia and that no further discussion is needed to establish that fact. – Eluchil404 (talk) 04:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Goatsehello.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Image was speedily deleted despite not being eligible under any criterion: It was not pure vandalism (hell, it even had a good fair use rationale); and the files criteria were not fulfilled, either by virtue of the fact they would be ineligible because they passed the requirement or because not enough time had elapsed. Image was at the time at the forefront of a discussion about censorship and all steps had been taken to ensure that the image was only used on the Goatse article. Sceptre (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The image talk page has no history of discussion deleted or otherwise. Where was this discussion you're referring to held? - Mgm|(talk) 12:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per WP:IDONTLIKEIT (amongst other things). Valid or not, I can't believe we're arguing to have this image restored. I'm not one for censorship either, but don't use this to make your point. To elaborate now — it is a non-free image and I don't believe that it is necessary to use per WP:NFCC 5 and 8 (I think the readers knowledge of the topic is significant enough without adding the image). - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In fact, I'm arguing that it does pass NFCC#5 and #8; more to do with #8, which I'm arguing that the article is a lot less understood with the image than without (besides, it's inline linked to anyway). In our encyclopedic mission, we've even willingly tried to breach ArbCom restrictions. It would be a violation of NPOV to contain the copyrighted-and-designed-to-be-offensive Jyllands-Posten cartoons in an article about them and not contain the copyrighted-and-designed-to-be-offensive Goatse image in an article about it, NFCC considered. Besides, this DRV is also about the process the IfD was closed under. (deletion per F5 after one day, when F5 contains that provision to stop people edit warring image out) Sceptre (talk) 19:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • NFCC is interpreted differently by different people. I'm still suggesting that you make your point about censorship in some other way. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question here is to consider only whether deletion process has been properly followed or not. In this case, it has not. The deletion reason given was F5 (unused non-free image), but that deletion code requires the image to have been orphaned for five days. Therefore, overturn deletion and relist at FFD. I want to make it clear that I think this image is execrable, offensive, and everything that Wikipedia is not. But it is appropriate to follow the deletion process and confirm, by consensus, that we can consign this image to digital history. Stifle (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do you really feel that there is a benefit in process wonking? - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In this case, yes. There were keep !votes at the FFD, so it's not at all clear that there is a consensus to remove this image. However much I dislike it, I would prefer not to steamroll minority opinions. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Relist per Stifle. I too feel that this image has no place on wikipedia, but the process was not followed, and process is important. Relisting at FfD will ensure that community input is received on this matter (and hopefully develop a consensus) , something that a speedy deletion is unable to do. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Yes, process wasn't followed but we don't need to wikilawyer over this - not only has there never been any consensus to include the image anywhere, it fails at least two parts of WP:NFCC and would be removed anyway. Black Kite 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which two parts? It only failed NFCC#7 because people were stonewalling against it. Sceptre (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It fails 8 (could equally be described in text), will fail 7 for the reason you mention above, and could possibly fail 5 as well. Black Kite 22:35, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • NFCC#8 is a subjective criterion, and that fact is well known. I think that it passes NFCC#8, because it would be very very difficult to equally describe it in text. Sceptre (talk) 00:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's actually explained very well in text in the article at the moment. Black Kite 11:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and do not relist. I agree with Stifle that this image is everything that Wikipedia is not, and I think we should not allow a rule to prevent us from improving Wikipedia by following process too strictly in this case.

    Wikipedia is not censored, but it isn't the right place to host or display shock content either.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • But does the deletion of the image improve Wikipedia? I disagree, and disagreed as such in the FfD. Sceptre (talk) 22:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know that, I can tell from the number of edits you've made to this DRV!

        I think the list of deleted images Bjweeks provides, above, shows that consensus is against you in this case.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

        • Actually, the last time the image was uploaded without being vandalism was back in 2007, when it was uploaded four times by good-faith users over a span of a few months. None of those were even discussed; it was twice deleted with no summary; deleted once per "no", which is not a reason for speedy deletion; and once thirteen minutes after upload by WJBscribe, who said "no consensus to include" (a relatively poor reason for deleting material) Sceptre (talk) 00:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Wikipedia isn't censored and process is important, but the NFCC concerns are enough to make this valid. MBisanz talk 21:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist Clearly two measuring sticks were used here. Plenty of people found the Mohammed cartoons offensive, but they were countered with "Wikipedia is not censored". I can't find a good reason not to apply the same reason to this image and its very limited use. It might still need to go, but not through a wrongly applied speedy deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 21:53, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Mohammed cartoons were at the center of an intense, international debate about freedom of speech and the integration of Muslims into Western democracies, not to mention actual violence, threats, and an episode of South Park. This image, on the other hand, is an attempt to trick people into looking into a distended rectum. Lets say for sake of argument that it is the most notable attempt to trick someone into looking into a distended rectum in history; comparing it with this article still makes it pretty clear their relative encyclopedic content. Two standards should be applied because the two cases are completely different. --Clay Collier (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn – Proper process was not followed and none of the arguments offered so far justify ignoring process. Wikipedia is not censored, so the fact that the image is offensive, repulsive, or shocking is irrelevant. We should only consider whether its inclusion meets the non-free content criteria and, most importantly, whether it would "increase readers' understanding of the topic". –Black Falcon (Talk) 22:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. At the time of closure, it was an orphan non-free image, and so certainly suitable for deletion. If you want to make the case that it belongs in the article of the same name, a consensus for that move should be developed in the Talk section of that article, and then the image can be uploaded and added if most editors think it is necessary. No reason to keep around a non-free image not in use (particularly one as prone to abuse as this one) in the anticipation that someday consensus might change as to its proper use. --Clay Collier (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • CSD#F5: "Images and other media that are not under a free license or in the public domain, that are not used in any article, may be deleted after being identified as such for more than seven days."; that's there so people don't get an image deleted by edit warring it out, like what happened here. Sceptre (talk) 13:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But there had been multiple, previous discussions of the use of the image that had resulted in not keeping it. It wasn't edit-warred out of existence; it was removed by consensus, and then added again. That sounds like the re-creation of deleted content to me, which is speedy-able. --Clay Collier (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And those discussions were more based on institutional bias against the image rather than encyclopedic treatment. Take, for example, last year's RFC. Only one of the no's had an encyclopedic reason: Elonka, who argued it would be an UNDUE violation to include it. I don't know what she meant by that, but still. And the 2005 RFC was more concerned about fair use than whether it was encyclopedic. Now we've got mechanisms in place for fair use, we can minimise that discussion in favour of encyclopedicity. Sceptre (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nom, Stifle, & Black Falcon. VegaDark (talk) 15:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as having no encyclopedic value whatsoever. Exercising editorial control to avoid shock images is no less appropriate (and no more censorship) than excising vanity articles on non-notable Myspace bands. Jclemens (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The keeps in the FfD was arguing it was encyclopedic. And of course, you'd be right if it was a shock image in a normal article. But this is a shock image in an article about the shock image. Shockingly, shock images can be encyclopedic. Sceptre (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly endorse deletion. No Wikipedia policy is intended as a substitute for common sense and good judgment. The suggestion that we should include this or similar images, or even spend substantial time discussing whether to include them, serves no useful purpose. "Wikipedia is not censored" is a statement that we have a right to exercise intellectual freedom and make judgments about what material is appropriate for inclusion, not an abdication of our right to make such judgments. Deletion discussion processes, while they are to be respected in the vast majority of cases, exist to serve the encyclopedia and the community rather than as ends in themselves. (This is why I included an out for "blatantly inappropriate content" in the "deletion" principles in the SemBubenny and MZMcBride arbitration decisions.) And the idea that excluding this image would violate NPOV is too absurd to warrant a detailed response, beyond stating that if every instance of excising an image is POV we might as well all go home. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The key word here is "blatantly". Goatse in Barack Obama is blatantly inappropriate. Goatse in an article about Goatse is (shock horror!) not blatantly inappropriate. Besides, "common sense" has never been used to apply common sense to Goatse; it's always used as a euphemism for "I don't like it". It is an interesting question why, fair use considered, an image of the Jyllands-Posten cartoons of Mohammed, which were designed to offend, can be used, but an image of Goatse, which was designed to offend, cannot. Sceptre (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd also argue (as others have below) that throwing around "common sense" as an argument to ignore process is a poor idea when that result clearly doesn't have consensous on its side. Put another way, if a fair fraction of people disagree with you, it isn't common sense. Uncommon sense perhaps (meaning wisdom past what most have) but that's always in the eye of the beholder. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Yes, process is important, but process has been followed--a consensus has determined that the image is inappropriate. There's no need for extra process just to dot the i's. Chick Bowen 03:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • At the time of deletion, there was only one active discussion: the FfD. There were, aside from the nom, two deletes and two keeps. The two keeps argued that it was appropriate; conversely, the two deletes argued it should be deleted primarily because it was orphaned. Those delete arguments are bound by the seven day grace period of CSD#F5; if not, what's stopping me from edit warring the Mohammed cartoons out and getting them deleted for being orphaned? Sceptre (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion largely per NYB. Between the fair use issues and the lack of consensus for inclusion, there's no point in restoring this image.--chaser - t 04:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "No consensus for inclusion" is a poor reason for exclusion. Sceptre (talk) 04:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You keep citing WP:DRNC as if it applies. It doesn't. DRNC addresses the situation where someone tries to remove content, claiming that there must first be a discussion to get an affirmative consensus to include. Here, instead, we've discussed this issue plenty of times, but have come to no consensus to include it. The situations are opposite. In one case there's discussion, and people can't agree what to do. In the other, there's no discussion, and one editor's whim carries the day. Not the same.--chaser - t 14:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Process should not be the enemy of common sense; this image has no place here and its removal is entirely reasonable. Eusebeus (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Common sense common sense, or "I don't like this image" common sense? Actual common sense, as I've pointed out above, would be to include the image. Sceptre (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It is natural that there will be disagreement surrounding the deletion of this image (I would be worried if there was none) and that people may hold strong opinions regarding its inclusion in or exclusion from the Goatse.cx article, but please let's leave claims of common sense out of the discussion. If either position was truly supported by the elusive creature known as "common sense", there would be little or no disagreement. On a lighter note, perhaps this translated quote may apply: "Common sense is the best distributed thing in the world, for we all think we possess a good share of it." –attributed to René Descartes in Wikiquote. :) Cheers, –Black Falcon (Talk) 19:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn due to process. And frankly an article about an image should probably have that image. NFCC certainly would support that. Heck, magazine covers are an example there. Hobit (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. We appear to want it just to prove we can, but that's not a very good reason to include what appears to be a copyright image. Just because Wikipedia is not censored does not mean we have to daub the walls with excrement. Guy (Help!) 23:58, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per m:Don't be an asshole. Erik9 (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly does that have to do with the image? It isn't a bad thing to use an image in an article about an image, even if it is Goatse. Sceptre (talk) 02:32, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the name of the redirect is related in a fairly direct way to the content of the deleted image. More substantively, the essay to which the redirect links advises editors to avoid actions which violate Wikipedia's community standards. We can argue endlessly about what WP:NOT#CENSORED means, but policy is descriptive, not prescriptive. To answer the question of "is certain controversial image content acceptable on Wikipedia", the most relevant inquiry is into whether there is a consensus for the inclusion of similar images. For instance, images which depict human anatomy or normal physiological processes, and are only inadvertently and unintentionally offensive to some people, are considered to have encyclopedic value for the illustration of their subject matter, and are accepted for inclusion on articles such as cleft of venus, masturbation, ejaculation, erection, etc. However, images created for the sole purpose of causing offense, of which this image is a quintessential example, are not generally accepted for inclusion on Wikipedia, even on articles about websites devoted to them, as shown by the repeated deletion of this image described above, and its removal from the article to which you attempted to add it. Erik9 (talk) 03:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fun fact: there has never been an FfD for this image until four days ago. And the goatse article is as much about the image as it is about the website. Actually, it's more about the image than the website, although the two are exonerably linked. Oh, and that rationale would support deleting the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons, or at least some of them, because they were also created solely to offend (I see no other purpose for, say, the Muhammad bomb-turban cartoon). However, that image's existence on Wikipedia is supported by NOT#CENSORED despite being created to offend. Sceptre (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Mohammed images exist on Wikipedia to illustrate an important political and historical event which received extensive coverage in international media. The image being discussed exists only to trick people into looking into a distended rectum. It's notability is marginal, and lies solely in the fact that it is offensive. The precise nature of the Mohammed images- the fact that to most non-Muslims they appear fairly innocuous, but inspired deep antipathy among many Muslims- is central to discussions of the apparent clash of two different cultures. The image extends greatly the reader's understanding of how divisive this image was, and the difficulty of some observers in understanding the nature of the controversy. 'Not censored' means that images with informative value are not omitted because some people might find them offensive, not that offensive images must be included regardless of their value. The consensus appears to have been that this particular image's value is insufficient to warrant its inclusion. It's not that there is no consensus to include it; it's that there exists a consensus to not include it. It seems to me the clearest way to resolve the dispute would be to start a conversation on the article's talk page and try and establish if the consensus has changed from one of exclusion to inclusion. If it has, great; just like when a deleted article is revamped in userspace and then moved, it can be restored. I think it would be better to establish exactly what the consensus is and then take action, rather than doing things and then arguing about both what the consensus is and if the action was correct. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm sure the essence of the image can be captured in words sufficiently that we don't need to keep this. Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - can we please get back to the fact to the matter that this image was simply deleted out of process? There is no criterion for speedy deletion that facilitates that this image, no matter if it is fair use or its offensiveness, should be deleted seventeen hours after being uploaded in good faith and including a FUR. And IAR is only a means to an end rather than an end in itself; odds are, if you have to cite IAR, you're doing it wrong. Sceptre (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • After viewing some of the uploader's recent contributions [1], I wouldn't be so sure that it was uploaded in good faith. --Bongwarrior (talk) 18:48, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Still, it's not G3able. Sceptre (talk) 19:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Recreation of previously deleted content without the content being significantly changed, or without consensus for its inclusion, is speedy-able. --Clay Collier (talk) 23:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "No consensus for inclusion" is a poor argument which basically means "I don't like it". As to your point: that only applies to pages which have been deleted by a deletion discussion (explicitly not applying to speedies) and have not addressed the reason for its deletion. Neither of those applied to the Goatse image which was deleted four days ago. Sceptre (talk) 09:36, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Not arguing 'no consensus for inclusion'. Arguing 'consensus for exclusion'. It's repeated deletion without being contested seems to indicate that the community consensus until now has been that the image ought to be excluded. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Although nearly all of the times it was deleted, it was more to do with it being used for vandalism rather than a good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia. Sceptre (talk) 11:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • That may be the case because of how the image was being used at those times, but it doesn't appear that anyone argued at the time that it might be useful to the encyclopedia. The consensus was that its use constituted vandalism, and there was insufficient possibility of it being used in a positive way to justify keeping the image around. The fact that the upload was repeatedly and apparently uncontroversially deleted seems to indicate that there wasn't a feeling among the community that there existed a productive use for this image. The actions of the community do reflect a consensus: that the use of this image was exploitive rather than informative. The intent is pretty clear, even if it wasn't necessarily articulated in a formal way via the XfD process. Now, maybe the consensus in the past was based on poor reasoning. That may be the case. But it doesn't seem to be the case that it has been demonstrated that that previous ad hoc consensus has been substantially altered. Discussing the use of the image constructively on the Talk page for Goatse.cx might result in a different, new consensus. But until then, I don't think that we should be compelled to act as though no consensus regarding this image existed because it hadn't been laid out in a specific way. Actions, in this case, speak louder than words. The image was deleted every time it was uploaded for years, without protest. That sounds to me like a de facto consensus. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Yay! Not liking 4chan trolls = consensus! Wait... no. You still haven't answered the point: which speedy deletion criterion facilitated the deletion of this image? G3, G4, and F5 evidently do not apply. Sceptre (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does there exist an article about an image/painting on wikipedia that doesn't have a copy of that image due to copyright issues? If not, the NFCC argument would seem to fall flat. Hobit (talk) 14:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure; it would seem to be the exception rather than the rule, seeing as an entire article about an image would, in nearly all cases, satisfy the requirement of critical commentary. Sceptre (talk) 16:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - there must be a consensus to include non-free content anywhere on Wikipedia. There is clearly not currently a consensus to include this image. If it is determined in the future that there is a consensus to include the image then it can easily be undeleted or reuploaded. The purpose of the time lapse between identification as orphaned and deletion is to give time for the image to be placed in an article and establish the consensus for it to be there. In this instance this was not going to occur. The spirit of the non-free content criteria and IAR would seem to be against hosting an orphaned non-free image - with no realistic chance of finding a "home" - for however many extra days purely on the grounds of process. In any case the image was previously deleted following discussion, the new copy was substantially identical (I assume) and so a candidate for speedy deletion under criterion G4. Guest9999 (talk) 18:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    G4 doesn't apply because it was never deleted after a formal discussion. Sceptre (talk) 05:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To my mind this discussion was formal enough to establish a consensus on whether the image should be included, effectively a formal decision for deletion in the case of a non-free image. Guest9999 (talk) 09:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if it does count for the purposes of CSD as a formal discussion, you still have to show that its use didn't address the reasons for which it was deleted. Which the main reason was that it was disgusting. Which is not a deletion criterion. Sceptre (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fair enough, but I don't see the point of overturning on a technicality when there are - in my opinion - good policy based reasons for it to remain deleted. I didn't say I endorsed the decision, only that the image should be kept deleted. Guest9999 (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse NOT CENSORED is compatible with common sense and discretion. If one wants a speedy criterion in addition to NFCC, it's Vandalism, as the clear intent in uploading this was to give offense, as shown by the uploader's other edits, most of which were even more inappropriate. I'm not sure what I'd say about use in an article, or about an article, but that's not the present issue. DGG (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good question about what happens when someone creates something as vandalism, but then another editor comes in and makes it somewhat acceptable. Maybe his upload was done in bad faith, but I would think my subsequent addition of a fair use rationale would, at the very least, mitigate the application of G3. Sceptre (talk) 05:36, 20 April 2009 (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/2009_April_15&oldid=1086355430"