Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 30

30 October 2007

Image:Manti-1999.jpg

File:Manti-1999.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

No consensus to delete - deleting admin was the only "delete" vote, citing only his subjective evaluation of the image's "quality" as rationale for deletion. See WP:IFD#Image:Manti-1999.jpg Reswobslc 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion - The image was deleted with the reasoning "It's a lineup family photo which does not illustrate any point in particular. This photo is not encyclopedic quality." The person who uploaded the image listed it for deletion at IfD because people are placing the image in selected Mormonism articles where the combination of the article text and the image raised serious WP:BLP concerns. As noted by the deleting admin, the only legitimate place for the photo is the uploader's userpage. WP:CSD#G7 Author requests deletion applies. -- Jreferee t/c 03:09, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Although my !vote in the IfD is listed as "Keep", I was ready to change it after the subsequent discussion at the IfD and here. Image is unnecessary for illustrating the point it was being used for in Anti-Mormon, and it is unclear (not to mention contrary to the testimony of the user who posed in and uploaded the image) that the people involved were engaged in any anti-Mormon behavior. In fact, it is not clear what the people are doing at all, which is what makes the picture un-encyclopedic. A year ago, one of the current "Keep" !votes called this image "not appropriate," citing many of the arguments now being given by FCYTravis, Jref, and myself. Finally, it is common courtesy to delete an unnecessary image at the request of a person pictured in it. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 04:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion Too many reasons to fully enumerate, but they include WP:CSD#G7, WP:BLP, and that the consensus of the IFD was to delete. GRBerry 13:14, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment At what point do the terms of the GFDL (WP:NOREVOKE) begin to count? Does licensing one's contributions "mercilessly" edited or redistributed by others mean anything. And what part of the IfD looks like a consensus to delete, with only one person out of six saying "delete" and a second weakly agreeing? Reswobslc 13:20, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOREVOKE is mainly concerned with text contributions to WP. If you decide to leave WP, you can't go back and edit out all the text you had previously added. Images are much less integral to the encyclopedia, and not actually mentioned in WP:NOREVOKE. The most convincing arguments by far, I think, are WP:CSD#G7 and WP:BLP and common courtesy (perhaps a form of WP:IAR). --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 15:22, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I suppose those are fair. I suppose if there is any personal bias of my own I can identify for wanting that image in Anti-Mormon, it's because the people in it are normal and harmless looking, which counters the stereotype of venomous evil teeth gnashers of Satan that Mormons paint "anti-Mormons" to be. And I suppose the author's desire to delete the image is for the exact same reason - he doesn't want to be framed with a term that draws to mind venomous evil teeth gnashers of Satan. Then again, if it weren't an uphill battle against Mormon editors, I would move for the outright truncation of Anti-Mormon to be more like the Nigger article perhaps - emphasizing it more as a word and not as a so-called WP:COATRACK for Mormons' persecution complex in the first place. Reswobslc 16:27, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Thomas_H._Chance

Thomas_H._Chance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Thomas H. Chance is the author of the preeminently authoritative analysis of Plato's dialogue Euthydemus. larvatus 02:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus

• Uh, I get 12 cites for his "Plato's Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and Is Not Philosophy" on Web of Science, or for his whole academic output for that matter. Any evidence for its authorativeness? Endorse until then. ~ trialsanderrors 02:49, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you know of a more authoritative study of this dialogue? More importantly, Wikipedia's criteria of notability for academics are definitely satisfied by publication of a significant and well-known academic work. Thus I quote: "Wikipedia editors should consider not only the absolute number of citations (as provided by a citation index) but also the number relative to other publications in the same field which are generally acknowledged to be important." Please do so. Larvatus 04:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
    • In other words, no new evidence. ~ trialsanderrors 06:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • Only a new reference to standing Wikipedia policy. Please address my point. Larvatus 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
• Endorse deletion No new information. His analysis was mentioned in the article, and didn't sway the AfD commenters, who voted unanimously to delete. In other words, nothing's changed, valid AfD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • As proven above, deletion ran counter to the black letter law of Wikipedia. Larvatus 04:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
    • The only thing Wikipedia has that's even arguably "black letter law" are the Foundation issues. Everything else is either a direct consequence of those, or descriptive results of low-level consensus-forming debates such as this article's afd. —Cryptic 06:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
      • I stand corrected. Even so, this deletion clearly runs counter to standing policy statement on academic notability. One or the other has to go. Larvatus 13:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
        • I'm sorry, just where is this policy satement on academic notability? Corvus cornix 21:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
          • Here it is. Larvatus 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
    • Oh, well that's different then... or would be, if the "black letter law of Wikipedia" weren't something you just made up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse Unanimous AFD, no new information or arguments here, no procedural problems. GRBerry 13:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse unanimous deletion. Deletion review is a place to explain how the deletion process was followed, not to run to the other parent for a better answer. Stifle (talk) 20:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Deletion review is a necessary way station before arbitration. Larvatus 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
• Endorse - Unanimous AFD. In reply to the Wikipedia:Notability_(academics) quote, if a Wikipedia reliable source doesn't say it, you can't include it in a Wikipedia article. Even if he is important, you can't write about it in a Wikipedia article without the information being based on independent reliable source material. Comment - The H.W.Wilson Company's Ancient Philosophy (Waterfield, Robin; March 1995; Volume 15; page 191) reviewed Chance's book "Plato's Euthydemus." Also, there is Google book search and Google scholar search. There might be enough reliable source material for an article on Plato's Euthydemus: Analysis of What Is and Is Not Philosophy (book). -- Jreferee t/c 02:32, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Does it make sense to cover the book but not its author? Larvatus 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)larvatus
    • I can never make sense of what reliable sources choose to cover. You would think they would write about the author. If they don't there's isn't much Wikipedia can do to force them to. Also, violating WP:V, WP:OR, and other article standards to cover Thomas H. Chance in Wikipedia does not make sense. -- Jreferee t/c 15:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)