Category:Knuckleball pitchers – Restore. Consensus by a rough head count and strength of argument seems to be enough to me to overturn this. CLN is pretty clear about lists and categories not being competitive and this seems to be a reasonable category. – Protonk (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Category:Knuckleball pitchers (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The category was initially placed under discussion here on April 6. I had seen the CfD and was intending to prepare additional documentation to demonstrate that the category captures a strong defining characteristic, but the CfD was closed as delete before I had a chance to participate. After contacting User:Kbdank71 and notifying him that I was prepared to collect additional evidence and that the original CfD was never posted to the category, Kbdank71 refused to consider additional evidence but did reopen the CfD here (along with a helpful note informing me that "anything [I] post here will be reverted on sight, unread". In reopening, Kbdank71 added a link to User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers, a userpage that I had created assuming that the original April 6 CfD would go to DRV. In the reopened April 17 CfD now under discussion, every single individual (other than the original nominator) who participated voted to keep, relying on the evidence I provided to determine that the category is defining. Despite this rather strong evidence, User:Jc37 closed as "listify and delete", basing his decision on his opinion "that this would be better presented in a navbox and/or a list", despite the fact that only one person mentioned a navbox, and that voter changed his mind after additional evidence was provide. It seems ironic that there is a recent DRV for Barack Obama topics, in which the closing administrator decided that it would be a better category. The false dichotomy presented by Jc37, that we must make a choice between a category OR a list, is in clear contradiction of WP:CLN which strongly insists that in most cases lists AND categories should co-exist to allow readers to navigate using their preferred method. While WP:OCAT is often shoehorned to justify deletion of almost any category, its relevance is even more tenuous here. Jc37 cited WP:OCAT, but doesn't state that there is a policy violation, only that it appears "similar to other types of OCAT, such as performers by performance". Efforts to raise these issues with the closing administrator here have gone nowhere, as Jc37has disappeared from Wikipedia since April 25 when he closed the CfD. User:Kbdank71, who closed the original CfD, chimed in with an insistence that the user subpage User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers was a WP:POINT violation and moved it to mainspace. After pointing out that the subpage was not written as an article, but was written as evidence for DRV, it was moved back to userspace. Kbdank71 then made a cut-and-paste copy back to mainspace. The issues with Kbdank71 were raised here, but he too appears to have disappeared from Wikipedia, other than acknowledging that he was notified of the ANI. In conclusion, evidence was provided with dozens of reliable and verifiable sources that the category captures a strong defining characteristic. The clear consensus for retention was ignored, especially based on those votes cast after the CfD was reopened on April 17, and the newer votes cast based on additional information should be given greater weight, not ignored. The attempt at a policy argument based on WP:OCAT seems a rather far stretch. Based on the pattern of contravention of Wikipedia policy here by multiple admins, the decision should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore The discussion after the relist was unanimous keep, the overall discussion went heavily toward keep, and the strength of arguments appeared to me to be a tie. Given that significant new arguments came in after the relist, I don't see anyway this could be a delete. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore. Very weird.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse Jc37's close that this would make a better list. --Kbdank71 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] The problem is that the close by Jc37 and your endorsement thereof are both in direct conflict with WP:CLN's admonitions that lists AND categories "should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa... Therefore, the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources." Yet this is exactly what we have here. Plain and simple, "this would make a better list" is an invalid argument for deletion in a discussion, and the fact that it's coming from a pair of admins is all the more disturbing. In the discussion below for Wikipedia:DRV#List_of_topics_related_to_Barack_Obama, the equal and opposite argument under which the closing admin there closed as delete based on an opinion that a "category is more appropriate" in that case, has had participants overwhelmingly vote to override, noting the same false dichotomy. Categories should only be deleted because of policy issues, not just because they "would make a better list" and the same with lists being deleted in favor of categories. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Well, at least you've stopped insisting that CLN says categories and lists absolutely must co-exist. I'm not interested in dismantling or tearing down anything. There are times when yes, both work well. There are times when no, they don't. Rigid adherence as you've shown does not help wikipedia, but makes for needless duplication. Now if we can only work on the misconception of "Categories should only be deleted because of policy issues"... --Kbdank71 03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I've never said "that CLN says categories and lists absolutely must co-exist" and I assume that you will retract your statement or find a source to prove it. Community consensus is that the existence of a list is simply not a valid excuse to delete a category, and vice versa, as WP:CLN says that categories AND lists work well together almost all of the time. What you call "needless duplication" as a rationalization for deletion is in direct conflict with what WP:CLN states that "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap". If the misconception that the admins who currently close CfDs are following Wikipedia policy cannot be addressed, we need a new crop of admins at CfD who will show the needed respect for the co-existence of both lists and categories. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps the exact language referred to was never used, but I do remember some fairly repetitive discussions where Alansohn admonished closers to ignore any opinions where editors expressed opinions that in a particular case a list should be kept and a corresponding category deleted. Many examples, exist—this is but one. I also remember that a number of times Alansohn has suggested that CLN states as a general rule that co-existence of lists and categories is the preferred situation, which is not true: example with rebuttal. I also remember many incidents where a variety of editors and closers have responded to Alansohn's comments about WP:CLN with explanations about how the guideline does not mandate the retention of both categories and lists in every case: one example. Thus, if Alansohn's position on CLN has been misunderstood in the past, it has been relatively widespread among editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] That "the exact language referred to was never used" is because the statement is flat out false. Outside of the backwater that is CfD, editors here in the real world believe that WP:CLN is a completely invalid justification for deletion of either a category or a list. I have indeed "suggested that CLN states as a general rule that co-existence of lists and categories is the preferred situation" because WP:CLN states -- among several other statements on co-existence -- that "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system — doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." That "any opinions where editors expressed opinions that in a particular case a list should be kept and a corresponding category deleted" as a justification for deletion would be an excellent guideline. I also agree that "CLN has been misunderstood in the past" and that the problem "has been relatively widespread among editors", especially those administrators who have persistently misinterpreted the policy in closing CfDs. Remarkably, we seem to be in agreement on these issues. Perhaps this DRV will be another step in ensuring that Wikipedia policy on the subject is followed at CfD, and that those admins who have persistently refused to accept it will start respecting this policy. Alansohn (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] CLN is not a policy: It is an editing guideline. I can also recall a number of times this has been pointed out in various CfDs, usually to no avail. I cannot recall ever seeing CLN used explicitly as a stand-alone justification for deleting a category, however. It is often used as a stand-alone argument for not deleting one, however. In any case, I agree that using it as the basis for an argument to do either is generally regarded as weak, as it should be. Now that I think of it, you're really the only one who ever really brings it up explicitly, and most other users tend to disagree with your stated interpretation of it, or at least with the conclusions you draw from it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn this latest in the series of WP:CLN-related closure errors.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. I had participated in the first discussion and was in favor of deletion. I didn't participate once it was re-opened because I had already participated and my opinion had not changed. Had I known my lack of subsequent participation would be used as part of a claim that the newly-opened discussion in the face of the list was "unanimous", I would have re-stated my opposition. I think the closer probably didn't make this same mistake and took into account all comments expressed in both discussions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore. Clear evidence was presented that this is a defining characteristic for a baseball player. Occuli (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore - Can't see this as a consensus to delete. ƒingers^on_Roids 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I too was in favor of deletion and nothing said later changed my opinions; the closer does not have to give greater weight to later comments: this isn't ebay where you need to get your $0.02 in just under the wire. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Why can't this be a list? I have no dog in the list vs. category fight but that user subpage is a perfectly good list article. List of knuckleball pitchers shouldn't have been deleted, whatever the motivation for copying the content into mainspace. 140.247.240.36 (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)*It should* be the starting point for a list. It wasn't created in article format, but it will not take a tremendous amount of work to get it into the proper format. I expect to complete the necessary changes once this DRV is over. Until then, I'd like anyone considering the DRV to be able to see the clear evidence of definingness provided at CFD, in determining whether or not the close was made properly under Wikipedia policy. Once the changes are complete I will move it to mainspace and nominate it for DYK and take a stab at WP:FL. Alansohn (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore. Per my comments in the relisting, this is certainly a defining characteristic of these players. No reason it can't be both list and category. -Dewelar (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse I am another user who favored deletion in the original discussion and did not comment again. (I do strongly support a list for this topic, either embedded in Knuckleball or a stand-alone.) Seeing the number of "keep" !votes in the CfD, my first reaction was that it looked like a "keep." However, while most of the people who commented after the relist did call for keeping the category, their arguments speak primarily to the need to document the pitchers associated with the knuckleball. They are essentially silent on why it is deemed necessary to have a category for this topic. I read them as eloquent arguments for having a list of knuckleball pitchers (not a category), and I think the "delete" closure was judged correctly. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Where is there a Wikipedia policy that requires establishing that a category is "necessary"? Why is any category "necessary" and how would one establish that it meets the necessary criteria? Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Articles are categorised by 'defining characteristics': this is in sentence 3 of Wikipedia:Categorization#What_categories_should_be_created. Most arguments in cfd revolve around whether a characteristic is or is not defining. If brief articles about player XXX always include the phrase 'knuckleball pitcher' then the characteristic is a defining one; and Alansohn demonstrated that this is the case. (I would not myself know a knuckleball pitcher from a soup tureen.) Occuli (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - reasonable reading of the discussion, no procedural errors in the close, no new information presented here to indicate the close was in error. DRV relies on faulty understanding of a number of WP policies and guidelines. First, just because a reliable source identifies a person as a "knuckleball pitcher" or a "Swedish-American actress" or whatever, this does not mean that this is a "defining characteristic" for purposes of WP categorization. Second, WP:CLN does not and never has mandated that both a list and a category that cover the same information both exist. CLN clearly states that while there are times when lists and categories can work synergistically, there are also times when one is clearly superior to another. Otto4711 (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment from the closer My apologies for length, but I'm attempting to respond to several accusations, both here and on my talk page. So while merely commenting might have normally been shorter, responding can take more time. There are two problems with most of the overturn comments so far: One is vote counting (and thereby suggesting that something was wrong because I didn't count votes, but instead weighed the arguments), and the other is that "I" came up with the idea all by myself to lean on WP:OC in making the determination (and thus presuming I was "voting" in the close - noting of course that that's actually can be within closer discretion, not that that necessarily applies in this case). The first can be resolved by simply pointing to WP:CON, and more specifically Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy." The second can be resolved merely by actually reading the closure. Despite what the nominator asserts, the close was based upon weighing all the comments in the discussion, not by assigning this to WP:OC only by myself. (And was actually stated in the closure. These aren't "votes". And so if one individual (for example) offers several suggestions, then all of those should be weighed. (Especially if their latter comments are prefaced with: "Notwithstanding my suggestion re using a navbox,".) Also, there is a difference between proving whether something may be "notable" for inclusion, and whether something may be considered "defining" for an individual. Whether something is "defining" or "notable" can be confused, or at least conflated by commenters at CfD. It's a fairly common confusion, especially made by those coming to CfD from AfD, where a main criterion may be notability. As opposed to CfD where there is additional criteria, in particular, being "defining". There appeared to be consensus that this information was worth keeping (presumably "notable"). But it was clear from the opposers that they felt that this didn't meet WP:OC guidelines. And therefore shouldn't be categorised. And those in support of keeping the category simply didn't address that directly. For example, they didn't show how this was different than left-handed atheletes, or actor by film, etc, (See the discussion for all the examples from several individuals.) The closest was the seeming suggestion that rarity of occurrence of something (a pitcher who performs an apparently rare type of pitch) equalled it being defining for an individual. Are all rare skills or abilities defining? Or better should we categorise by all such rare skills/abilities? As noted by those in the discussion, WP:OC suggests that no we do not. (Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by action or appearance, would seem to be a link to a section being described by commenters.) As for the list, the fact that there was a list had no effect on the closure, the effect was only whether I placed the category on the /working/manual page to be made into a list "first", to be deleted once that was done (and that's pretty much just doing the manual task of merely placing the links on a page and naming it a "list"). Or, placing it on the /Working page to be deleted, since a list (one looking better than what would likely have been produced by the manual task), already existed. Now alan is of course welcome to suggest that he doesn't feel that the list as it stands consitutes a good article (or a good list), and so may be reluctant to move it into mainspace. But that has nothing to do with the closure. Regardless of whether he may eventually place that copy in mainspace, or someone else creates another list and places it in mainspace, the consensus is that a category shouldn't exist in this case. So essentially for the closer of this DRV, this comes down not only whether the existing guidelines are to be considered the broader consensus (WP:CAT, WP:CFD, WP:OC), for example), but also how those guidelines, and this specific discussion, should be weighed, and whether the outcome I discerned, weighing it all, conforms to consensus, or not. I hope this helps clarify, but if not, I welcome positive requests for further clarification. One final note: In reading the nom, there are quite a few things which are taken out of context, and just simply misrepresent the truth. (For one example out of many, I did quite a bit more than just close the discussion and "disappear", as a look to my contributions will easily note.) I don't fancy being lied about (even more than I dislike double standards). So I strongly suggest that alan considers his words more carefully in the future. If such continues, further sanction may be pursued, and I don't mean merely a note to WP:AN/I. While one may take this as they wish, I believe the meaning is quite clear. - jc37 12:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Despite the active efforts to deny Wikipedia policy and to spit in the face of the clearest possible consensus for retention, what is refreshing is that every single participant who does not come from the backwater of CfD has objectively looked at this process and deemed it to be a travesty in need of being overturned. I do appreciate your vehemence in ignoring a few dozen reliable and verifiable sources that clearly establish that the Knuckleball pitcher is a strong defining characteristic. As is unfortunately typical in the Bizarro world of CfD, the reliable and verifiable sources that we all accept as the bedrock principle of Wikipedia can be safely ignored at CfD if one simply insists -- without any form of evidence whatsoever -- that they only show "notability", not "definingness". If the category system is to have any use in the future, the small group of disruptive administrators who have repeatedly used bullying, personal attacks and knowingly false misrepresentations of policy to abuse process needs to be eliminated. We desperately need admins who will show some small glimmer of respect for consensus and process to clean up the mess. Alansohn (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I take exception to this bit: "For example, they didn't show how this was different than left-handed atheletes, or actor by film, etc, (See the discussion for all the examples from several individuals.) The closest was the seeming suggestion that rarity of occurrence of something (a pitcher who performs an apparently rare type of pitch) equalled it being defining for an individual. Are all rare skills or abilities defining? Or better should we categorise by all such rare skills/abilities?" This is pure injection of your (and apparently only your) opinion of the merits of the arguments on one side of the matter into the decision for deletion. One of the arguments raised by myself, and others, is that the presence of a knuckleball pitcher has a direct effect on the personnel and equipment used by the team for whom he is pitching, and indeed even on the personnel chosen to be on the roster of the team employing such a pitcher. In other words, it's not just the rarity of the skill, it's the broadness of the effect that someone with that skill has on the game as a whole, much moreso than a pitcher simply being left-handed. That argument was never refuted, indeed no arguments were even raised against it. I'd be interested to hear why you think this fails to be a defining characteristic, and why you felt you could make that decision unilaterally. -Dewelar (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Are you suggesting that being left-handed doesn't affect the personnel and equipment? You haven't shown how it is different. And that wasn't shown in the discussion either. And without that, it is exactly what was noted by the nominator and others in the discussion - WP:OC. Here's another example (though this one wasn't specifically brought up in the discussion): Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_16#Category:Saxophonists_who_are_capable_of_circular_breathing. How is this any different? - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] It may be worth noting that in the deletion discussion for left-handed athletes, both the nominator and two of the editors favoring deletion made the point that left handedness could be a significant characteristic in baseball and a few other sports, but that it was not significant for athletes in general. BRMo (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] New information on this would be welcome (per rules of DRV). - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Actually, yes, I am not just ssuggesting, but am stating as fact, that employing a left-handed typically affects neither the personnel nor the equipment of the team that employs him, beyond the equpiment used by the pitcher himself. Nobody on the left-handed pitcher's team is on the roster because the team itself employs that left-handed pitcher. The team that employs a left-handed pitcher does not require additional equipment as a result of that decision. There are no catchers who specialize in catching left-handed pitchers, nor are there coaches who are hired specifically to work with left-handed pitchers. Any or all of these are the case for teams that choose to employ a knuckleball pitcher. -Dewelar (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] overturn The final decision was contrary to clear Wikipedia policy: "Listify and delete" If there can be a list, there can be a category, and vice versa. (per WP:LIST). The argument usually is needed in the other direction, but it goes both ways. There is no rational basis for having one not the other--they are complementary. There can be special circumstances, but there has to be good consensus for not doing it--and the !votes were 9 keep, 4 delete, including the nom. As for following consensus. There was no need to weigh the arguments, because the keep ones were soundly based on policy. An idiosyncratic decision of the closer, based on his own reading of what ought to be done, thinking the strongest argument that a list was better. In other words, he preferred a ruling clearly unsupported by policy to one that was supported by both the !votes and the policy. I don;t know one way or another about baseball pitchers, but this is no so radically different from other situations as to overturn policy against clear consensus. If one wishes to use IAR, that must be supported by clear consensus, not against it. DGG (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Actually, no. There is a world of difference between saying that lists and categories "can" coexist, and saying that there must be a list and category coexisting in every situation. Indeed quite often a list may be fine, but its members shouldn't be grouped a category. And I believe that WP:CLN makes that rather clear. And besides, there are different criteria for mainspace and category space. (I notice that WP:CAT has been re-organised not long ago, so perhaps it will be more difficult to find it in the pared down text - as opposed to the bullet points of the previous version.) What is the "policy" that you feel that the "keep votes" were firmly grounded in? And no, We ALWAYS weigh arguments in a discussion. We do not "count votes". That is policy. And from long experience we both have had in interaction, I'm fairly certain that you DGG, should know that of anyone. - jc37 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] judging consensus is trying to evaluate what the other responsible people there think should be done. One can evaluate arguments, but only to see which ones are not in conformity with policy. I completely disagree one can choose which policy of competing ones applies, or how to interpret policy: both of these are for the community to decide (or whatever small fraction is paying attention). I do not argue to convince the closer in particular of the merits of my argument, but to convince others who may come and look at the discussion and give an opinion. The closer should follow whatever policy-based argument a clear majority agrees with, unless it's totally irrational.DGG (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I don't necessarily disagree, hence my question above: ":What is the "policy" that you feel that the "keep votes" were firmly grounded in?"* I see a lot of notability arguments. But nothing indicating it being defining for the individual. Though I hesitate to ask (since you already seem to have suggested that I won't listen), but what do you see? - jc37 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Perhaps you should tell us what you consider "defining" so that we can determine whether or not there is an argument we can make that will convince you. I consider the argument I made above to be "defining", and apparently you do not. You have not yet said why. -Dewelar (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] to avoid misunderstanding, when I argue at an Deletion Review I do generally hope to get the closer of the original matter to reconsider--that's part of the idea here, and that's the best sort of end to a review. As to what you should reconsider now, I & others have already said. DGG (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] That's not what I asked. I asked: "What is the "policy" that you feel that the "keep votes" were firmly grounded in?" - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] WP:CATEGORY: "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects," Looking for people known to be characteristically such pitchers, this is the place. DGG (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Right, which brings us back to the question of whether this is actually "defining", or just "notable". - jc37 11:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] The sad fact is that this CfD is just one of the most egregious in demonstrating that any definition of the concept of "Consensus" is regularly ignored at CfD when it's deemed expedient. Progressively more tortured rationalizations are offered to wave off the most compelling evidence based on reliable and verifiable sources to establish definingness, as was the case here. As stated in WP:CAT, "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions" and the evidence provided at User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers could not have been any more definitive on the matter in establishing the characteristic as defining. The rough consensus that closing admins are required to find is defined as "a term used in consensus decision-making to indicate the 'sense of the group' concerning a particular matter under consideration. It has been defined as the 'dominant view' of a group as determined by its chairperson." There is no rational basis to state that consensus here was for deletion; Deletion was solely based on the closing administrator's insertion of his own personal biases and prejudices which are in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy. If, as was done here, any administrator can arbitrarily pick and choose which arguments can be discarded as worthless, even when these arguments are backed by solid evidence in the form of reliable and verifiable sources, then "consensus" is a worthless pile of garbage. Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore per above. This is most definitely, as another contributor to this discussion put it, a defining characteristic of certain baseball pitchers. It's not really the same as, say, a fastball, and in my opinion, the deletion ran contrary to established policy anyway. One (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. No consensus to delete, persuasive arguments to keep. Mike R (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and restore Categories shouldn't be deleted in favor of categories, they should exist side by side. Each has it own merits. This is a clear defining characteristic in pitching. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion, the role of the closer is to determine the consensus of the discussion, not to determine which argument has the most merit. While it's true that "these processes are not decided through a head count," deletion policy also states, "if there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept." Thus, it is reasonable for a closer to discount comments that include no reasoning or faulty reasoning (e.g., "I like it"), but it is not reasonable for a closer to ignore or entirely discount reasonable arguments brought forward by one side in the discussion. In this case, the closing admin apparently gave considerable weight to a few comments describing the category as similar to WP:OCAT#PERF, but ignored several comments refuting that argument. After reviewing the discussion, I don't think the closer reflected the consensus. The discussion overall tended to support keeping the category, though there was enough disagreement that a decision of "no consensus" also might have been appropriate. The closer's decision of "consensus to delete," however, was clearly a misinterpretation of the debate and should be overturned. BRMo (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] No, it's weighing all arguments and their foundation in policy/guidelines. And that's what we're supposed to do. See also Orlady's comments above. In any case, I did not "pick sides", as I explained above. - jc37 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] No, the policy is that "pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so." I see no evidence that your decision reflected consensus; if a consensus existed at all, it was for keeping the category. BRMo (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. There was clearly not a consensus for deletion. Whether there was actually a consensus to keep, or no consensus, either one per policy should have resulted in the category being kept. John Darrow (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse As the editor who put this category up for "discussion", I participated in both discussions, and gave my reasons for nomination and gave my recomendations. Whether it was kept or not, was up to the community. I am a life-long baseball fanatic, so I know the relevance of a Knuckleball pitcher, and I believe the pitch and the pitchers who throw it should be considered notable, and that the pitch would be a defining charateristic of that player. My debate point was not centered around over-categorization, but if this exists than all the other pitches should exist as well. Not all pitchers are defined by a pitch, but the knuckleball is not the only pitch that is a defining characteristic of a pitcher. In totality, I believe the closer acted in good faith defined by the debates.Neonblak ^talk - 06:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and keep. The debate was relisted for further discussion, and after that almost everyone said keep. I cannot work out how that can be construed as a consensus for deleting. That the closing admin thinks it would be better as a list is a personal opinion, and should have no effect on how the discussion is closed. Besides, if there is a simple "List of X" listing lots of articles, a category of "X" to put all those articles in seems quite reasonable. Unless there are really extraordinary circumstances, it is the community, and not the closing admin, who decides whether to delete; the closing administrator is more of a steward than a judge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] No. Has nothing to do with what I may have wanted. It was an assessment of the discussion. Did you read the discussion and/or the clarification above? - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and keep. The closer doesn't get a supervote... there was a consensus to keep. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] The closer didn't make a "supervote". Please read the closure again. - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] The person you're replying to is correct that the closer made a "supervote". Please read their comment again. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think Jc37 believes he assessed the strength of the arguments in good faith. The problem with one person's "assessment of the strength of the arguments" is that it's pretty hard to distinguish from their "personal opinion of what should be done", and I think the line between the two may have been (inadvertently) crossed here. But whether it was crossed or not, the !votes based on a failure to understand WP:CLN should have been disregarded as not in accordance with established guidelines, leaving a clear consensus to keep. And that's why, earlier on, I described this as "a WP:CLN-related closure error".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment. The closer gave two reasons for deleting: (a) the information could be presented in a list or navbox, and (b) the category was similar to other types of OCAT, especially categorization of performers by performance. The first rationale has been extensively debated both in the CfD and in this DRV, but the second hasn't been discussed as thoroughly. (In my own CfD comments I focused on the argument presented by the nominator that having a category for knuckleball pitchers would seem to require creation of similar categories for other pitchers by type of pitch, but that argument wasn't mentioned by the closer.) I agree with the comment made by Occuli in the CfD discussion that "It is stretching 'performance by performer' - or indeed 'performer by performance' - beyond breaking point to apply it here," but apparently some further explanation is needed for why it's such a stretch. In discussing performers by performance, WP:OVERCAT describes three major types of overcategorization. The first is categorizing performers by some action that they have performed (such as a pirouette or a runway walk). Any individual performer is likely to have performed dozens of actions like these, so they are almost never defining characteristics and are clear examples of overcategorization. The second type is categorizing by role or composition. Again, an individual actor or musician is likely to have performed dozens of roles or played hundreds of different compositions, so these again are obviously examples of overcategorization and non-defining characteristics. The same applies to the third type, performers by performance venue. These cases all contrast with the argument presented by most of the editors who favored keeping the category, that knuckleball pitchers rely very heavily on this pitch, that it is typically the only pitch they they are known for, and that their use of the knuckleball is almost invariably highlighted in discussions of these pitchers. A useful comparison might be Category:Kabuki actors. Wikipedia generally does not have categories for styles of acting such as comedic actors, action-adventure actors, or tragic actors because many actors perform several or all of these styles implying that they are not defining, even though a few actors may specialize in one style. On the other hand, Kabuki actors generally do not perform other styles and are known only for this one style of acting; consequently the Kabuki style of acting is a defining characteristic for them and it is appropriate to group these actors in a category. Similarly, most non-knuckleball baseball pitchers rely on a variety of pitches (although a few of them may specialize in a single pitch). In contrast, as discussed in the CfD, most knuckleball pitchers specialize in and are only known for their kunckleball. That makes it a defining characteristic and means that it is quite different from the other examples presented in WP:OC#PERF. BRMo (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] That is what I might well have said, given the ability, time and inclination. There is also Category:Southpaw boxers. (The next cfds might well now be Category:Kabuki actors and Category:Southpaw boxers, unfortunately.) Occuli (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Interesting argument. Had this been made at the discussion (coupled with some references (WP:V, WP:RS) backing this assertion up), the result might have been no consensus. And no, not because I'm "siding" with this argument, or making some "super vote" as asserted by someone above. But rather, as I noted in the discussion above, such arguments simply weren't present to counter the statements by others who were calling this WP:OC. And this argument dives head first into that. - jc37 11:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] A couple of responses. In writing my original CfD comment I focused on what I thought was the main point of discussion, which was the argument presented in the nomination—can being a knuckleball pitcher be considered a defining characteristic while throwing other pitches is not? The consideration of OC#PERF had been briefly mentioned by only three of the 17 editors participating in the discussion (two favoring delete and one favoring keep), and it seemed somewhat peripheral to me. (Those making the argument had never really explained the analogy.) It seems a stretch that your closing summary, which after all is supposed to represent the consensus of the discussion, relied so heavily on this point. Second, although the arguments weren't framed specifically as a response to OC#PERF, the same general points (that being a knuckleball pitcher is different from other pitchers and should be considered a defining characteristic because, as a group, knuckleball pitchers rely on the pitch almost exclusively and are commonly known for being knuckleballers) do appear in many or most of the CfD comments that favored keeping. Almost all of the keep arguments were trying to make the point that pitching the knuckleball is a defining characteristic, which of course is the central concept for OC. So I have to disagree with your statement that "such arguments simply weren't present." BRMo (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn The decision to delete was not supported by the majority of the commenters nor where the arguments to do so especially strong. Categories about people should only be created if the property discussed is a defining characteristic. If it's possible to use a list, it's also possible to make a category. (per WP:CLN) - Mgm\|^(talk) 16:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:Knuckleball pitchers – Restore. Consensus by a rough head count and strength of argument seems to be enough to me to overturn this. CLN is pretty clear about lists and categories not being competitive and this seems to be a reasonable category. – Protonk (talk) 04:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The category was initially placed under discussion here on April 6. I had seen the CfD and was intending to prepare additional documentation to demonstrate that the category captures a strong defining characteristic, but the CfD was closed as delete before I had a chance to participate. After contacting User:Kbdank71 and notifying him that I was prepared to collect additional evidence and that the original CfD was never posted to the category, Kbdank71 refused to consider additional evidence but did reopen the CfD here (along with a helpful note informing me that "anything [I] post here will be reverted on sight, unread". In reopening, Kbdank71 added a link to User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers, a userpage that I had created assuming that the original April 6 CfD would go to DRV. In the reopened April 17 CfD now under discussion, every single individual (other than the original nominator) who participated voted to keep, relying on the evidence I provided to determine that the category is defining. Despite this rather strong evidence, User:Jc37 closed as "listify and delete", basing his decision on his opinion "that this would be better presented in a navbox and/or a list", despite the fact that only one person mentioned a navbox, and that voter changed his mind after additional evidence was provide. It seems ironic that there is a recent DRV for Barack Obama topics, in which the closing administrator decided that it would be a better category. The false dichotomy presented by Jc37, that we must make a choice between a category OR a list, is in clear contradiction of WP:CLN which strongly insists that in most cases lists AND categories should co-exist to allow readers to navigate using their preferred method. While WP:OCAT is often shoehorned to justify deletion of almost any category, its relevance is even more tenuous here. Jc37 cited WP:OCAT, but doesn't state that there is a policy violation, only that it appears "similar to other types of OCAT, such as performers by performance". Efforts to raise these issues with the closing administrator here have gone nowhere, as Jc37has disappeared from Wikipedia since April 25 when he closed the CfD. User:Kbdank71, who closed the original CfD, chimed in with an insistence that the user subpage User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers was a WP:POINT violation and moved it to mainspace. After pointing out that the subpage was not written as an article, but was written as evidence for DRV, it was moved back to userspace. Kbdank71 then made a cut-and-paste copy back to mainspace. The issues with Kbdank71 were raised here, but he too appears to have disappeared from Wikipedia, other than acknowledging that he was notified of the ANI.

In conclusion, evidence was provided with dozens of reliable and verifiable sources that the category captures a strong defining characteristic. The clear consensus for retention was ignored, especially based on those votes cast after the CfD was reopened on April 17, and the newer votes cast based on additional information should be given greater weight, not ignored. The attempt at a policy argument based on WP:OCAT seems a rather far stretch. Based on the pattern of contravention of Wikipedia policy here by multiple admins, the decision should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 20:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore The discussion after the relist was unanimous keep, the overall discussion went heavily toward keep, and the strength of arguments appeared to me to be a tie. Given that significant new arguments came in after the relist, I don't see anyway this could be a delete. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. Very weird.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Jc37's close that this would make a better list. --Kbdank71 21:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is that the close by Jc37 and your endorsement thereof are both in direct conflict with WP:CLN's admonitions that lists AND categories "should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories, allowing links to be gathered in two different ways, with lists often leapfrogging categories, and vice versa... Therefore, the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources." Yet this is exactly what we have here. Plain and simple, "this would make a better list" is an invalid argument for deletion in a discussion, and the fact that it's coming from a pair of admins is all the more disturbing. In the discussion below for Wikipedia:DRV#List_of_topics_related_to_Barack_Obama, the equal and opposite argument under which the closing admin there closed as delete based on an opinion that a "category is more appropriate" in that case, has had participants overwhelmingly vote to override, noting the same false dichotomy. Categories should only be deleted because of policy issues, not just because they "would make a better list" and the same with lists being deleted in favor of categories. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, at least you've stopped insisting that CLN says categories and lists absolutely must co-exist. I'm not interested in dismantling or tearing down anything. There are times when yes, both work well. There are times when no, they don't. Rigid adherence as you've shown does not help wikipedia, but makes for needless duplication. Now if we can only work on the misconception of "Categories should only be deleted because of policy issues"... --Kbdank71 03:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've never said "that CLN says categories and lists absolutely must co-exist" and I assume that you will retract your statement or find a source to prove it. Community consensus is that the existence of a list is simply not a valid excuse to delete a category, and vice versa, as WP:CLN says that categories AND lists work well together almost all of the time. What you call "needless duplication" as a rationalization for deletion is in direct conflict with what WP:CLN states that "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap". If the misconception that the admins who currently close CfDs are following Wikipedia policy cannot be addressed, we need a new crop of admins at CfD who will show the needed respect for the co-existence of both lists and categories. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps the exact language referred to was never used, but I do remember some fairly repetitive discussions where Alansohn admonished closers to ignore any opinions where editors expressed opinions that in a particular case a list should be kept and a corresponding category deleted. Many examples, exist—this is but one. I also remember that a number of times Alansohn has suggested that CLN states as a general rule that co-existence of lists and categories is the preferred situation, which is not true: example with rebuttal. I also remember many incidents where a variety of editors and closers have responded to Alansohn's comments about WP:CLN with explanations about how the guideline does not mandate the retention of both categories and lists in every case: one example. Thus, if Alansohn's position on CLN has been misunderstood in the past, it has been relatively widespread among editors. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That "the exact language referred to was never used" is because the statement is flat out false. Outside of the backwater that is CfD, editors here in the real world believe that WP:CLN is a completely invalid justification for deletion of either a category or a list. I have indeed "suggested that CLN states as a general rule that co-existence of lists and categories is the preferred situation" because WP:CLN states -- among several other statements on co-existence -- that "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system — doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." That "any opinions where editors expressed opinions that in a particular case a list should be kept and a corresponding category deleted" as a justification for deletion would be an excellent guideline. I also agree that "CLN has been misunderstood in the past" and that the problem "has been relatively widespread among editors", especially those administrators who have persistently misinterpreted the policy in closing CfDs. Remarkably, we seem to be in agreement on these issues. Perhaps this DRV will be another step in ensuring that Wikipedia policy on the subject is followed at CfD, and that those admins who have persistently refused to accept it will start respecting this policy. Alansohn (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        CLN is not a policy: It is an editing guideline. I can also recall a number of times this has been pointed out in various CfDs, usually to no avail. I cannot recall ever seeing CLN used explicitly as a stand-alone justification for deleting a category, however. It is often used as a stand-alone argument for not deleting one, however. In any case, I agree that using it as the basis for an argument to do either is generally regarded as weak, as it should be. Now that I think of it, you're really the only one who ever really brings it up explicitly, and most other users tend to disagree with your stated interpretation of it, or at least with the conclusions you draw from it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn this latest in the series of WP:CLN-related closure errors.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I had participated in the first discussion and was in favor of deletion. I didn't participate once it was re-opened because I had already participated and my opinion had not changed. Had I known my lack of subsequent participation would be used as part of a claim that the newly-opened discussion in the face of the list was "unanimous", I would have re-stated my opposition. I think the closer probably didn't make this same mistake and took into account all comments expressed in both discussions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. Clear evidence was presented that this is a defining characteristic for a baseball player. Occuli (talk) 23:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore - Can't see this as a consensus to delete. ƒingers^on_Roids 00:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I too was in favor of deletion and nothing said later changed my opinions; the closer does not have to give greater weight to later comments: this isn't ebay where you need to get your $0.02 in just under the wire. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why can't this be a list? I have no dog in the list vs. category fight but that user subpage is a perfectly good list article. List of knuckleball pitchers shouldn't have been deleted, whatever the motivation for copying the content into mainspace. 140.247.240.36 (talk) 04:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)**It *should* be the starting point for a list. It wasn't created in article format, but it will not take a tremendous amount of work to get it into the proper format. I expect to complete the necessary changes once this DRV is over. Until then, I'd like anyone considering the DRV to be able to see the clear evidence of definingness provided at CFD, in determining whether or not the close was made properly under Wikipedia policy. Once the changes are complete I will move it to mainspace and nominate it for DYK and take a stab at WP:FL. Alansohn (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore. Per my comments in the relisting, this is certainly a defining characteristic of these players. No reason it can't be both list and category. -Dewelar (talk) 04:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I am another user who favored deletion in the original discussion and did not comment again. (I do strongly support a list for this topic, either embedded in Knuckleball or a stand-alone.) Seeing the number of "keep" !votes in the CfD, my first reaction was that it looked like a "keep." However, while most of the people who commented after the relist did call for keeping the category, their arguments speak primarily to the need to document the pitchers associated with the knuckleball. They are essentially silent on why it is deemed necessary to have a category for this topic. I read them as eloquent arguments for having a list of knuckleball pitchers (not a category), and I think the "delete" closure was judged correctly. --Orlady (talk) 04:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Where is there a Wikipedia policy that requires establishing that a category is "necessary"? Why is any category "necessary" and how would one establish that it meets the necessary criteria? Alansohn (talk) 05:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles are categorised by 'defining characteristics': this is in sentence 3 of Wikipedia:Categorization#What_categories_should_be_created. Most arguments in cfd revolve around whether a characteristic is or is not defining. If brief articles about player XXX always include the phrase 'knuckleball pitcher' then the characteristic is a defining one; and Alansohn demonstrated that this is the case. (I would not myself know a knuckleball pitcher from a soup tureen.) Occuli (talk) 08:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - reasonable reading of the discussion, no procedural errors in the close, no new information presented here to indicate the close was in error. DRV relies on faulty understanding of a number of WP policies and guidelines. First, just because a reliable source identifies a person as a "knuckleball pitcher" or a "Swedish-American actress" or whatever, this does not mean that this is a "defining characteristic" for purposes of WP categorization. Second, WP:CLN does not and never has mandated that both a list and a category that cover the same information both exist. CLN clearly states that while there are times when lists and categories can work synergistically, there are also times when one is clearly superior to another. Otto4711 (talk) 11:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from the closer
My apologies for length, but I'm attempting to respond to several accusations, both here and on my talk page. So while merely commenting might have normally been shorter, responding can take more time.

There are two problems with most of the overturn comments so far: One is vote counting (and thereby suggesting that something was wrong because I didn't count votes, but instead weighed the arguments), and the other is that "I" came up with the idea all by myself to lean on WP:OC in making the determination (and thus presuming I was "voting" in the close - noting of course that that's actually can be within closer discretion, not that that necessarily applies in this case).

The first can be resolved by simply pointing to WP:CON, and more specifically Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion: "These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy."

The second can be resolved merely by actually reading the closure. Despite what the nominator asserts, the close was based upon weighing all the comments in the discussion, not by assigning this to WP:OC only by myself. (And was actually stated in the closure.

These aren't "votes". And so if one individual (for example) offers several suggestions, then all of those should be weighed. (Especially if their latter comments are prefaced with: "Notwithstanding my suggestion re using a navbox,".)

Also, there is a difference between proving whether something may be "notable" for inclusion, and whether something may be considered "defining" for an individual. Whether something is "defining" or "notable" can be confused, or at least conflated by commenters at CfD. It's a fairly common confusion, especially made by those coming to CfD from AfD, where a main criterion may be notability. As opposed to CfD where there is additional criteria, in particular, being "defining".

There appeared to be consensus that this information was worth keeping (presumably "notable"). But it was clear from the opposers that they felt that this didn't meet WP:OC guidelines. And therefore shouldn't be categorised. And those in support of keeping the category simply didn't address that directly. For example, they didn't show how this was different than left-handed atheletes, or actor by film, etc, (See the discussion for all the examples from several individuals.) The closest was the seeming suggestion that rarity of occurrence of something (a pitcher who performs an apparently rare type of pitch) equalled it being defining for an individual. Are all rare skills or abilities defining? Or better should we categorise by all such rare skills/abilities? As noted by those in the discussion, WP:OC suggests that no we do not. (Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers by action or appearance, would seem to be a link to a section being described by commenters.)

As for the list, the fact that there was a list had no effect on the closure, the effect was only whether I placed the category on the /working/manual page to be made into a list "first", to be deleted once that was done (and that's pretty much just doing the manual task of merely placing the links on a page and naming it a "list"). Or, placing it on the /Working page to be deleted, since a list (one looking better than what would likely have been produced by the manual task), already existed.

Now alan is of course welcome to suggest that he doesn't feel that the list as it stands consitutes a good article (or a good list), and so may be reluctant to move it into mainspace. But that has nothing to do with the closure. Regardless of whether he may eventually place that copy in mainspace, or someone else creates another list and places it in mainspace, the consensus is that a category shouldn't exist in this case.

So essentially for the closer of this DRV, this comes down not only whether the existing guidelines are to be considered the broader consensus (WP:CAT, WP:CFD, WP:OC), for example), but also how those guidelines, and this specific discussion, should be weighed, and whether the outcome I discerned, weighing it all, conforms to consensus, or not.

I hope this helps clarify, but if not, I welcome positive requests for further clarification.

One final note: In reading the nom, there are quite a few things which are taken out of context, and just simply misrepresent the truth. (For one example out of many, I did quite a bit more than just close the discussion and "disappear", as a look to my contributions will easily note.) I don't fancy being lied about (even more than I dislike double standards). So I strongly suggest that alan considers his words more carefully in the future. If such continues, further sanction may be pursued, and I don't mean merely a note to WP:AN/I. While one may take this as they wish, I believe the meaning is quite clear. - jc37 12:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the active efforts to deny Wikipedia policy and to spit in the face of the clearest possible consensus for retention, what is refreshing is that every single participant who does not come from the backwater of CfD has objectively looked at this process and deemed it to be a travesty in need of being overturned. I do appreciate your vehemence in ignoring a few dozen reliable and verifiable sources that clearly establish that the Knuckleball pitcher is a strong defining characteristic. As is unfortunately typical in the Bizarro world of CfD, the reliable and verifiable sources that we all accept as the bedrock principle of Wikipedia can be safely ignored at CfD if one simply insists -- without any form of evidence whatsoever -- that they only show "notability", not "definingness". If the category system is to have any use in the future, the small group of disruptive administrators who have repeatedly used bullying, personal attacks and knowingly false misrepresentations of policy to abuse process needs to be eliminated. We desperately need admins who will show some small glimmer of respect for consensus and process to clean up the mess. Alansohn (talk) 12:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I take exception to this bit: "For example, they didn't show how this was different than left-handed atheletes, or actor by film, etc, (See the discussion for all the examples from several individuals.) The closest was the seeming suggestion that rarity of occurrence of something (a pitcher who performs an apparently rare type of pitch) equalled it being defining for an individual. Are all rare skills or abilities defining? Or better should we categorise by all such rare skills/abilities?"

This is pure injection of your (and apparently only your) opinion of the merits of the arguments on one side of the matter into the decision for deletion. One of the arguments raised by myself, and others, is that the presence of a knuckleball pitcher has a direct effect on the personnel and equipment used by the team for whom he is pitching, and indeed even on the personnel chosen to be on the roster of the team employing such a pitcher. In other words, it's not just the rarity of the skill, it's the broadness of the effect that someone with that skill has on the game as a whole, much moreso than a pitcher simply being left-handed.

That argument was never refuted, indeed no arguments were even raised against it. I'd be interested to hear why you think this fails to be a defining characteristic, and why you felt you could make that decision unilaterally. -Dewelar (talk) 00:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that being left-handed doesn't affect the personnel and equipment?

You haven't shown how it is different. And that wasn't shown in the discussion either. And without that, it is exactly what was noted by the nominator and others in the discussion - WP:OC. Here's another example (though this one wasn't specifically brought up in the discussion): Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_16#Category:Saxophonists_who_are_capable_of_circular_breathing. How is this any different? - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may be worth noting that in the deletion discussion for left-handed athletes, both the nominator and two of the editors favoring deletion made the point that left handedness could be a significant characteristic in baseball and a few other sports, but that it was not significant for athletes in general. BRMo (talk) 04:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New information on this would be welcome (per rules of DRV). - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, yes, I am not just ssuggesting, but am stating as fact, that employing a left-handed typically affects neither the personnel nor the equipment of the team that employs him, beyond the equpiment used by the pitcher himself. Nobody on the left-handed pitcher's team is on the roster because the team itself employs that left-handed pitcher. The team that employs a left-handed pitcher does not require additional equipment as a result of that decision. There are no catchers who specialize in catching left-handed pitchers, nor are there coaches who are hired specifically to work with left-handed pitchers. Any or all of these are the case for teams that choose to employ a knuckleball pitcher. -Dewelar (talk) 04:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

overturn The final decision was contrary to clear Wikipedia policy: "Listify and delete" If there can be a list, there can be a category, and vice versa. (per WP:LIST). The argument usually is needed in the other direction, but it goes both ways. There is no rational basis for having one not the other--they are complementary. There can be special circumstances, but there has to be good consensus for not doing it--and the !votes were 9 keep, 4 delete, including the nom. As for following consensus. There was no need to weigh the arguments, because the keep ones were soundly based on policy. An idiosyncratic decision of the closer, based on his own reading of what ought to be done, thinking the strongest argument that a list was better. In other words, he preferred a ruling clearly unsupported by policy to one that was supported by both the !votes and the policy. I don;t know one way or another about baseball pitchers, but this is no so radically different from other situations as to overturn policy against clear consensus. If one wishes to use IAR, that must be supported by clear consensus, not against it. DGG (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. There is a world of difference between saying that lists and categories "can" coexist, and saying that there must be a list and category coexisting in every situation. Indeed quite often a list may be fine, but its members shouldn't be grouped a category. And I believe that WP:CLN makes that rather clear. And besides, there are different criteria for mainspace and category space. (I notice that WP:CAT has been re-organised not long ago, so perhaps it will be more difficult to find it in the pared down text - as opposed to the bullet points of the previous version.)

What is the "policy" that you feel that the "keep votes" were firmly grounded in?

And no, We ALWAYS weigh arguments in a discussion. We do not "count votes". That is policy. And from long experience we both have had in interaction, I'm fairly certain that you DGG, should know that of anyone. - jc37 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
judging consensus is trying to evaluate what the other responsible people there think should be done. One can evaluate arguments, but only to see which ones are not in conformity with policy. I completely disagree one can choose which policy of competing ones applies, or how to interpret policy: both of these are for the community to decide (or whatever small fraction is paying attention). I do not argue to convince the closer in particular of the merits of my argument, but to convince others who may come and look at the discussion and give an opinion. The closer should follow whatever policy-based argument a clear majority agrees with, unless it's totally irrational.DGG (talk) 02:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree, hence my question above:

"*:What is the "policy" that you feel that the "keep votes" were firmly grounded in?"

I see a lot of notability arguments. But nothing indicating it being defining for the individual.

Though I hesitate to ask (since you already seem to have suggested that I won't listen), but what do you see? - jc37 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you should tell us what you consider "defining" so that we can determine whether or not there is an argument we can make that will convince you. I consider the argument I made above to be "defining", and apparently you do not. You have not yet said why. -Dewelar (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to avoid misunderstanding, when I argue at an Deletion Review I do generally hope to get the closer of the original matter to reconsider--that's part of the idea here, and that's the best sort of end to a review. As to what you should reconsider now, I & others have already said. DGG (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I asked. I asked: "What is the "policy" that you feel that the "keep votes" were firmly grounded in?" - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CATEGORY: "Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects," Looking for people known to be characteristically such pitchers, this is the place. DGG (talk) 14:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right, which brings us back to the question of whether this is actually "defining", or just "notable". - jc37 11:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sad fact is that this CfD is just one of the most egregious in demonstrating that any definition of the concept of "Consensus" is regularly ignored at CfD when it's deemed expedient. Progressively more tortured rationalizations are offered to wave off the most compelling evidence based on reliable and verifiable sources to establish definingness, as was the case here. As stated in WP:CAT, "Categories are for defining characteristics, and should be specific, neutral, inclusive and follow certain conventions" and the evidence provided at User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers could not have been any more definitive on the matter in establishing the characteristic as defining. The rough consensus that closing admins are required to find is defined as "a term used in consensus decision-making to indicate the 'sense of the group' concerning a particular matter under consideration. It has been defined as the 'dominant view' of a group as determined by its chairperson." There is no rational basis to state that consensus here was for deletion; Deletion was solely based on the closing administrator's insertion of his own personal biases and prejudices which are in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy. If, as was done here, any administrator can arbitrarily pick and choose which arguments can be discarded as worthless, even when these arguments are backed by solid evidence in the form of reliable and verifiable sources, then "consensus" is a worthless pile of garbage. Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore per above. This is most definitely, as another contributor to this discussion put it, a defining characteristic of certain baseball pitchers. It's not really the same as, say, a fastball, and in my opinion, the deletion ran contrary to established policy anyway. One (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No consensus to delete, persuasive arguments to keep. Mike R (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore Categories shouldn't be deleted in favor of categories, they should exist side by side. Each has it own merits. This is a clear defining characteristic in pitching. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. According to Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion, the role of the closer is to determine the consensus of the discussion, not to determine which argument has the most merit. While it's true that "these processes are not decided through a head count," deletion policy also states, "if there is no rough consensus and the page is not a BLP describing a relatively unknown person, the page is kept." Thus, it is reasonable for a closer to discount comments that include no reasoning or faulty reasoning (e.g., "I like it"), but it is not reasonable for a closer to ignore or entirely discount reasonable arguments brought forward by one side in the discussion. In this case, the closing admin apparently gave considerable weight to a few comments describing the category as similar to WP:OCAT#PERF, but ignored several comments refuting that argument. After reviewing the discussion, I don't think the closer reflected the consensus. The discussion overall tended to support keeping the category, though there was enough disagreement that a decision of "no consensus" also might have been appropriate. The closer's decision of "consensus to delete," however, was clearly a misinterpretation of the debate and should be overturned. BRMo (talk) 22:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's weighing all arguments and their foundation in policy/guidelines. And that's what we're supposed to do. See also Orlady's comments above. In any case, I did not "pick sides", as I explained above. - jc37 23:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the policy is that "pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so." I see no evidence that your decision reflected consensus; if a consensus existed at all, it was for keeping the category. BRMo (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. There was clearly not a consensus for deletion. Whether there was actually a consensus to keep, or no consensus, either one per policy should have resulted in the category being kept. John Darrow (talk) 23:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As the editor who put this category up for "discussion", I participated in both discussions, and gave my reasons for nomination and gave my recomendations. Whether it was kept or not, was up to the community. I am a life-long baseball fanatic, so I know the relevance of a Knuckleball pitcher, and I believe the pitch and the pitchers who throw it should be considered notable, and that the pitch would be a defining charateristic of that player. My debate point was not centered around over-categorization, but if this exists than all the other pitches should exist as well. Not all pitchers are defined by a pitch, but the knuckleball is not the only pitch that is a defining characteristic of a pitcher. In totality, I believe the closer acted in good faith defined by the debates.Neonblak ^talk - 06:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep. The debate was relisted for further discussion, and after that almost everyone said keep. I cannot work out how that can be construed as a consensus for deleting. That the closing admin thinks it would be better as a list is a personal opinion, and should have no effect on how the discussion is closed. Besides, if there is a simple "List of X" listing lots of articles, a category of "X" to put all those articles in seems quite reasonable. Unless there are really extraordinary circumstances, it is the community, and not the closing admin, who decides whether to delete; the closing administrator is more of a steward than a judge. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:19, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Has nothing to do with what I may have wanted. It was an assessment of the discussion. Did you read the discussion and/or the clarification above? - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep. The closer doesn't get a supervote... there was a consensus to keep. --Chiliad22 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The closer didn't make a "supervote". Please read the closure again. - jc37 02:31, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The person you're replying to is correct that the closer made a "supervote". Please read their comment again. --Chiliad22 (talk) 02:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - - I think Jc37 believes he assessed the strength of the arguments in good faith.
      The problem with one person's "assessment of the strength of the arguments" is that it's pretty hard to distinguish from their "personal opinion of what should be done", and I think the line between the two may have been (inadvertently) crossed here.
      But whether it was crossed or not, the !votes based on a failure to understand WP:CLN should have been disregarded as not in accordance with established guidelines, leaving a clear consensus to keep. And that's why, earlier on, I described this as "a WP:CLN-related closure error".—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The closer gave two reasons for deleting: (a) the information could be presented in a list or navbox, and (b) the category was similar to other types of OCAT, especially categorization of performers by performance. The first rationale has been extensively debated both in the CfD and in this DRV, but the second hasn't been discussed as thoroughly. (In my own CfD comments I focused on the argument presented by the nominator that having a category for knuckleball pitchers would seem to require creation of similar categories for other pitchers by type of pitch, but that argument wasn't mentioned by the closer.) I agree with the comment made by Occuli in the CfD discussion that "It is stretching 'performance by performer' - or indeed 'performer by performance' - beyond breaking point to apply it here," but apparently some further explanation is needed for why it's such a stretch. In discussing performers by performance, WP:OVERCAT describes three major types of overcategorization. The first is categorizing performers by some action that they have performed (such as a pirouette or a runway walk). Any individual performer is likely to have performed dozens of actions like these, so they are almost never defining characteristics and are clear examples of overcategorization. The second type is categorizing by role or composition. Again, an individual actor or musician is likely to have performed dozens of roles or played hundreds of different compositions, so these again are obviously examples of overcategorization and non-defining characteristics. The same applies to the third type, performers by performance venue. These cases all contrast with the argument presented by most of the editors who favored keeping the category, that knuckleball pitchers rely very heavily on this pitch, that it is typically the only pitch they they are known for, and that their use of the knuckleball is almost invariably highlighted in discussions of these pitchers. A useful comparison might be Category:Kabuki actors. Wikipedia generally does not have categories for styles of acting such as comedic actors, action-adventure actors, or tragic actors because many actors perform several or all of these styles implying that they are not defining, even though a few actors may specialize in one style. On the other hand, Kabuki actors generally do not perform other styles and are known only for this one style of acting; consequently the Kabuki style of acting is a defining characteristic for them and it is appropriate to group these actors in a category. Similarly, most non-knuckleball baseball pitchers rely on a variety of pitches (although a few of them may specialize in a single pitch). In contrast, as discussed in the CfD, most knuckleball pitchers specialize in and are only known for their kunckleball. That makes it a defining characteristic and means that it is quite different from the other examples presented in WP:OC#PERF. BRMo (talk) 04:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I might well have said, given the ability, time and inclination. There is also Category:Southpaw boxers. (The next cfds might well now be Category:Kabuki actors and Category:Southpaw boxers, unfortunately.) Occuli (talk) 09:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting argument. Had this been made at the discussion (coupled with some references (WP:V, WP:RS) backing this assertion up), the result might have been no consensus. And no, not because I'm "siding" with this argument, or making some "super vote" as asserted by someone above. But rather, as I noted in the discussion above, such arguments simply weren't present to counter the statements by others who were calling this WP:OC. And this argument dives head first into that. - jc37 11:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of responses. In writing my original CfD comment I focused on what I thought was the main point of discussion, which was the argument presented in the nomination—can being a knuckleball pitcher be considered a defining characteristic while throwing other pitches is not? The consideration of OC#PERF had been briefly mentioned by only three of the 17 editors participating in the discussion (two favoring delete and one favoring keep), and it seemed somewhat peripheral to me. (Those making the argument had never really explained the analogy.) It seems a stretch that your closing summary, which after all is supposed to represent the consensus of the discussion, relied so heavily on this point. Second, although the arguments weren't framed specifically as a response to OC#PERF, the same general points (that being a knuckleball pitcher is different from other pitchers and should be considered a defining characteristic because, as a group, knuckleball pitchers rely on the pitch almost exclusively and are commonly known for being knuckleballers) do appear in many or most of the CfD comments that favored keeping. Almost all of the keep arguments were trying to make the point that pitching the knuckleball is a defining characteristic, which of course is the central concept for OC. So I have to disagree with your statement that "such arguments simply weren't present." BRMo (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn The decision to delete was not supported by the majority of the commenters nor where the arguments to do so especially strong. Categories about people should only be created if the property discussed is a defining characteristic. If it's possible to use a list, it's also possible to make a category. (per WP:CLN) - Mgm|^(talk) 16:01, 3 May 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:MarbleMadnessCabinet.png – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:MarbleMadnessCabinet.png (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) The reasons for deletion were violations of WP:NFCC #1 and #3, but I believe the image was deleted in error. Because the image has copyrighted content, no free image can exist. Even if the photographer waives their copyright, the content is still a derivative piece and illegible for a free license. I base this assumption on my interpretations on Commons:Commons:Derivative works Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches. As such, NFCC#1 is satisfied because a free equivalent is not available. NFCC#3 states "Minimal usage" and "Minimal extent of use". Yes, there are other non-free images used in the Marble Madness article, but each one adds something to the article. This not only showed the physical object, but marketing images used to attract customers and the trackball control system. Based on what I've read in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, I believed minimal usage meant to avoid redundancy and maximize significance, not simply keep the number as low as possible. In regard to the NFCC#3b, the image was a minimal extent of use; it was less than 1/3 of the original flyer and low resolution. Also, I have never heard of NFCC#3 applying to the number of copyrights involved in image placement on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply] Endorse deletion: I, personally, have no opinion on whether or not this file should be deleted. I deleted it because that is what the consensus seemed to be, and I still feel that that was the consensus. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I guess my main issue is that the consensus did not accurately reflect policy. So while more people felt the image should be deleted, I believe the NFCC policy was applied incorrectly in their rationales. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply] I didn't just take a head count or anything; all of the arguments, for both "keep" and "delete", seemed logically based upon policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drilnoth (talk • contribs) 20:24, April 28, 2009 I know it wasn't as clear cut as that, and apologize if my comment came across as that. I don't think the FfD was discussed as well as it should have been. But, that was more a result of only four people participating. You came to a conclusion as best you could from a discussion consisting of only seven postings. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply] Comment. Note: The nominator and two commentors (including myself) recommended that the image be deleted. The uploader (Guyinblack25) argued that it should be kept. Good points were made on both sides. An uninvolved (and self-described inclusionist) admin deleted the image, agreeing that it was a close call, but judging that consensus required the image's deletion. Note also that the article it is used on is a featured article. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. This was a tough call. I recommended deletion, but I found that arguments on both sides were convincing. It's almost a textbook example of a difficult deletion case. It comes down to some basic questions in policy interpretation: Is it too much to have three non-free images as the sole images in a featured article? Can we use a non-free image of a non-free underlying design, if a free photo (but not totally free) could be created of the underlying design? What if the object is rare, and the copyright holder of the photo is also the copyright holder of the underlying design? These aren't spelled out clearly in policy; you just have to look at the non-binding precedents of how consensus tends to interpret policy, along with the specific argument made in this case. I certainly wouldn't have called foul if the closing admin had chosen to keep the image. But it looks to me like the closing admin read all arguments carefully, understood policy, and made a call in good faith. So I don't see a reason to overturn. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I'm sorry, but I must disagree that this matter is so gray. In regard to the free photo aspect, if a photo has a non-free underlying design, then there is no way it can be free photo. It is a derivative work and ineligible to be free. I had an image up for deletion at Commons for the extra same reason. The panel artwork is copyrighted and supersedes any free aspect of the photograph. How can I replace the deleted Marble Madness image with a free version if the object is inherently non-free? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply] As I explained earlier, a non-free photo of a non-free underlying design violates two copyrights. A freely-licensed photo of a free underlying design only violates one. The new material (making a photo out of the item) is subject to additional copyright protection. It's true that it will always be a derivative work, and the underlying material will always be subject to Atari's copyright (so a freely-licensed photo of this could not be hosted on Commons), but the new material (choice of angle and lighting and placement for the photo) could be free material, and we're using someone's copyright on this needlessly. That's how we've consistently handled non-free photos of non-free statues, etc. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Regardless of how many copyrights are violated, so long as one still exists, the picture is not completely free. NFCC#1 states "No free equivalent", which we do not have. I'm sorry, but I still maintain that the image did not violate NFCC. Do you have links for the similar non-free photos you mention? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply] I understand your position. And your reading is not totally off-the-wall or in direct contravention of policy or anything. It's just that in general, Wikipedia consensus has interpreted NFCC#1 in cases like these to mean that a "free equivalent" would be a freely-licensed photo of non-free content, even if that photo would be a derivative image and require compliance with our NFCC. If consensus routinely went according to your reading, I'd understand -- I have no stake in this either way -- and I'd be arguing that non-free images of non-free statues should be allowed in every case. But consensus didn't go according to your reading, and it rarely does. Drilnoth's action were in line with the usual interpretation of policy in these circumstances, and were clearly in line with consensus. The image had a fair hearing. (P.S. I can't link to a free photo of this object, and it's quite possible that none currently exists. As you know, that doesn't satisfy NFCC#1 unless it can be shown that it would be impossible to create one.) All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I think you misunderstood my request, which was admittedly poorly-worded. I was asking for links to the discussions about the non-free photos of non-free statues. I would like to read more about the consensus you mentioned. Please post them on my talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply] Overturn or relist I think #1 is trivially met as the nom of this DrV argues. That means we've got one keep !vote and one delete !vote based in actual policy. So relist might be a good option, but I can't see a deletion. That said, if it can be shown that that it is possible to have a photo of the cabenet that is free, I'd say deletion is the correct option. We really need some of the IfD regulars to weigh in on if #1 applies here or not. My reading is that it does not, but I'm not an expert. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse given the discussion below, I think NFCC#1 isn't met. Thanks to all for the clarifications on our image policy and how issues with the Commons can be resolved. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] I have now requested this at Wikipedia_talk:Files for deletion#Request for opinions. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. The remit of deletion review is limited to verifying that the deletion process was properly followed and the discussion was interpreted and closed correctly. It is not in order to reargue matters that were considered at the FFD. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] WP:DRV states it is for "challenging deletion decisions". I followed the directions by contacting the closing admin, who mentioned I could start a discussion here. The issue of NFCC#1 was not adequately discussed in the FfD and I believe that affected the closer's decision. And while I believe Drilnoth acted in good faith, I don't believe the debate reflected policy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply] If you stop reading after the first few words, yes it does, if however you take it in the context as written which includes numbered points (2) and (3) and "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] There is precedent for re-arguing matters considered at the XFD here, as Stifle well knows, since he was the closer here. And I think it was well-established at that discussion that there does need to be a place where someone can bring a case on the grounds that the deletion discussion was simply wrong, and that DRV is as appropriate a venue as any other. Having said that, the circumstances were exceptional and in this case, they aren't exceptional at all. I think this closure was a valid reading of the consensus available to the closer at the time, so I endorse deletion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I disagree in your reading of that, and one such discussion out of the many turned away is hardly a precedent (not that wikipedia does precedent anyway if we want to change the purpose of DRV it shouldn't be self determined but opened to a more general community consensus). Having skimmed that particular discussion there seem to be a few things (a) process issues - admin deciding on the basis of contrary decisions in two related discussions essentially picking one to be correct (b) process issues pretty deeply embedded in wikipedia about participation in CFD (not easily fixed) (c) new information not properly considered in the debate - If a rearguing of the debate was needed the correct outcome would have been relist to reargue it in the correct venue (We wouldn't want to suffer a similar issue to (b) relating to the partcipation/focus of DRV) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Withdraw request for review: Apparently this is not the proper avenue for this as a larger issue is at the root for this specific case. I thank everyone for their time. Though I don't appreciate the comment that I did not read the page's instruction. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply] I think this was a reasonable basis for a DrV. That argument that the closer misunderstood policy is a strong one in a DrV. The job of the closer is to weigh the arguments. If NFCC#1 doesn't apply here (and while I think doesn't it isn't clear), the close was probably wrong and coming to DrV was the right thing. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)][reply] I also agree that this was a reasonable basis for a DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] continue the review . . This is the appropriate place for discussing whether policy is reasonably applied. I agree with Hobbit about that 100%. A close that gives an unreasonable result, or a result against policy is an erroneous close. When we say this is not XfD2 we mean we shouldn't generally discuss the ultimate settlement of the matter at issue from scratch in a case like this, but send it back for further discussion. However, the line is very blurry, because if the closer did not at least reasonably correctly interpret policy, the close is bad. Everything needs a method of review. ( In this case, it may end up as a rediscussion of the NFCC#1 to clarify what the community wants the policy to be). DGG (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] overturn and relist Getting to the review at hand, i think its clear that further discussion is needed, and the best place to start this is with a relisted IfD. This deletion is an over-rigid interpretation of image policy. If we need fair use to make a good article, and if it is fair use, we should do so. DGG (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion The 3D shape of a generic videogame cabinet is not copyrightable. The distorted, downsampled graphic decorations on the cabinet and its screen are of an inferior quality and don't hold any reasonable threat to the intellectual property holder's ability to distribute or profit from them. So, take a free picture of the cabinet as one of several machines installed in an arcade. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] But the folks on the commons, where any free image would end up, think that any image of the cabinet is derivative. How do we resolve that? Hobit (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] There are similar images on the commons, see File:Mspacman and galaga act like israel and palestine.JPG. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] As you know, just because something isn't deleted yet doesn't mean it fits policy. The deletion debate on the commons is linked to above, and the consenous there seems to be that no free image of this game can exist. Hobit (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - closed correctly. The delete arguments based on Non-free content criteria #1, no free equivalent, were the most convincing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion, any incidental inclusion of artwork would probably be de minimis anyway in a free photograph if it were a photograph of the control panel. Last time I checked, the utilitarian or industrial aspects of an object are not copyrightable. In addition, I don't think all the Marble Madness cabinets randomly stood up and walked away into heaven enough to have a fair use justification.ViperSnake151 Talk 21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Image policy question If the common's refuses to host a free version of this image, we can host it here correct? They seem set on not hosting such an image (see link above). If that's fine, then I agree with the deletion. If not, we have a real problem with the application of NFCC#1. 02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC) If a free replacement for this image can be created, I see no reason why it could not be hosted here. Commons has a stricter definition of free than ours (it requires images to be free in the USA and in the home country). Stifle (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Note: Commons hosts File:Donkey Kong arcade.png, which is used in a featured article here. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:37, 3 May 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:MarbleMadnessCabinet.png – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The reasons for deletion were violations of WP:NFCC #1 and #3, but I believe the image was deleted in error.

Because the image has copyrighted content, no free image can exist. Even if the photographer waives their copyright, the content is still a derivative piece and illegible for a free license. I base this assumption on my interpretations on Commons:Commons:Derivative works Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-08-11/Dispatches. As such, NFCC#1 is satisfied because a free equivalent is not available.

NFCC#3 states "Minimal usage" and "Minimal extent of use". Yes, there are other non-free images used in the Marble Madness article, but each one adds something to the article. This not only showed the physical object, but marketing images used to attract customers and the trackball control system. Based on what I've read in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, I believed minimal usage meant to avoid redundancy and maximize significance, not simply keep the number as low as possible. In regard to the NFCC#3b, the image was a minimal extent of use; it was less than 1/3 of the original flyer and low resolution. Also, I have never heard of NFCC#3 applying to the number of copyrights involved in image placement on Wikipedia. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:23, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Endorse deletion: I, personally, have no opinion on whether or not this file should be deleted. I deleted it because that is what the consensus seemed to be, and I still feel that that was the consensus. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 20:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my main issue is that the consensus did not accurately reflect policy. So while more people felt the image should be deleted, I believe the NFCC policy was applied incorrectly in their rationales. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I didn't just take a head count or anything; all of the arguments, for both "keep" and "delete", seemed logically based upon policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drilnoth (talk • contribs) 20:24, April 28, 2009

I know it wasn't as clear cut as that, and apologize if my comment came across as that. I don't think the FfD was discussed as well as it should have been. But, that was more a result of only four people participating. You came to a conclusion as best you could from a discussion consisting of only seven postings. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment. Note: The nominator and two commentors (including myself) recommended that the image be deleted. The uploader (Guyinblack25) argued that it should be kept. Good points were made on both sides. An uninvolved (and self-described inclusionist) admin deleted the image, agreeing that it was a close call, but judging that consensus required the image's deletion. Note also that the article it is used on is a featured article. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. This was a tough call. I recommended deletion, but I found that arguments on both sides were convincing. It's almost a textbook example of a difficult deletion case. It comes down to some basic questions in policy interpretation: Is it too much to have three non-free images as the sole images in a featured article? Can we use a non-free image of a non-free underlying design, if a free photo (but not totally free) could be created of the underlying design? What if the object is rare, and the copyright holder of the photo is also the copyright holder of the underlying design? These aren't spelled out clearly in policy; you just have to look at the non-binding precedents of how consensus tends to interpret policy, along with the specific argument made in this case. I certainly wouldn't have called foul if the closing admin had chosen to keep the image. But it looks to me like the closing admin read all arguments carefully, understood policy, and made a call in good faith. So I don't see a reason to overturn. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I must disagree that this matter is so gray. In regard to the free photo aspect, if a photo has a non-free underlying design, then there is no way it can be free photo. It is a derivative work and ineligible to be free.

I had an image up for deletion at Commons for the extra same reason. The panel artwork is copyrighted and supersedes any free aspect of the photograph. How can I replace the deleted Marble Madness image with a free version if the object is inherently non-free? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 20:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

As I explained earlier, a non-free photo of a non-free underlying design violates two copyrights. A freely-licensed photo of a free underlying design only violates one. The new material (making a photo out of the item) is subject to additional copyright protection. It's true that it will always be a derivative work, and the underlying material will always be subject to Atari's copyright (so a freely-licensed photo of this could not be hosted on Commons), but the new material (choice of angle and lighting and placement for the photo) could be free material, and we're using someone's copyright on this needlessly. That's how we've consistently handled non-free photos of non-free statues, etc. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of how many copyrights are violated, so long as one still exists, the picture is not completely free. NFCC#1 states "No free equivalent", which we do not have. I'm sorry, but I still maintain that the image did not violate NFCC.

Do you have links for the similar non-free photos you mention? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I understand your position. And your reading is not totally off-the-wall or in direct contravention of policy or anything. It's just that in general, Wikipedia consensus has interpreted NFCC#1 in cases like these to mean that a "free equivalent" would be a freely-licensed photo of non-free content, even if that photo would be a derivative image and require compliance with our NFCC. If consensus routinely went according to your reading, I'd understand -- I have no stake in this either way -- and I'd be arguing that non-free images of non-free statues should be allowed in every case. But consensus didn't go according to your reading, and it rarely does. Drilnoth's action were in line with the usual interpretation of policy in these circumstances, and were clearly in line with consensus. The image had a fair hearing. (P.S. I can't link to a free photo of this object, and it's quite possible that none currently exists. As you know, that doesn't satisfy NFCC#1 unless it can be shown that it would be impossible to create one.) All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 22:34, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood my request, which was admittedly poorly-worded. I was asking for links to the discussions about the non-free photos of non-free statues. I would like to read more about the consensus you mentioned. Please post them on my talk page. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Overturn or relist I think #1 is trivially met as the nom of this DrV argues. That means we've got one keep !vote and one delete !vote based in actual policy. So relist might be a good option, but I can't see a deletion. That said, if it can be shown that that it is possible to have a photo of the cabenet that is free, I'd say deletion is the correct option. We really need some of the IfD regulars to weigh in on if #1 applies here or not. My reading is that it does not, but I'm not an expert. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse given the discussion below, I think NFCC#1 isn't met. Thanks to all for the clarifications on our image policy and how issues with the Commons can be resolved. Hobit (talk) 00:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have now requested this at Wikipedia_talk:Files for deletion#Request for opinions. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The remit of deletion review is limited to verifying that the deletion process was properly followed and the discussion was interpreted and closed correctly. It is not in order to reargue matters that were considered at the FFD. Stifle (talk) 20:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:DRV states it is for "challenging deletion decisions". I followed the directions by contacting the closing admin, who mentioned I could start a discussion here.
  The issue of NFCC#1 was not adequately discussed in the FfD and I believe that affected the closer's decision. And while I believe Drilnoth acted in good faith, I don't believe the debate reflected policy. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  - If you stop reading after the first few words, yes it does, if however you take it in the context as written which includes numbered points (2) and (3) and "This process should not be used simply because you disagree with a deletion debate's outcome for reasons previously presented but instead if you think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly or have some significant new information pertaining to the debate that was not available on Wikipedia during the debate." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is precedent for re-arguing matters considered at the XFD here, as Stifle well knows, since he was the closer here. And I think it was well-established at that discussion that there does need to be a place where someone can bring a case on the grounds that the deletion discussion was simply wrong, and that DRV is as appropriate a venue as any other.

Having said that, the circumstances were exceptional and in this case, they aren't exceptional at all.

I think this closure was a valid reading of the consensus available to the closer at the time, so I endorse deletion.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree in your reading of that, and one such discussion out of the many turned away is hardly a precedent (not that wikipedia does precedent anyway if we want to change the purpose of DRV it shouldn't be self determined but opened to a more general community consensus). Having skimmed that particular discussion there seem to be a few things (a) process issues - admin deciding on the basis of contrary decisions in two related discussions essentially picking one to be correct (b) process issues pretty deeply embedded in wikipedia about participation in CFD (not easily fixed) (c) new information not properly considered in the debate - If a rearguing of the debate was needed the correct outcome would have been relist to reargue it in the correct venue (We wouldn't want to suffer a similar issue to (b) relating to the partcipation/focus of DRV) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw request for review: Apparently this is not the proper avenue for this as a larger issue is at the root for this specific case. I thank everyone for their time. Though I don't appreciate the comment that I did not read the page's instruction. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- I think this was a reasonable basis for a DrV. That argument that the closer misunderstood policy is a strong one in a DrV. The job of the closer is to weigh the arguments. If NFCC#1 doesn't apply here (and while I think doesn't it isn't clear), the close was probably wrong and coming to DrV was the right thing. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)][reply]
- I also agree that this was a reasonable basis for a DRV. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
continue the review . . This is the appropriate place for discussing whether policy is reasonably applied. I agree with Hobbit about that 100%. A close that gives an unreasonable result, or a result against policy is an erroneous close. When we say this is not XfD2 we mean we shouldn't generally discuss the ultimate settlement of the matter at issue from scratch in a case like this, but send it back for further discussion. However, the line is very blurry, because if the closer did not at least reasonably correctly interpret policy, the close is bad. Everything needs a method of review. ( In this case, it may end up as a rediscussion of the NFCC#1 to clarify what the community wants the policy to be). DGG (talk) 03:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
overturn and relist Getting to the review at hand, i think its clear that further discussion is needed, and the best place to start this is with a relisted IfD. This deletion is an over-rigid interpretation of image policy. If we need fair use to make a good article, and if it is fair use, we should do so. DGG (talk) 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion The 3D shape of a generic videogame cabinet is not copyrightable. The distorted, downsampled graphic decorations on the cabinet and its screen are of an inferior quality and don't hold any reasonable threat to the intellectual property holder's ability to distribute or profit from them. So, take a free picture of the cabinet as one of several machines installed in an arcade. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But the folks on the commons, where any free image would end up, think that any image of the cabinet is derivative. How do we resolve that? Hobit (talk) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There are similar images on the commons, see File:Mspacman and galaga act like israel and palestine.JPG. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - As you know, just because something isn't deleted yet doesn't mean it fits policy. The deletion debate on the commons is linked to above, and the consenous there seems to be that no free image of this game can exist. Hobit (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - closed correctly. The delete arguments based on Non-free content criteria #1, no free equivalent, were the most convincing. PhilKnight (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, any incidental inclusion of artwork would probably be de minimis anyway in a free photograph if it were a photograph of the control panel. Last time I checked, the utilitarian or industrial aspects of an object are not copyrightable. In addition, I don't think all the Marble Madness cabinets randomly stood up and walked away into heaven enough to have a fair use justification.ViperSnake151 Talk 21:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image policy question If the common's refuses to host a free version of this image, we can host it here correct? They seem set on not hosting such an image (see link above). If that's fine, then I agree with the deletion. If not, we have a real problem with the application of NFCC#1. 02:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
- If a free replacement for this image can be created, I see no reason why it could not be hosted here. Commons has a stricter definition of free than ours (it requires images to be free in the USA and in the home country). Stifle (talk) 13:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Commons hosts File:Donkey Kong arcade.png, which is used in a featured article here. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:37, 3 May 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:May be Disturbing.gif – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:May be Disturbing.gif (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) This file is necessary to have on this site as a historic rejected idea. The deletion votes have neglected this very reason. The image is used in one page - a historicaly rejected idea per WP:NOT censored... -- Cat ^chi? 15:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC) Endorse deletion per the consensus at FFD; DRV is not FFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Consider Considering the obscurity of the process for anyone but the regulars, a decision there can reasonably be challenged here as unreasonable. DGG (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Given that most FFDs are closed as delete with nobody other than the nominator contributing, an FFD with three additional delete !votes is a thundering consensus by its standards. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] exactly---a process that 3 people can control is not a fair process. It's OK for routine matters when not challenged, but is not suitable for challenged issues. DGG (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] If someone wants to challenge the issue, the right time and place to do it is the FFD. Anyone viewing the image, or the article where it is used, can see that the image is nominated for deletion and take appropriate action. You snooze, you lose. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] in other words, and using the same informal language without any personal reflection, if one succeeds in sneaking something past, one has gotten away with it? DGG (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] It's been known to happen. I suppose the problem at discussions in general is that if one can muster up enough people to support a position, they'll "win". Stifle (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I don't think the "You snooze, you lose" stance is reasonable. I have a life outside of Wikipedia and someone could easily try to sneak a deletion past me when I'm having a week-long holiday or something. If there's a reason not discussed in the original debate or if there are valid concerns the existing vote was a pile-on, a DRV is perfectly acceptable to gain an idea of what the consensus actually is. - Mgm\|^(talk) 15:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. Unused file, and there are no problems apparent at all at the deletion discussion. The censorship argument--which is so vague as to be entirely meaningless even if there were some foundation to it--has already been tried. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] YES which is exactly why image should be kept. So that the past discussion is properly archived as a rejected idea. If the archive is incomplete about the issues that were tried, what is the point of archiving? -- Cat ^chi? 07:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Your rebuttal does not make the slightest bit of sense. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment: I, the deleter, was not notified. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse my own deletion: the nominator and three other people !voted for deletion. Only White Cat wanted it kept, and then took the case to AN/I and then here once the image was deleted. It is not used, but is referenced on 12 pages: 8 in discussions about this deletion and review (including here and AN/I), and 4 times on outdated copies of an "admin toolbox" by an absent Wikipedian. Like all other commentors (except White Cat), I don't believe the image to be useful. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion - Upon checking, there seems to be no problem with the original FFD, hence the deletion directives should be respected and maintained. I see no reasons to support a DRV unless to attempt at a take 2 in FFD, which is not accepted by Wikipedia policy. Diana LeCrois : 21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist Everything can be reviewed. A discussion with insufficient participation is not a fair discussion, and therefore there is indeed something wrong with it. . Basic fairness is behind all Wikipedia policy. The community is the whole community. There is a fundamental issue here: we are all agreed the use of this image is against policy. Does that imply it should not be kept as an example?or is the example too dangerous to keep, like samples of smallpox? I'm not sure myself what I think on this, and I would like to hear what a wide variety of other people think. DGG (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Comment: Why not just upload this to the Commons? Add a note explaining the disclaimer's potential usage and find a relevant image category. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] I don't see it in commons' scope. It belongs here. -- Cat ^chi? 07:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Perhaps, but I've yet to see you convince any contributor of its necessity on en.wiki. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply] Request can someone please either restore the image or describe it please? Consenous in the IfD seems strong, but DGG's issues here make me want to understand exactly what is going on. Hobit (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] It reads 'The content of this image may be disturbing for some viewers. Please click on the link below to view this image.' PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] thanks. We keep around free images just for userspace. Can someone give me a policy-based reason why this should be deleted? I never saw one. Is there a fear this might be misused? Hobit (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] It is not used, even in userspace. It isn't useful in an encyclopedia. And the fact that it's linked to (not displayed, but linked to) in "Admin toolboxes" does indicate that in could be misused. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply] Endorse* - closed in accordance with consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 2 May 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:May be Disturbing.gif – deletion endorsed – Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

This file is necessary to have on this site as a historic rejected idea. The deletion votes have neglected this very reason. The image is used in one page - a historicaly rejected idea per WP:NOT censored... -- Cat ^chi? 15:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Endorse deletion per the consensus at FFD; DRV is not FFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 15:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Considering the obscurity of the process for anyone but the regulars, a decision there can reasonably be challenged here as unreasonable. DGG (talk) 17:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Given that most FFDs are closed as delete with nobody other than the nominator contributing, an FFD with three additional delete !votes is a thundering consensus by its standards. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - exactly---a process that 3 people can control is not a fair process. It's OK for routine matters when not challenged, but is not suitable for challenged issues. DGG (talk) 14:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If someone wants to challenge the issue, the right time and place to do it is the FFD. Anyone viewing the image, or the article where it is used, can see that the image is nominated for deletion and take appropriate action. You snooze, you lose. Stifle (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - in other words, and using the same informal language without any personal reflection, if one succeeds in sneaking something past, one has gotten away with it? DGG (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's been known to happen. I suppose the problem at discussions in general is that if one can muster up enough people to support a position, they'll "win". Stifle (talk) 08:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the "You snooze, you lose" stance is reasonable. I have a life outside of Wikipedia and someone could easily try to sneak a deletion past me when I'm having a week-long holiday or something. If there's a reason not discussed in the original debate or if there are valid concerns the existing vote was a pile-on, a DRV is perfectly acceptable to gain an idea of what the consensus actually is. - Mgm|^(talk) 15:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Unused file, and there are no problems apparent at all at the deletion discussion. The censorship argument--which is so vague as to be entirely meaningless even if there were some foundation to it--has already been tried. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- YES which is exactly why image should be kept. So that the past discussion is properly archived as a rejected idea. If the archive is incomplete about the issues that were tried, what is the point of archiving? -- Cat ^chi? 07:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Your rebuttal does not make the slightest bit of sense. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I, the deleter, was not notified. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my own deletion: the nominator and three other people !voted for deletion. Only White Cat wanted it kept, and then took the case to AN/I and then here once the image was deleted. It is not used, but is referenced on 12 pages: 8 in discussions about this deletion and review (including here and AN/I), and 4 times on outdated copies of an "admin toolbox" by an absent Wikipedian. Like all other commentors (except White Cat), I don't believe the image to be useful. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Upon checking, there seems to be no problem with the original FFD, hence the deletion directives should be respected and maintained. I see no reasons to support a DRV unless to attempt at a take 2 in FFD, which is not accepted by Wikipedia policy. Diana LeCrois : 21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Everything can be reviewed. A discussion with insufficient participation is not a fair discussion, and therefore there is indeed something wrong with it. . Basic fairness is behind all Wikipedia policy. The community is the whole community. There is a fundamental issue here: we are all agreed the use of this image is against policy. Does that imply it should not be kept as an example?or is the example too dangerous to keep, like samples of smallpox? I'm not sure myself what I think on this, and I would like to hear what a wide variety of other people think. DGG (talk) 03:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Why not just upload this to the Commons? Add a note explaining the disclaimer's potential usage and find a relevant image category. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 07:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see it in commons' scope. It belongs here. -- Cat ^chi? 07:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
  - Perhaps, but I've yet to see you convince any contributor of its necessity on en.wiki. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Request can someone please either restore the image or describe it please? Consenous in the IfD seems strong, but DGG's issues here make me want to understand exactly what is going on. Hobit (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It reads 'The content of this image may be disturbing for some viewers. Please click on the link below to view this image.' PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - thanks. *We keep around free images just for userspace. Can someone give me a policy-based reason why this should be deleted? I never saw one. Is there a fear this might be misused? Hobit (talk) 02:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is not used, even in userspace. It isn't useful in an encyclopedia. And the fact that it's linked to (not displayed, but linked to) in "Admin toolboxes" does indicate that in could be misused. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - closed in accordance with consensus. PhilKnight (talk) 20:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.