Bearforce 1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

UNDELETE_REASON I posted this just over an hour ago, it was nominated for speedy deletion, I put the tag in to say that it should be discussed, I found 3 references to show that the band was notable, including a Viacom LOGO countdown link, mentioned the aired on LOGO, linked the allmusic guide catalog #, and then suddenly the page got deleted. What happened???Luminifer (talk) 03:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• It could be argued that "#20 on LOGO TV's most recent Ultimate Queer Videos Countdown" is an assertion of notability and that the article should not have been A7 speedy deleted. But from my searching it seems that they don't meet the notability criteria of WP:MUSIC, and the article would be unlikely to be kept if it was discussed on AfD. --Stormie (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds to me like it should not have been speedily deleted.. At least, it should have been up long enough for the real fans (NOT me) to come along and put some real meat in there. I just thought they deserved an entry, because I wanted to know more about them myself! Luminifer (talk) 00:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone here speak Dutch? [1][2] --NE2 09:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• :It seems clear to me from An article about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant. This is distinct from questions of verifiability and reliability of sources, and is a lower standard than notability; to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable. (A7) that this should not have been speedily deleted. This has happened to me several times in the past week - an article that pretty clearly asserted importance but did not prove notability was VERY speedily deleted. What do we have to do to (a) get this article undeleted, and (b) stop this from happening, as it's a waste of time and clearly a rampant misapplication of wiki policies.Luminifer (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and list at AfD I rather doubt that "#20 on LOGO TV's most recent Ultimate Queer Videos Countdown" will qualify for a keep, but let it be discussed--it just counts as a good faith indication of some at least minimal notability. DGG (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FotD 007x.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:FotD 007x.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|IfD)

Consensus in IfD of 2:1 was to keep the image. Despite this, the deleting admin unilaterally removed the image and when asked about it, claimed that he thought the image violated NFC#8 and was thus deleted. What is the point of even having IfD discussions if an admin, working to close IfD discussions just decides on his/her own to override "rough consensus" and enforce their point of view instead? At best, the admin was free to make their own argument for deletion, so it could be discussed, rather than rendering it via sole decision to end all discussion.
Maybe as well as reinstating the image, we should examine the closing process a wee bit better, and decide if the admin in IfD discussions gets to decide on their own what represents the actual rough consensus. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)The image[reply]

• Endorse (from closing admin) There was nothing in the article that made the image necessary. The text relating to the image was "River, unwilling to let the Doctor die, which would rewrite history and erase their time together, knocks him out and takes his place, rescuing those trapped in the computer at the cost of her life instead of his," which is understandable without an image. Precedents set at WP:IFD and upheld in deletion review have supported that using a non-free image to show a scene from a TV show, movie, etc. without cited commentary as to why the image itself is notable fails WP:NFCC#8 and as a violation of policy cannot be overridden by a majority of keep votes from the IFD discussion. -Nv8200p talk 17:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dissent - actually, if that is your personal interpretation, you have the option of weighing in during the IfD discussion. When two different folk note that NFC#8 is not compromised by the image, it means that you don't get to essentially say 'I don't care what you think, I'm deleting it anyway'. That is why we have IfD discussions. No gross violations of NFC#8 have occurred, and the admin made a poor judgment call. The image should be reinstated. If Nv8200p interprets the image to be non-fair use, he can nominate the image for deletion again - which is what the rest of us do when we don't like an image. A discussion closer doesn't get to impose his/her interepretation over consensus otherwise. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per precedents set at WP:DRV, the closing admin has to be a non-participant in the discussion. -Nv8200p talk 18:45, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do not have to be the closing admin. — xDanielx ^T/_C\^R 20:19, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - No opinion on the closure of the IfD itself, but Fut.Perf.'s comment makes me wonder a bit. Would it be possible to have a different image for the same purpose of showing the plot but which makes more sense visually? Note that I have not seen the image in question and I am not familiar with the subject matter, so this is just a blind question. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 18:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standing consensus in these deletion debates is that just to show a plot element is not enough. It must show it in a way that really gives the reader a better understanding of something that is significant about the work, and in doing so, it must be supportive of analytical commentary occuring in the text (or caption). I like to point to some positive examples where I believe this is done successfully. Image:Buffy101-1.jpg in Welcome_to_the_Hellmouth#Plot works great because of its beautiful (and well-sourced) analytical caption. The caption makes a point about the work that goes significantly beyond "this or that happens", and the image really illustrates this in a way that enriches the reader's understanding of that analytical finding considerably. (Ironically, this image, among all the bad ones, was removed since last time I looked. I just restored it.) Another positive example is Image:Homer'sEnemy.png in Homer's Enemy. Here, the caption is not very good, but the image does further the understanding of the whole because it indirectly supports the very good analytical commentary in the "production" section (about the significance of the character constellation, its literary models and so on.) That's the kind of quality we need. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (by previous "deletion" voter) - apart from the fact that I (obviously) find the outcome to be the right one, Arcayne's objection is based on a misreading of the numerical outcome. It was in fact 2 deletes : 2 keeps (counting the nominator), and of the two keeps, one completely failed to provide argumentation, and was calling merely for a "speedy keep" (way out of process, with no conceivable justification in policy) on the vague claim that the nomination was "disruptive". Thus, the closing admin was perfectly justified in seeing even a numerical majority of 2:1 argued votes in favour of deletion. (And I refrain from using "votes" with the silly disclamation mark, knowing full well in what sense it's a vote and in what sense it isn't.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to rephrase the question: if a wandering admin can come by and close the discussion - whether tied or consensus to keep (begging the question of where does it say we delete in cases of ties) - thus voicing a vote without having that vote readily available for discussion, the conversation takes on a tone of 'I disagree, and I win' - which I am fairly sure that Nv wasn't aiming for. In the best of worlds, these IfDs are not closed by someone voting-via-closure, but instead by someone with a somewhat more neutral opinion. As Nv has stated his opinion that the image doesn't fit the criteria and clearly seems unwilling to either relist the IfD or reinstate the image, I think the question of neutrality is somewhat moot. The discussion as to the nfc-credibility of the image is one that Nv had every opportunity in the world to participate in. Discussing it here is inappropriate, and it is best suited to an IfD discussion, and admins - just like everyone else - do not get to vote via closure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again. The closing admin does not participate in the discussion. -Nv8200p talk 22:58, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he doesn't get to 'vote' by framing his within a deletion. You did participate in the discussion by applying your point of view to a tied discussion. Period. Rough consensus was tied, which means the image stays until someone has a more compelling argument to nominate the image for deletion.

Apparently, my first question fell to the wayside, so I will ask it again. In the case of a tie in an IfD (or any deletion debate), does the image stay or go? I think that if someone cannot create acompelling enough number of votes to delete to outnumber those opting for inclusion, it stays. Can someone point out where the admin gets to break ties in IfD debates? I mean, all the folk discussing the weight of the NFC#8 argument here should have piped up in the actual IfD debate while it was occurring.

As it was, Nv made a personal call regarding the image and used his interpretation - which belongs in the actual debate, not as a motivation for closing - to stifle any further discussion on the matter. In point of fact, Nv voted in the IfD debate by closing and deleting.

Let me be clear - this is not really about the image. I am fully aware that admins have a lot of work to do, and Nv does a lot of it. Unfortunately, he sometimes - like in this instance - allows his personal opinion to color how he chooses to close an IfD discussion, despite consensus to the contrary. Clearly, there was no consensus stating that the image should be deleted. In the instance of a tie, the image stays. If an admin (or anyone for that matter, but specifically admins because they have the power to stifle further debate via voting-by-deletion) overrides consensus, then why the heck are we pretending with voting in IfD anyway? Why not just leave the ability of keeping or deleting in the hands of the admins, as Nv has clearly demonstrated the willingness to do here? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at the strength of the arguments, precedents and underlying policy. -Nv8200p talk 00:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say it again: can you please point to the specific guideline that states that in the case of a tie, you can decide to delete the image without further discussion? I looked at the guidelines that governs your behavior in deletions; there is nothing there to suggest your actions were appropriate in this matter.

Your opinion does not get to break ties, Nv. Period. You do not have that authority. Frankly, I am not sure which is worse, that you still fail to see the enormous potential for abuse of the authority you think you have to act thusly, or worse, that you feel your opinion outweighs anyone else's in IfD. The strength of the arguments argued for Keep. You are construing NFC#8 too narrowly, and imposed that view by closing a tied discussion.

Perhaps you might try to see that your personal take on the arguments, precedents, and policy is subject to scrutiny in the debate. Respectfully, you are acting as if they are not. You do not get to contribute opinion in the form of a delete, which is precisely what you did. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 01:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators necessarily must use their best judgment. Everything I do on Wikipedia is subject to scutiny and that is what we are doing here with the deletion review.. -Nv8200p talk 20:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn deletion - in the off chance I wasn't clear. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:53, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, as per Reasons for deletion: Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic. Corvus cornix_talk 02:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

err, excuse me, but what on earth are you talking about? The image is only unused at this time because it was deleted. It is not obsolete. It does not violate Fair-use. It is encyclopedic.

Why the hell is everyone afraid of actually having an IfD discussion about this? Instead of actually dissing the image where folk aren't likely to even know about the discussion, why not put your money where your mouthes are and use an actual IfD discussion? Or are we actually at the point where admins actually decide what images they want to use, despite what the editors choose? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, lets try this again. Someone please answer the following questions as clearly as you are able without wandering off-topic:

1. Is there guideline that says an admin can close an IfD debate, deciding one way or another in the cases of tie or consensus to go a different way?

We'll start with that basic little nugget. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:03, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion was that the image violates Wikipedia fair use policy. -Nv8200p talk 05:47, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not violate fair use policy. It is your belief that it does so. At least two other editors (and quite likely, more than that) significantly disagree with you. Your opinion - bluntly - doesn't matter when closing IfD discussions. Closing is a housekeeping measure, not one where your viewpoint comes into play. If you felt it did not belong, you had the responsibility to weigh in during discussion, not offer yours in the form of deletion and closure.

I was hoping it would not become an issue, but your exertion of your evaluative opinions in closing IfD discussions is becoming problematic. In at least four different IfD's, you have closed the discussions either prematurely or incorrectly, supplying as your sole defense that you didn't think they fulfilled Fair Use criteria. Your opinions as to fair use do not come into play when deciding to close IfD's, especially when the editors contributing to those discussions are long-standing members of the community. Were they vandals supporting nekkid pictures of Vanessa Hudgens and whatnot, that would be another issue, but this bears no such resemblance to that, and I believe you know it. You are not allowed to discount the opinions of others in IfD debates. as your mandate as admin doesn't grant you that authority or province. Of course, if you feel I am incorrect in this assessment, please feel free to cite where you are allowed these special authorities.

And it is noted that you keep failing to answer the - rather simple, I think - question posed to you. The answer to 'where there is a guideline that says an admin can close an IfD debate, deciding one way or another in the cases of tie or consensus to go a different way' is that there isn't one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand Sceptre's reasoning on the IfD discussion, but his comments don't reflect the idea that you are passing on that there was no fair use violation. That leaves only you making that claim. And if someone's opinion on an XfD discussion disagrees with policy, then it is an admin's responsibility to ignore them. Corvus cornix_talk 07:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, questioning Sceptre's reasoning is something that you or anyone else should have raised at IfD. DRV is not another bite at the apple, discussing the image's relative value. That is clear.

Also clear is that the deletion was done improperly by an admin who admittedly used his tools to delete an image that he personally didn't think met inclusion criteria, despite a tie in the discussion. In the case of a tie, the nominated material stays. That is precedent.

I am not opposed to actually reinstating and re-listing the image in IfD, or at least extending discussion, so everyone can chime in with their views on the image and NFC and whatnot. Admins don't get to edit using their admin tools to push their pov. Period. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 08:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - its NFC#8 passing was under debate, so it is inappropriate to force an admin's closing opinion on a debate: even ignoring my speedy keep, it would have been no consensus. Personally, I think the image was fine. The nominator has a long history of being disruptive when it comes to fair use images, especially regarding Doctor Who, and most of the debates he has been proven to be wrong. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse - WP:CONSENSUS is clear, the consensus of the project is bound up in policy, not in weight of numbers at WP:IFD, wikipedia is not a democracy Fasach Nua (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no consensus in the IFD at all, and should've been closed accordingly. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - it appears the closing admin deleted the image because of his personal interpretation of NFCC#8, and not the result of the debate, which was clearly no consensus (therefore default to keep). Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! My point exactly. Whether the image meets the criteria is not up for the closing admin to apply their personal interpretation of a guideline currently in flux. As per DGFA. and specifically the part of rough consensus, when in doubt do not delete. As established editors opposing deletion weren't vandals or noobs or folk acting in bad faith, their opposition is not one of simple numbers but of opposition to the interpretation being applied by the nom. If anything, the nom was made in bad faith by an editor who's been overturned for a razor-thin interpretation of NFC#8 that isn't currently in use by the community.

That Nv8200p did not participate in the actual discussion was his choice, as it is general practice to not do so. However, using the admin tools to close a debate in the case of a tie (we aren't do that, btw) simply because he differs in opinion of the policy on point is inappropriate. The image should be reinstated. As per DRV, this isn't to be used as another bite at the apple - this page is not for debating the merits or failings of the image, but instead of the inappropriate closing of the debate and deleting of the image. In cases of tie, the image. BLP, article, etc stays. The admin closing the discussion readily admits that they voted by closing and deleting the discussion, favoring the too narrow interpretation of the nominator, which has shown to have serious flaws. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free content criteria are restrictive and narrow by design. Numerous previous IFDs and Deletion Reviews have supported the very narrow interpretion of NFCC#8 and some of the discussions have served to narrow it even further. -Nv8200p talk 17:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Arcayne (talk · contribs) disputes the closure of this IfD on the basis that it went against consensus, however he or she appears to have been the only dissenting opinion on the point of deletion. Sceptre (talk · contribs) opined that the image should be kept because the nomination was invalid? disruptive in some fashion, without proffering any evidential reasoning for its retention. Therefore, with only one argument to keep and two to delete, I don't see the argument for an against-consensus closure.

  Being in violation of WP:NFCC#8 is a valid reason for deletion as brought up by Corvus cornix (talk · contribs) and it was this administrator's discretionary evaluation that it was. That's why we nominate and vote for administrators, to make such decisions. Nv8200p (talk · contribs) has closed and deleted upwards of 122k images without accusations of favoritism or impropriety, and I'm inclined to trust this administrator's interpretation of policy as he has been doing so.

  Lastly, as the closing administrator's integrity has generally been unquestioned for so very many deletions thus far, I wonder why this one has attracted such interest. Could those !voting for an overturned decision be preferring that the original nominator, Fasach Nua (talk · contribs), not be allowed to set a precedent? See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive439#User:Fasach Nua. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 18:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, Nv8200p could be having tea with Jesus H. Christ and his interpretation of policy carries no more weight than yours or mine. That's the way Wikipedia works. Even great editors with lots of edits can go off the rails every once in a while, and that is what I am addressing here. Helping to pull him back from the edge of opinionated editing in those places where neutrality is required is to be considered a good thing, as he is clearly not aware that he is doing so. He is allowed to express an opinion. He is not allowed to use his admin tools to enforce that opinion, which he has admitted to doing. It isn't complex, or rife with conspiracy theories. We request that admins closing discussions in XfD to remain neutral, and to opt to keep when in doubt. Nv has admitted that he is not neutral in this matter; why he did not choose to abstain from closure is beyond me. As NFC#8 is in discussion as to its specific interpretations, significant doubt exists, and acting against an informed resistance to removal (and the presence of a tie) provides sufficient doubt to stay one's hand.

That the Fasach Nua's nomination of other images that were appropriate to delete is of no importance - even a busted clock is right twice a day, and FN's track record for correct nomination is far less than even that. That FN's nominations are immediately suspect due to his leanings is clear. However, this is not the point of the DRV. Speaking of precedent, however - if we make allowances for the foibles and inappropriate deletions of one admin, it does in fact set a dangerous precedent for allowing other admins to do the same thing. Imagine Fasach Nua as an admin, closing debates and deleting images simply because he didn't think the arguments are up to snuff. This is the gilded path we are setting upon. The same rules apply to all of us equally. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:56, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please quote the text where I admitted I am not neutral in this matter? Thanks. -Nv8200p talk 20:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but are you actually trying to convince that you have have not admitted such? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking for the text that I admitted I am not neutral. Otherwise that claim is just your opinion. Please provide evidence to support your accusation. -Nv8200p talk 16:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Personally, I think the picture adds enough context to make it acceptable. But the real point is that a person with a fixed opinion on an issue should never close an XfD. At my RfAdmin people asked if I would, thinking I might close too many as keep on the basis of my own opinion being the correct one, and I said I never would do so. I wouldn't have deserved to pass had I said anything else--and I have kept my promise: I join the discussions instead. DGG (talk) 15:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What are you basing the claim on that I have a fixed opinion? If you join the discussion on either side at IFD then you have shown an opinion and bias and no longer eligible to act as a closing admin on that discussion. -Nv8200p talk 16:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, if the issue becomes a tie situation, then you should abstain from closing an IfD you have become involved in. Abstaining from discussion and them\n deleting because you feel the image in question is a failure of NfC#8 isn't your call to make. Doing so is back-door voting. Moreover, it is a vote not subject to question or discussion, as the use of the admin tools to close and delete preempts that sort of discussion questioning the very reasons that you wish to use to defend your closure. Neutral doesn't mean you have no opinion, it means you recognize your own preferred interpretation and look at if the tie that is present offers actual arguments for retention or deletion. If your own preference gets in the way of that, you shouldn't close it. Both sides presented valid arguments, and in the event of a tie, the image stays until someone offers to relist it and argue the merits where it belongs - in IfD, where folk can weigh in. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn/Relist To clarify: this is the picture of River Song, is it not? I, personally, am not sure if that picture was worth staying or not. But, as so often happens, some people here are failing to realise is that the image itself is not the point. The point is that the deleting admin misused his admin power (for want of a better phrase) to enforce his own view on the subject. The image should be reinstated, and discussion should then continue until a clear consensus is reached. U-Mos (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus doesn't trump policy. It's an admin's responsibility to uphold policy, regardless of whether or not an xFD "vote" is 100-1. Corvus cornix_talk 20:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the millionth time (or so it seems), NFCC point 8 is open to interpretation, therefore the "policy over consensus" argument just doesn't wash. U-Mos (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The admin is supposed to uphold his policy, not his/her interpretation of such. Consensus doesn't trump policy anywhere, but when someone is offering an opinion as how they are interpreting a policy currently in flux, the best move for a closing admin is to not proactively close the debate the way they feel it should go, but to look at whether valid arguments and the existence of a tie suggests that the matter is still in flux even amongst the Community, and take their own personal feelings on the subject out of it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • • • Selection of this image from a group of images uploaded by Arcayne was decided in a discussion on the article talk page. The other images uploaded were culled for their lack of ability to meet NFCC. This image was added to the article by Arcayne over the recommendation of three other editors (some hypocrisy here about following consensus), when this image has no more clear, supporting, sourced text as to why it was significant to the article then any other image that might be taken from the episode. Given that failure, it became a policy decision to delete as no arguments were presented in the IFD discussion to support any other choice. -Nv8200p talk 23:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect, and you might have been able to better interpret that image upload had you bothered to actually ask me (or maybe looked tat the discussion page of the article where the upload was discussed). I uploaded a number of images from which the editors in the article discussion could choose an image that they felt best represented the discussion (1). The upload was made with the full knowledge that the remaining images would be allowed to lapse as orphans and be deleted (2). On a side note, I don't upload images anymore and use Photobucket with links to images, so as to avoid cluttering up IfD with a lot of non-chosen images. As for the three other editors, one was the same nom was has been blocked for disruptive deletion noms (and yes, this was one of those noms), and the other two thought the image was being offered as a replacement for the infobox image currently in use.

And rather than trying to make the discussion about me (comments about my supposed hypocrisy are diversionary and off-topic), perhaps you could be bothered to actually read what I and others are actually saying here. You added your point of view to a closing of a discussion wherein all arguments were equally valid and a tie existed. You needed to recognize that in such instances, the image stays - your own personal viewpoint doesn't come into play, especially when the viewpoint you are citing is in definition flux. You may have had the best intentions, but your action opens the door to others with less than altruistic concerns. You made a mistake, and no one is considering burning you at the stake. It isn't really a comment on you but instead the process which allowed you to think that your personal viewpoint on policy overrides that of a group of well-intentioned editors who dissent with that view. And clearly, your viewpoint is pretty obvious - you are quite resistant to even the notion of considering that you might have made any mistake, and equally resistant to relisting.

Relisting - as was politely requested in the alternative to reversing the deletion, allows others to see what you feel is obvious. Allow the community to work without attempting to short-circuit that process. I tend to believe in it and think it works, when allowed to take its natural course. You may argue that that means that some crappy material slides through, but everyone here can attest that it doesn't take too long before its eventually deleted of fixed. Lightsaber combat was one of those where it had its sixth nom for deletion, and it forced folk to fix the article or face deletion. The process does work, if you but let it. I think this image is pretty okay, but by relisting, you allow viewpoints (other than your own) to actually be expressed and determine the fate of the material in the venue they are supposed to be for these situations - IfD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Closing admin was involved, therefore IfD closure was incorrect. Also WP:NFCC #8 is widely disputed on a regular basis, so specious arguments that consensus cannot overrule a guideline disputed part of policy is patently incorrect. Not to worry, the pro-fairuse forces are gathering and intend to give the anti-fairuse WP:OWNers of that policy page the boot. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin was not involved in any aspect of the IFD other then closing it. NFCC is not a guideline. NFCC is a policy. There is a difference. -Nv8200p talk 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn As my brother said whilst reading over my shoulder, "someone needs their adminship revoked". WP:DPR#IFD, the guidelines to administrators over closing a discussion, state that:

If the discussion failed to reach consensus, then the image is kept by default, but the decision should generally include a reference to the lack of consensus, in order to minimize ambiguity and future confusion.

The closing admin was not involved in any aspect of the IFD other then closing it. NFCC is not a guideline. NFCC is a policy. There is a difference. -Nv8200p talk 03:53, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The closing admin (and why you are referring to yourself in the third person escapes me) involved himself by closing a tied discussion using his interpretation of NFCC, not the actual policy, which is in flux. The admin in question is experienced enough to know that if a discussion is being reasonably made by two sides offering equal arguments and ends in a tie, the admin is involving himself by choosing to side with deletion. This is doubly disturbing when the admin fails to see the rather bad precedent this creates for less responsible admins, and even more so when that same admin utterly refuses to consider that they did in fact chose a side based upon their personal interpretation of a policy which everyone knows to open to significant interpretation.

This admin - you - chose to disregard precedent and apply your own interpretation to an IfD discussion wherein your closure acted as tie-breaker. Had you not, the image would have not have been deleted. In the case of ties in deletion discussions (excepting clownish meatpuppet and IP hit and run voting nonsense or the gross violation of our policies), the nominated material is retained. As the image met none of the parenthesized material, you were in error in closing it. An understandable error, as no one thinks their interpretation of NFC is wrong, but your role - as you yourself have admitted - is not to participate in these discussions. By voting via deletion, you inappropriately participated in the discussion, without having to defend your point of view.

Again, it bears repeating that we are not discussing the validity of any NFC argument you might wish to present. The DRV is to reassess the appropriateness of that closure. As you inserted yourself into the voting process of a tied discussion by deleting the image, it is by definition an inappropriate closure. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 05:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as you say - I only closed the discussion. And as you say - whether procedures and policy were applied correctly in the closure is what DRV determines. -Nv8200p talk 14:16, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also as I say, you didn't follow them correctly. In the cases of a tie, the media stays. Both sides of the tie presented solid reasons for their postions (and it bears reiterating that the nom was subsequently blocked for a too narrow interpretation of NFC#8). Your opinion in deciding that the arguments for deletions were inexplicable and inappropriate. You made a mistake. I do believe I said that, too. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you have said that multiple times so therefore it must be true. -Nv8200p talk 23:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: What all the overturners here overlook is that IfD (even more than other XfDs) is not a vote. It is the job of the closing admin to weigh arguments. In doing so, it is his job to take into account not just the local spectrum of opinions expressed on the page, but also long-standing practices and standards. As per multiple precedent, there is a overreaching consensus on IfD that episode pictures of this kind, those that simply serve to show some plot element without a concrete claim to analytical significance over and above that, are deletable under #8. That is not Nv's personal opinion, it is his correct observation of project-wide normative practice. During the initial debate, no substantial arguments were brought forward on the "keep" side showing that this image had in any way a more important function than all the dozens or hundreds that have been and will be deleted in similar cases according to that standard. One keep voter brought no argument at all, the other, despite volumes of lawyering and process-related argument, essentially said nothing more than that the image showed something in the plot. Nv acted totally within the scope of his discretion in determining that these arguments failed to meet the mark. IfDs are routinely closed in this way, this was totally legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your personal opinion, which is your right, but it is subjective and by no means the truth. The closing admin does not get to decide to ignore a no-consensus keep without good reason. A reason such as serious WP:BLP or copyvio are correct reasons, disagreement over fairuse restrictions is an incorrect reason. There was no ambiguity at all in this debate and the arguments on the keep side were just a good as the delete side. Oh and by the way, your statement here is quite a piece of wikilawyering, too. Pot meets kettle and all that. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can try to keep things a bit more polite. Accusations of wikilawyering don't really help anyone and only serve to cloud the essential issue. FutPerf, the problem with your statement is that you yourself have expressed the belief that images in episodic articles are unnecessary. This doesn't tend to put you in the best frame of mind to neutrally evaluate arguments that advocate the inclusion of those images. This is why, I suspect, you don't do a lot of closure work in IfD - you know you aren't really able to be neutral in the matter. That is a credit to you.

The reason we haven't truly addressed the image's criteria here is that this isn't an IfD discussion, and viewing this DRV as another bite at the apple (ie, arguing the image's content) is inappropriate. It is a conversation best suited to IfD. We are here to address the problem presented by an admin with a preference as to images closing out a tied discussion wherein solid, legitimate and sourced argument was offered by both sides. There has been no process-wikilawyering here - DRV specifically addresses process of closure, which is why process-related arguments are presented. You presented your argument in the IfD, and it was counted, along with the blocked nominator, so of course, you are happy with the resulting delete despite the tie. It is not within the discretion of an admin to put their personal interpretation of NFC to work while deciding which arguments get discounted in an equally matched discussion. If it is, then the guidelines for such are in dire need of revision. Either way, this isn't the forum for that, either.

Point: the admin doesn't like images in episodes. Point: the admin routinely displays a very narrow interpretation of NFC#8, which all will admit is vague and is currently in flux as to meaning. Point: He closed a discussion wherein both sides offered equally compelling arguments, citing his narrow interpretation of NfC#8 as reasoning. Point: In the cases of tie, the nominated media remains, though subject to re-nomination at a future date. Point: DRV is not for discussion of a media's value, but to discuss improper/inappropriate closures or other malformations of the IfD process; IfD is the appropriate venue to discuss the value of the image.

Arcayne has chosen to present another fallacy as fact about me to try and make his case. I ask for evidence to support his statement "the admin doesn't like images in episodes." I love screenshots in TV episodes and movie articles. I have uploaded non-free screenshots myself and watched them deleted just like this one because they did not meet NFCC#8 anymore then this image does (I may still have a couple out there that have slipped under the radar :-). I miss the time when we could steal any image off the web and place it in an article with no questions asked. Then I think it was that Jimbo Wales guy that came along and quashed it all. Sigh. Maybe if some more pro-fairuse forces respond to Arcayne's invitation, the bar can be lowered for NFCC#8. -Nv8200p talk 01:13, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a question that has begun to bother me is this: why everyone is so very terrified about simply relisting the image at IfD? Is it an ego thing? If so, check that - no egos allowed here. Is it a image value issue? All the better to relist it at IfD; everyone (including the previous discussion's closer) can weigh in with their opinion there. I personally don't care if the image is deleted in a fair discussion; this wasn't one. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, my question is: instead of lawyering here, why don't you spend your time and your considerable talents in improving the article instead? I keep saying: write better articles and you get better fair use cases. Show us that there's something in that Dr Who episode that's worth discussing and analysing. Once you have something worthwhile in the text that an image can usefully be hooked on to, I'd have no problem reconsidering this one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfuly, that is the second time you've called my filing of the DRV wikilawyering, and I would ask you to stop. The negative connotations of the what the term respresents overrides the fact that my action meets none of the four criteria used to determine such. I am pointing out that an admin made a mistake in how he interprets NFC#8, and used that interpretation to close a balanced discussion and delete an image. That is the focus of the DRV. Not the image's value or lack thereof. Not the article it came from. We have to expect that our admins apply the consensus view of a policy when dealing with these matters and, despite Nv's out of order comments above, he applied a personal interpretation that the image did not meet NFC#8 was not met. His argument was not that either side made a poor argument, but that he thought the image failed the criteria^a. He didn't evaluate the flawed arguments of the nomination (the nominator who was subsequently blocked for disruptive nominations), or those voting to keep the image. He made a personal choice, a vote, as to the outcome of the image. That is a failure of process. In closing, an admin is supposed to weigh the arguments being presented and render a decision based on them (specifically because the image wasn't a gross violation of any policy).

I am not suggesting that Nv be tarred and feathered. I don't think he meant to apply his own personal opinion and vote by closure; nevertheless, he did. It is a failure of the deletion process. The image deletion should be reversed and, if folk have tremendous issue with the image, they can nominate it again. With luck a clear consensus will emerge from the voting, so as to make the IfD discussion closing that much clearer. At the very, very least, it should be relisted. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - the nominator's and Fut.Perf.'s arguments were based on policy - specifically that "non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" - and the keep voters were unable to effectively counter this. Accordingly, the closing admin correctly closed the debate based on arguments, not votes. PhilKnight (talk) 15:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, the nominator was blocked for too narrowly construing the NFCC, and while you are allowed to feel that the arguments to keep were ineffective, they were provided in a thoughtful, cited way. Those arguments are to be provided within the context of an IfD. Period. This isn't the place for it. The closer utilized his own personal opinion/preference to close. They do not get to do that. As both sides presented arguments, in the case of a tie, the media is retained, It might be nominated later, but the closer doesn't get to vote their preference via closure. It bears pointing out that there is no real problem with relisting, except we are counting bruised egos as part of the criteria for not doing so. The consensus of the DRV, almost a week after it was opened is for keep, with two specifically suggesting re-listing. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is lucky for the closing admin of the DRV that they do not have to waste time thinking about this one as you have already decided for them that the consensus is to keep. Talk about an ego. -Nv8200p talk 22:41, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, hey hey. Be nice. I understand how you are miffed, but that's no reason to be uncivil. I was pointing out where we are currently, not demanding anything. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you get your exercise by jumping to conclusions? I am not miffed. -Nv8200p talk 10:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Appears to be a clear misinterpretation of our policy on use of non-free images. The use of the image is not decorative. Moreover the fact that the article is understandable without the image is not currently a valid deletion criterion (I would further argue that it's not a desirable one, even for non-free images, but that's another matter). --Jenny 08:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse — Decorative image that did not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Matthew (talk) 08:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Matthew, maybe you misunderstood; we aren't voting as to the value of the image here (as mentioned at least 2x before, that's for IfD); we are discussing the inappropriate closing. Allow me to trim things down. You have a voting discussion. Both sides offer equally valid arguments. Admin comes along, already in agreement with one side of the argument and decides to vote with them by ending discussion and deleting the image. The admin has stated here that he doesn't care about the images either way, but in actuality feels that all "Fair use images in infoboxes are merely decorative." That means he considers any image in an infobox to be decorative. That sounds lie a pre-existing opinion to me, and I can assure you that it isn't what our current policy on NFC#8 is. It isn't about the value of the image at all; its about the evaluation of a discussion by someone who was supposed to either be neutral or stay away, as per the guidelines for admins in deletion discussions. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image that I deleted was not in an infobox. The image was in the body of the article, so the faulty premise you are using that I have a pre-existing on all infobox images is even more faulty as this was not an infobox image. -Nv8200p talk 14:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You miss the point. Your comment displayed a disturbingly non-neutral opinion that had implications for this image's IfD. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"We" are not voting at all. "I want it! I'll hold my breath if you don't give it to me!" does not trump policy. Matthew (talk) 11:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely right, Matthew, though not for the reason that I am guessing your snarky remark was intending. The policy and guidelines weren't followed here. And maybe lighten up on the aforementioned snarky. I am sure you are capable of getting your point across without it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I may quote my previous comment: 'NFCC point 8 is open to interpretation, therefore the "policy over consensus" argument just doesn't wash.' U-Mos (talk) 15:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, at least, not in this argument and the simultaneous one occurring over another Doctor Who episode image nominated by Fasach Nua. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're Gonna Go Far, Kid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I demand an administrator to restore this article as soon as possible. It has been deleted 2 times this week so (at Accounting4Taste's request) I thought to review my thoughts on the You're Gonna Go Far, Kid article. Some freakin' idiot (named Mdsummermsw) refused to understand that this Offspring song was supposed to a new single from them, because KROQ's been playing it; I listen to that station online. When he requested that article to be deleted about a week ago, he claimed that "You're Gonna Go Far, Kid" was a "non-notable song that might or might not be released as a single". I just know for a fact that it might be the second single off their new album Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace. Users on the bulletin board of the Offspring's website also agree that it will be a single as well. At of this moment, I'm getting tired of having an argument with the users who claim that the article should be deleted and that the song is not notable or going to be a real single. Alex (talk) 15:15, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and suggest that you review WP:CIVIL before the next time you post. The closing admin correctly interpreted the discussion and DRV is not AFD round two. By the way, "I just know for a fact that it might be the second single" makes absolutely no sense. Otto4711 (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and allow recreation when it is the next single and further gains notability. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:09, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and respectfully suggest nominator read WP:CIVIL. Townlake (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: I've redirected the article to Rise and Fall, Rage and Grace, as WP:MUSIC suggests. Probably would've been a better way to handle it than takin' it to AfD, but there's no need to restore the history under it as far as I can see. Just a heads up. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for now, consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You're Gonna Go Far, Kid was quite clear and nothing has been raised here that wasn't raised and considered there. This is not AfD round 2. However, when and if the song is released as a single, I would be willing to restore the article. --Stormie (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If nothing else, I'm inclined to say this simply because of the nom's attitude. But consensus was clear too. --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse "it might be the second single" is not a reason for keeping until it actually happens. DGG (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure (keep deleted). As others have already said, the consensus in this discussion was very clear. I find no process problems in either the discussion or the closure. Rossami (talk) 23:24, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since it's deletion the program has won several apple design awards[3][4]. This should satisfy the notability issues brought up in the AfD. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 15:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Why didn't you just ask me on my talkpage to restore/userfy this? Why DRV first? The instructions on this page say to talk to the deleting admin first. I would've happily restored/userfied this for you CyberSkull. My closing statement on the AFD itself even says, ask me if you want this userfied. This really doesn't need to be here. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Since the DRV itself admits these awards were given only after the deletion, I endorse the original deletion, with no prejudice to recreation if it now meets notability guidelines. DRV was unnecessary in this case. –xenocidic (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Close This can be handled outside DRV. Townlake (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmmm... Though you don't need DRV here (as above) for recreation, I'd say that award doesn't look that great to me. I'm not sure it's enough for WP:WEB. I'd personally be happier with a restore and merge to The Iconfactory, though I fully endorse the closure of the AfD. If you find some more awards or things ping me and I'll rethink it. Cheers. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 17:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Like Keeper76 said, let's get this userfied and improved and take a look at it. I have restored it to User:CyberSkull/Twitterrific. Here is an article about Twitterrific on the iPhone which might also be useful for improving the article, and establishing notability per "coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". --Stormie (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]