Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 10: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:13, 16 October 2008

< October 9	Deletion review archives: 2008 October	October 11 >

10 October 2008

Category:Fictional_obsessive-compulsives

This is unfortunately just the latest in a series of questionable closes by Kdbank71 and one of several closes of CfDs for which the only explanation was "The result of the discussion was: delete", even where there was opposition to the close that addressed specific justifications for why the category should be retained. Multiple attempts to obtain any explanation for any of these closes was refused. As I explained at the most egregious of these CfDs, there is ample evidence of character's being described -- and defined -- as Obsessive-compulsive in reliable sources, which addresses the nominator's justification for the deletion, as well as all of the subsequent "per noms". The article "TV cop fights crime, own tics: Shalhoub is outstanding as obsessive-compulsive S.F. officer" describes Adrian Monk by his well-known defining characteristic. "Actor Tony Randall, 84, 'Odd Couple' neatnik" describes Randall as achieving his "... most enduring fame on television as Felix Unger, the obsessive-compulsive neat-freak photographer..." Frasier character Niles Crane is "diagnosed" by a professional interviewed by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer as having OCD (see "Local professionals weigh in on 'Frasier'"). The article "Desperate measures", labels Desperate Housewives character Bree Van de Kamp as fitting in this category, noting "Sure, Bree is obsessive-compulsive." These are just a handful of the reliable and verifiable independent sources that I found in a brief search that are defining the characters included in this category as "Obsessive-compulsive". Thousands of other sources are available to demonstrate that this is a defining characteristic and to place these articles so listed in this category. It is likely that there's cleanup necessary for specific entries in this category that do not have any sources available to support the claim, but that is never an excuse for deleting an entire category. No original research is needed to come to the conclusion that this is a defining characteristic that belongs as a category. As the closing admin has ignored a clear argument supporting the retention of this category, has already started deleting the category despite his own request to take this to DRV, and as no policy argument was offered in the close despite multiple requests, this close is out of Wikipedia process and should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. Everyone else participating in the CFD thought this category was typically non-defining and that inclusion depended upon original research, which are valid grounds for deleting a category; that Alansohn still disagrees with those arguments does not provide proper DRV grounds for overturning. Further, the sources he cites above do not prove his position, but instead illustrate the widespread colloquial usage of "obsessive-compulsive" to describe neat-freak personality types rather than to exclusively identify clinically diagnosed psychiatric disorders. Vague character traits, whose significance really depends upon intra-fiction comparisons (such as between Felix and Oscar in The Odd Couple) make a poor basis for categorization. Note also that the same category for real people was previously deleted as non-defining; closing as delete the same category for fictional characters could hardly be considered unreasonable. As a closing note, it's regrettable that Alansohn has made this personal by attacking the closer with hyperbolic rhetoric, rather than just explaining why he thought this CFD should be overturned. That the closer did not elaborate upon his close is not only consistent with applicable deletion policy, but also unnecessary in a straightforward CFD such as this one. Postdlf (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "clinically diagnosed psychiatric disorder", this is a defining characteristic of many fictional characters used as a frequent device in print, television and movies. This is not a trait that a real-life person happens to have, it is a characteristic that has been explicitly and deliberately assigned by the fictional work's creator to define the character, and both casual viewers and the media at large have no problem in recognizing this trait and establishing it as defining, as for Adrian Monk, Felix Unger and other fictional characters. If closing a CfD in which the only justification offered is WP:OR, and multiple reliable, verifiable and independent sources for multiple characters demonstrating that the trait of being described as Obsessive-compulsive is defining and supported for individual characters can be simply ignored with a sniff and a wave of the hand, we have a real problem with the entire CfD system, not just this one out-of-process close. "Everyone else participating in the CFD thought this category was typically non-defining and that inclusion depended upon original research" ignores the multiple sources offered in rebuttal and seems to be defining consensus as a vote-counting exercise. Alansohn (talk) 18:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn deletionExcellent category for categorizing fictional characters. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is solely about whether the close was a proper interpretation of the CFD. Otto4711 (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's what is there now Category:People diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder and Category:Compulsive hoarding. Would it be that hard to rename the category to something like Category:Fictional people diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder? -- Suntag ☼ 21:15, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As helpful as the precedent is for retaining the roughly corresponding fictional category, it's not clear that the fictional "disease" is a perfect analog of the real-world one. Nor is there any formal process by which fictional characters can be diagnosed as having obsessive-compulsive disorder. The best way to handle this fictional category is through the kinds of reliable and verifiable independent sources that have already been provided describing the character and referencing the character trait for the particular character. Alansohn (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I see no reason to establish a "fictional" category for an existing real life category simply to differentiate it as fictional. If a viewer of an article wishes to see other examples of the content, they can receive redirection based on a real life category. If the fictional character can not be represented by the real life category for such a disorder as this, then they should not be characterized as such whether fictitious or not.--JavierMC 21:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Consensus was not clear, and the close was woefully inadequate with respect to an explanation. This should not be CfD2. Closing explanations should be complete without a need for a DRV to comprehend them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - DRV isn't CfD part deux. That said, I'm not opposed to a relisting. (Though I'm not sure what the purpose of it would be except for User:Alansohn to have another opportunity for Drama. Yes, I'm losing my good faith for his edits, especially per evidence here, and his harassment of Kbdank71 on Kbdank's talkpage - which apparently has led to a block.) - jc37 23:54, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is no DSM-IV for fictional characters and while it is certainly possible to add only characters who have been listed in sources as explicitly obsessive compuslive, it is far more likely that this would serve as an editor defined and populated category. It doesn't serve a navigational function since there isn't any fundamental commonality in Wallace Shawn's dinosaur from Toy Story and Adrian Monk. One is a cop (I gather) and one is a toy dinosaur. In practice, the category (from the CfD comments) was used in a fashion that contradicted WP:OR. Protonk (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Proper policy followed, close within discretion. MBisanz ^talk 04:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Closed in accordance with policy, although a bit more detail in the closing discussion would have been useful. Risker (talk) 04:42, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I won't say the close was wrong, but there wasn't a lot of activity in that CfD (which is the norm), and I think getting some more views on this could really help. For one, in the deletion nom it was said that it violated WP:OR by using primary sources. However, primary sources are not a violation of WP:OR when "used with care". A vast number of good fictionalX categories use primary sources and would clearly survive a CfD. Similar to Hiding's view in the CfD, I think if the criteria can be better/clearly defined then this would stand a better chance.
I'm no fan of fictional/pop-culture references about OCD. At least twice I've completely removed such a section from the OCD article itself for being excessive, filled with OR, and often being flat out false. However, there are a good number of fictional characters that are specifically stated to have OCD, and you don't have to worry about being excessive in a category (article existence pretty much determines inclusion).
So while I'm not convinced this was a bad close, I think we could benefit from continued discussion on it. -- Ned Scott 05:22, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - admin correctly interpreted the CFD and closed it appropriately. Closing admin is not required to provide a detailed explanation of each individual close so the lack of one is not a valid reason for overturning. Otto4711 (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not asking for individual detailed explanations, but a resonable explanation where consensus is less than obvious, or a link to one where a group of XfDs are collectively closed. As it stands, looking at this one CfD, the debate is unfinished and the close looks impulsive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; I could not see any other valid closure of that CFD. Stifle (talk) 22:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - While I think that the outcome could have been different since there are fictional characters created to have obsessive-compulsive disorder that would meet the DSM, I cannot see any other valid closure of that CFD. -- Suntag ☼ 00:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relist for wider participation CfD when it deals with a matter like this is a broken process, because it does not get enough attention. I do not understand the argument that the fictional people noteworthy for having this disorder should be put in the same category as the real. I do not know if we do it generally, but I certainly hope we do not, for it seems very confusing. Perhaps this should be discussed as a general question. However, there is another option, which is to use a list for them. It would have the advantage of showing what fiction they were in, which would help browsing. Close was not helpful; admins should be able to tell when the discussion is inadequate--in this case and the related ones the judgment that it was was wrong, & enough reason to relist. DGG (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse; To me it looks like a solid administrative close; Postdlf sums up my views well. Were I in the position of closer, I would have made the same action based on the discussion there. On a personal level and per the comments of jc37, Alansohn's behaviour regarding CfDs and their outcome is becoming somewhat tiresome. It's good to have editors care about CfDs and their outcome, but it also needs to be recognised that consensus can exist even if you yourself have disagreed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:00, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you have offered any reason as to why reliable and verifiable sources establishing the trait of a fictional character being obsessive compulsive as a defining characteristic should be ignored? How would you have justified the rationalization of the category failing WP:OR in the face of the multiple sources provided? Alansohn (talk) 01:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not necessarily; in this case, probably not. Closers are not required to "provide reasons" when they close CfDs. It can be helpful in some circumstances if they do, but when consensus is relatively clear in favour of a decision, it's usually best to let the comments speak for themselves. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:50, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Does "consensus" (which I interpret to assume you mean vote-counting) that the category violates WP:OR override multiple reliable and verifiable sources showing that the character trait is defining in general and that it is defining for the individuals included in the category? In the AfD world, sources convincingly beat a claim of WP:OR not unlike a royal flush beats a pair of threes in poker. In the CfD world, these same rules don't appear to apply, nor does there appear to be any willingness to acknowledge that such sources might even be worth considering as a justification for retention. The lack of a justification for deletion in the face of a well-sourced argument for retention -- even if permitted by policy -- only emphasizes an apparent disregard of WP:RS and WP:V, the bedrock foundations of Wikipedia. It is this most unfortunate tendency that undermines the validity of the extremely tenuous argument for "consensus" and "precedent" at CfD. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Your assumptions are ill-founded. No, consensus ≠ vote counting. How many times must this be stated to you, Alansohn? I don't believe it, and I don't know of any admin who does. Theoretically, one editor's position could prevail over half a dozen opposite opinions. However, the minority opinion would have to be fairly convincing and based on sound policy, whereas the other opinions would have to be based on rubbish. While you may see this as applying in this case, I wouldn't view it that way. Don't be afraid to show some modesty about your own opinions; there's also no need to trash others', especially when they are explicitly asked for. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        My modesty in my logic only stands in stark contrast to your belief in the complete and total omniscience of administrators. I have explained that reliable sources > claims of WP:OR. That's what we have here. Maybe if you -- or more importantly Kbdank71 -- would bother to explain why these multiple verifiable and reliable sources should be be ignored, you might have me convinced. This "minority opinion" (again, with the vote counting!) offering sources to support retention trumps the "original research" excuse for deletion. Only in the Bizarro world of CfD does this not even merit an explanation of why it doesn't. If you can show me why the sources I have offered are not "sound policy" you would sound much more believable than just insisting that admin knows best. Alansohn (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Please stop ascribing beliefs to me that have no basis in fact. Your entire manner makes users not want to answer you. You want an answer—or it seems, a better answer—or at least one that conforms with your views of WP. Well, tough. You've asked for my opinion, and I gave it. I'm sorry that it didn't satisfy you, but that wasn't my goal. When you can learn to be civil, then maybe we'll talk about it in more detail. Besides, the point of a DRV is not to refight your battles of the CfD. It's to assess whether the close was appropriate. Here, there's no question, really. It's all coming dangerously close to WP:POINT. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        "Reliable sources > claims of WP:OR" is a ridiculously simplistic formulation that is bound to be wrong in many circumstances if it even means anything, because it always depends upon what sources are being used to establish, and upon what is argued to depend upon OR. You clearly don't believe that it is even reasonable for others to conclude that your reliable sources don't prove your points, but once again, your disagreement is not grounds for reversing. It is certainly reasonable to conclude that your cited sources do not prove that the term "obsessive-compulsive" is uniformly applied to fictional characters based on the same underlying criteria (particularly when it is unrooted from the defined psychiatric condition, as you've noted above), so they cannot automatically trump the position of the other participants in the CFD that inclusion in the category relies upon OR. It is also certainly reasonable to conclude that your cited sources do not unequivocally prove that "obsessive-compulsive" is necessarily, or even typically, a defining characteristic of fictional characters. Postdlf (talk) 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        There are a few bedrock Wikipedia policies that have gone by the wayside here: WP:V, WP:RS and WP:OR. These three policies are designed to work together so that Wikipedia information is reliable:
        Wikipedia:Verifiability states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth [emphasis in original] — that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."
        
        Wikipedia:No original research states "Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought.... Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented."
        
        Wikipedia:Reliable sources states "Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy."
        
        These three bedrock principles are what must guide all Wikipedia decision-making, and are policies that all editors, especially admins, should be aware of and should be applying as policy. These three policies could not be any clearer in establishing that reliable sources trump a claim of original research, what Postdlf calls a "ridiculously simplistic formulation". Postdlf seems to be demanding a standard of truth, in which the plain meaning of what sources say can be safely discarded because the term "Obsessive-compulsive" is not "uniformly applied to fictional characters", as if every term used in Wikipedia has been standardized to an absolute level of certainty and truth. Unfortunately, all we can do is take the term at face value, as we must with every other source on Wikipedia. Unlike the Wild West Bizarro World rules in place in the CfD world where sources provided to support claims need not even be examined, this is modus operandi at the real world of AfD. This series of edits to the article Ruse of war was conclusive in turning the tide at AfD and I could provide hundreds of other examples where AfD results were conclusively tilted to retention by the addition of sources. There is no reason that these same rules should not be applied at CfD. Is it possible that these sources are not reliable, or they are off topic? Perhaps. But of all of those supporting the close as within process, not one has bothered to address why the specific sources provided should be ignored here. They may be definitive, they may not, but all we have seen is a hypothetical justification used as an excuse to ignore reliable sources. Alansohn (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        DRV "is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly": WP:DRV. It's purpose is not to refight the CfD or to change what you view as deficiencies in the CfD process. There's no evidence that the discussion was misinterpreted. There is no evidence the closer did not consider your arguments presented in the discussion or that he somehow had ignored the fundamental policies of WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Sufficient evidence for a relist is the fact that the record doesn’t show a consensus (even rough), as points were made and not answered (vague references to a separate and length CfD are not good enough), appeals were made to the closing admin, the close lacked explanation. Someone has claimed that CfDs doen’t require explanations. Well, if they don’t, the policy is wrong, and explanations should be required in cases like this. Participation at CfD is poor, and closes without explanation make CfD more difficult for newcomers to it. A lack of evidence the closer did not consider some arguments is a pretty poor standard. All serious arguments should be explicilty considered. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Arguing what admin practices should apply (but don't) isn't a particularly strong argument to make. Besides, in my opinion the argument in question was addressed by the comments of others, in the related CfD for "fictional Holocaust survivors", which was explicitly referred to by the nominator, who didn't want to reproduce his comments in several similar CfDs. I didn't find that reference "vague" at all; perhaps the closer didn't either. I still see no error in interpretation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I suppose that I agree that there maybe was not an error in the result, but I'd have liked a decent closing explanation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sources ignored = improper close. The closer -- and those others jumping through hoops in trying to justify his actions -- ignored the sources provided, which beyond doubt rebut the claim of WP:OR. Neither the closer, nor his supporters, have yet addressed any of the sources provided, all of which explicitly support the claim that the characteristic is defining. I couldn't think of a more improper close. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Adrian Monk states he has "obsessive-compulsive disorder", but the article has no references. No sources to ignore. Your vote in the CFD refers to [1], which is a review of the show. An opinion piece. Per WP:RS, Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, so yes, I can and did ignore your "source". The only persons who can accurately describe Monk as obsessive-compulsive are the writers of the show, and I haven't seen any sources pointing to them. Anyone else stating it is merely giving an opinion, not a fact. --Kbdank71 15:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The sources that you ignored were in the CfD you closed despite the sources provided there demonstrating that the characteristic is defining. If your concern was that the Adrian Monk article needed sources supporting the claim you certainly waited long enough to raise this as the reason for deleting the category; there are three sources there now and I would be happy to add more if they would address your concern. I am intrigued by your claim that the only individuals who have access to information about a character are the writers of the show. I don't quite understand your claim that reliable and verifiable sources can be ignored because they are not from the writer, which would basically eliminate the possibility of coming up with any reliable source under any circumstances about virtually any work of fiction. How is it that we are able to write articles with sources about Hamlet given that its author has been dead for a few hundred years? Please tell us that you're not serious about this being your understanding of how sources work in Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Damn, I never thought I'd want to quote Ronald Reagan, but "there you go again". You're essentially trying to refight the CfD. This is not the point of a DRV. I would also like to see some WP:AGF on the part of those who endorse the close: to suggest that we are all merely "supporters" of the closer who are "jumping through hoops" is a bit rich. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:47, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Damn, "there you go again", still refusing to address why the reliable and verifiable sources were ignored at CfD or here. This is not "refighting" the CfD, the sources were already there. It is this refusal to address these sources that is the problem. Unless you count that bit about all sources being invalid unless they're from the writer. I love that one! Alansohn (talk) 20:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not addressing it b/c it's not the point of a DRV. Perhaps you should set up a talk page for this or something. ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I'll address it because it's the reason I gave it less weight in the close: Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact. Yes, Alan, I did address your sources. You haven't explained why I should accept your opinion piece as fact. --Kbdank71 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion -- Alansohn has made an excellent case that this category was improperly deleted, and that this category complies with all policies. Exactly two other contributors gave brief comments favoring deletion -- but no one who favored deletion responded to his well thought out, coherent and civil points. Further, the deleting administrator totally failed to explain his or her reasoning for ignoring Alansohn's points. Geo Swan (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Complies with all policies? I'd be hard-pressed to support that statement. WP:OR tops the list of problems. Yes there are RL sources out there which state that a character may have such. But to call it defining of a character, requires interpretation of a fictional work. And that's simply WP:OR. A list article would be able to explain the application of the term to a character (perhaps even using the sources noted by Alansohn). But as a category can't provide references/sources for individual members of a category (See WP:CLN, that's not an option in a category. And since this requires sourced interpretation (among other things), it shouldn't be a category.

And of course, DRV isn't CFD deux. So neither of us should be bothering to note these things.

Though I suppose I should mention that I did note these things in several noms on that page, which I requested in that nom to be taken under consideration in the close. And Alansohn's "rebuttal", didn't address the WP:OR concerns (among other things). - jc37 13:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reading sources and transcribing the information therefrom is what WP:V and WP:RS mean. Your oft-repeated claim that transcribing information directly from sources constitutes "original research" is not only ludicrous on its face, but would basically turn WP:OR into a joke. Your statement "But to call it defining of a character, requires interpretation of a fictional work" shows that you have completely misunderstood and misrepresented WP:OR; our job in obtaining sources is to find sources that support statements, not to find sources that support those sources which support other sources, in some neverending cycle. We take reliable sources at face value. The "sourced interpretation" that you keep on demanding is exactly what is prohibited by WP:OR, and your persistence in making the demand is further evidence of pushing some sort of bizarre deconstructionist agenda in which "words" and "sources" mean what you think they mean, not what they actually say.
  
  WP:CLN offers the strongest possible encouragement for lists AND categories co-existing. WP:CLN does point out that categories can't include sources, which would be an excuse to delete the entire category system if taken as your only argument from WP:CLN. In extremely limited cases, such as controversial categories, WP:CLN might prefer a list, but you can't possibly be arguing that this category is controversial.
  
  My rebuttal, which includes multiple reliable and verifiable sources to support the claim that the term "Obsessive-compulsive" is a defining characteristic for fictional characters in general and for the characters listed cannot be any more conclusive in rebutting the repeatedly false claims of WP:OR. I admire your determination to push an agenda that says that sources can be ignored because they can't possibly mean what exactly what they say, but that's not how Wikipedia works.. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roll the dice.jpg

The image is a low-res picture of a book cover. This was used to illustrate an article which discussed the book and its author, which is fair use. I spent some time explaining this on the talk page when the image was tagged but the deleting admin did not seem to read this as the deletion log indicates that he was deleting several images per minute and didn't skip a beat when he came to this one. I contacted him. His response was perfunctory and he has since been inactive. The thread has now scrolled off his talk page and so here we are. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use can be used to justify using the book cover in an article about the book, but not in an article about the author of the book. Endorse deletion. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk —Preceding undated comment was added at 22:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Overturn/List at IfD as per reasonable request. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. You can list it at IfD but it will probably be deleted there, as User:NurseryRhyme is correct, the FU exemption is for articles about the book, not the author. If the book is never going to be notable you could probably write some specific FU rationale tailored to that page, but just saying, it might very well be deleted at IfD. Protonk (talk) 02:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/List at IfD -- Ned Scott 06:31, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That image (Image:Roll the Dice.jpg) doesn't appear to have ever existed. Can we get the correct name please? Stifle (talk) 22:19, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It appears to have been Image:Roll the dice.jpg
Note - the deletion was perfectly in process...the entire rationale was "Low res picture of book cover of autobiography of Darius Guppy to illustrate article on the author and his works. This image is not replaceable since it shows a book cover and all pictures of this cover will be essentially the same. The picture is low-res and so fair use by customary practise." which misses a few essentials. That said there is no problem with running it at IfD...except that it's virtually certain the be deleted as it would be just decorative in the Darius Guppy article. - Peripitus (Talk) 23:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and list at IfD I think it might hold at Ifd--for an autobio it seems a reasonable illustration. DGG (talk) 17:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, the image was replaceable in the context in which it was used. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and list at IfD - The image was speedy deleted per (CSD I7) as an image with an invalid fair use rationale. A valid fair use rationale for using the book cover in Darius Guppy requires meeting Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria with reliable source material. Wikipedia:Nfc#Images allows cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary). The image page lacked such information. In addition, sourced critical commentary about Darius Guppy in the Darius Guppy article would not meet the "critical commentary of the book cover" requirement of Wikipedia:Nfc#Images. Sourced critical commentary about a book in the Darius Guppy article would seem to be an off topic way to try to justify including an image of the book in the Darius Guppy article. It seems to be done more often that we care to admit and consensus could fall in favor of such an effort. Speedy delete was appropriate, but given that the article is references and specifically is referenced in the Roll the Dice section, reasonable doubt exists as to whether this image can be listed in the article. IfD would be appropriate to address this issue. -- Suntag ☼ 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Finkelstein (closed)

@@ Line 60: / Line 60: @@
 ****************Damn, "there you go again", still refusing to address why the reliable and verifiable sources were ignored at CfD or here. This is not "refighting" the CfD, the sources were already there. It is this refusal to address these sources that is the problem. Unless you count that bit about all sources being invalid unless they're from the writer. I love that one! [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 20:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 *****************I'm not addressing it b/c it's not the point of a DRV. Perhaps you should set up a talk page for this or something. ... [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 21:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
+*****************I'll address it because it's the reason I gave it less weight in the close: ''Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact''.  Yes, Alan, I did address your sources.  You haven't explained why I should accept your opinion piece as fact.  --[[User:Kbdank71|Kbdank71]] 21:13, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 *'''Overturn deletion''' -- Alansohn has made an excellent case that this category was improperly deleted, and that this category complies with all policies.  Exactly two other contributors gave brief comments favoring deletion -- but no one who favored deletion responded to his well thought out, coherent and civil points.  Further, the deleting administrator totally failed to explain his or her reasoning for ignoring Alansohn's points.  [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|talk]]) 03:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 *:Complies with all policies? I'd be hard-pressed to support that statement. [[WP:OR]] tops the list of problems. Yes there are RL sources out there which state that a character may have such. But to call it ''defining'' of a character, requires interpretation of a fictional work. And ''that's'' simply [[WP:OR]]. A list article would be able to explain the application of the term to a character (perhaps even using the sources noted by Alansohn). But as a category can't provide references/sources for individual members of a category (See [[WP:CLN]], that's not an option in a category. And since this requires sourced interpretation (among other things), it shouldn't be a category.