Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 15

15 September 2008

Visual gallery of toucans

Visual gallery of toucans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)

The deletion debate was closed in a single day, which gave no time for the debate to form. The reason given for deletion is wrong, because the article is not a photograph gallery.

I could write more about this, but to be succint: I have never saw an encyclopedia that does not have visual identification galleries. Nikola (talk) 04:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lt Clayton.JPG

File:Lt Clayton.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD | article)

Closed by myself as keep on the basis that the discussion consensus had image meeting the non-free-content rules, specifically WP:NFC, unacceptable use, images#12
This closure has been contested and I'm bringing it here for discussion/possibly overturning of the closure. Personally I believe that the image does not meet the NFC rules but that consensus in the discussion was that it did. The general bent of those seeking to keep the image is that it is sufficiently iconic of the person that a later image would not be as encyclopedic/iconic as this one is. Those on the delete side both at the IfD and later see that the image does not pass this bar. Discussion of this type of issue (a non-free image of a living person) at WT:NFC seems far from reaching a conclusive consensus. Peripitus (Talk) 03:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. The question seems close to me, and in such cases consensus decides. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn At the risk of turning this into IfD2, I disagree with the statement that the image represents a view that is iconic or encyclopedic. It appears to be a relatively poor image of the subject in uniform. The image is meant to illustrate the POW's from the falklands war, but has been cropped so much that it doesn't do that. I sympathize with the closer. Consensus versus policy is hard to judge in the image deletion threads, given the low number of participants and the very explicit policy. I wish that we would devise a method to treat image deletions so that we can avoid the bureaucracy of closing a debate contrary to policy in order to relist it at DRV, but closing IfD debates against consensus appears to have the same result. Sigh. Protonk (talk) 03:55, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn. With all respect for Peripitus' stance in defering to majority opinion even against his own judgment in closing this, I don't believe this is a good idea in an NFC case. These cases are different from normal XfDs, in that deletion may be mandatory under policy even against local consensus, and in such a conflict a closing admin must follow his own understanding of what the policy demands (or refrain from closing altogether, if they feel they can't do that.) In this case, I think Peripitus too readily defered to numbers, contrary to the principle that IfD is not a vote. Many of the keep votes were demonstrably faulty, being based on a misunderstanding of policy. One voter had claimed there was a special exception for old images of uniformed soldiers who are now retired, and subsequent voters voted "keep as per...", taking this claim at face value as a valid statement of policy. Later discussion has clearly established that this exception doesn't exist in policy and was purely a private opinion (see discussion at WT:NFC, where consensus is clearly against the interpretation made at the IfD). This image is as straightforward a case of replaceable-qua-living-person as any. The living-persons rule is one of the few NFC components that are directly dictated by the Foundation, and it is not within the purview of IfD discussions to water it down with arbitrarily vague interpretations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)