File was deleted with absolutely no discussion or prior warning. It seems like the administrator (User:Explicit) is abusing his/her power. The file was deleted for Wikipedia:CSD#F7 for violating Wikipedia:NFCC#1 which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. The file was a low-resolution screenshot of a YouTube video used in one article (linked above), and was used in a perfectly viable context where it contributed to the article. As Wikipedia:NFCC#1 states, "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" The answer is simply, no. Any other low-resolution screenshot would also be non-free content. Seeing as the specific section the file was in is Jay_Park_videography#YouTube, a screenshot of a notable YouTube video cannot be substituted with text. Just unknown (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Since admin Skier Dude kepted the reduced image supplied on 18 May 2012,[1] either this was not the most obvious case of speedy deletion or not all of its revisions were also eligible as required by Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. User talk:Dogwalkerz received a "Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice" notice on 03:41, 3 October 2012[2] and the image was deleted deleted 2 days after the notification at 00:19, 6 October 2012[3] The "Template:di-replaceable fair use-notice" says that Dogwalkerz had uploaded the image, but the records seem to indicate that the image had been there as a "Reduce supplied" since 18 May 2012.[4] Not sure what is going on. Did Dogwalkerz upload a file using a name of a file deleted on 18 May 2012 or had the image been there since admin Skier Dude left it there on 18 May 2012? In any event, the Wikipedia:CSD#F7 deletion can't be reviewed without seeing the fair-use tag used to determine whether it was invalid. Please restore the image for this DRV discussion. Just unknown, would you mind providing a link to the Wikipedia reliable source discussing this screenshot? Thanks. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:50, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - What exactly do you mean? The image was used here Jay_Park_videography#YouTube as the image itself was a reduced image of perhaps the most notable YouTube video Park has been in and thus is quite a nice addition to this section. Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uv7SUncOAAQ and of course there are countless sources of why this particular video is important in Park's history but that's for another matter I guess. If I remember correctly, Dogwalkerz uploaded a high resolution image (which does not comply with fair-use tag), and then a low resolution image shortly after. The higher resolution image correctly deleted by admin Skier Dude, and there had been no problems since. Very frustrating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Just unknown (talk • contribs) 12:46, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The video wasn't used in the Wikipedia article, a screen shot was. Is there Wikipedia reliable source that discusses identification and critical commentary in the context of the screen shot used in the article? Wikipedia stands out from the rest of the internet by publishing articles based on coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (in this case, independent of Jay Park). -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as deleting administrator. This was a simple screenshot of the video linked above at around the 1:20 mark. It shows Jay Park, Ryan Higa, and Philip Wang of Wong Fu Productions sitting in a car. That's it. This screenshot was not subject to critical commentary, it easily failed point one of WP:NFCC: "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" The answer here is obviously yes. Just unknown's claim that "there are countless sources of why this particular video is important in Park's history" is, just like the paragraph regarding this topic in the article, entirely unsourced, if not flat-out original research. On an unrelated note, I'm not fond of being accused of abusing my adminstrative tools simply because someone doesn't agree with my deletion. Talk about bad faith. — ξxplicit 23:52, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. I stopped reading the nomination after the second sentence. DRV is not a platform for launching entirely unfounded allegations of admin abuse. T. Canens (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This admin has been mass-deleting images left, right, and center. It is not an admin's job to go out of their way to find a obscure reason to delete an image. Just unknown (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Website has new URL, external links fixed.--Cactus26 (talk) 12:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted As a general rule I support very few templates that add external links, as they encourage EL favoritism which can lead to an overproliferation of a certain link and even outright spamming. If this is overturned on procedural reasons I would support a renomination on these grounds. ThemFromSpace 14:38, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your opposition against overprofileration and spamming may be reasonable. But in dewiki this EL is mainly used as source (I assume in enwiki it's similar but I actually haven't proved it). Since Wikipedia does not prevent pages for less famous athletes there's often no alternative as source. So the EL can't be passed and it's a good practice to encapsulate frequent external links using a template to be prepared for changes of URL (as happened recently).--Cactus26 (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - The template is used in the External Links section as in *{{Playerhistory|id=1721}}.[5] The reasons listed in the TfD discussion[6] were 1. "There is no such website as Playerhistory.com any longer due to technical problems, so there is no use for this template as all it does is create links to dead pages." 2. "redundant". I'm not sure what the redundant argument was about, but there is no such website as Playerhistory.com.[7]. So, the reasons for deletion have not been overcome. The DRV request failed to list any URL as being the new URL for the website, so that can't be evaluated and the term Playerhistory fails to identify any particular game or sport to which it applies. From the TfD, it appears that the website keeps getting taken down. If that is for copyright reasons, then there's no reason Wikipedia would want to support that by linking to the website. Wikipedia has other cite templates that can be used (e.g., Template:Cite web) if needed. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
