Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 18

< December 17	Deletion review archives: 2008 December	December 19 >

18 December 2008

Image:Nash-Rain Pattern 3-1969.jpg

There is a lengthy discussion at the nomination, centring on WP:NFCC#8:"Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The nominator and closer took a "developed" position on this, claiming that it means (though it clearly does not say) that only critical commentary on the specific work in question would satisfy this criterion. Several other editors took the "means what it actually says" position, also citing in support Wikipedia:Nfc#Images #8 which says: "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." Those arguing for deletion seemed to disregard this guideline altogether, and further to deny that there was any 'significant increase to readers' understanding' when reading the biography of a painter from seeing an image of their work, or that ommision of such a work was "detrimental". This argument was strongly disputed by editors from the field of the visual arts. There was a large degree of mutual incomprehension between the two groups; one group denying resolutely that an image without specific commentary "would significantly increase readers' understanding" at all, and the visual arts editors mostly flabbergasted by this line of argument.

The same issues are raised at this nomination of a Rothko painting, which for some reason remains open despite having been withdrawn by the same nom over 2 weeks ago on the 6th December. In that article, where the discussion of Mark Rothko's style is extensive, the fact that the image in question (by then the only Rothko work in the article) was identified as a work in his "late" style, but not individually discussed, led User:Hammersoft to say "If the image isn't discussed, I could just as well put the Mona Lisa in there. It's irrelevant." Whether that is a reasonable reflection of WP policy is I suppose at the core of the issue here.

In fact the Katherine Nash article was slightly edited in the course of the discussion, such that the nominator User:PhilKnight came back to say "the article now at least mentions the artwork in the main body of text, which largely overcomes the deletion reasoning". Nonetheless, he did not withdraw it, and the close was as delete regardless. See below for subsequent discussion between the closer and User:Ty. Johnbod (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with the above, the deletion seems uncalled for because the consensus at the long discussion seemed to basically favor keeping the image pending certain information being added to the article. That was done, and acknowledged by User:PhilKnight the nominator; and logic, goodwill and an understanding of the FU need and use of recent (20th century) and (21st century) works of Visual Arts would have mandated a keep in this case....Modernist (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as Keep Reading through the debate, it is clear that the closer simply decided which "side" he agreed with more, as opposed to looking at the consensus of the discussion. The majority of editors were clearly in favor of keeping it, especially considering the nominators near-withdrawal at the end of the discussion. However, XFDs are not votes, but based on the strength of the arguments. If I had closed this, I would have discounted the first keep vote as pretty irrelevant. However, the other keep votes, as seen through the lengthy back-and-forth that resulted from the first delete vote, are all well-thought-out interpretations of policy. The modifications of the article clearly address the concerns raised by those advocating deletion, meaning that this should have resulted in a clear Keep decision. I'd be interested to see a more in-depth rationale from the closing admin.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- For others who might be interested, that rationale is here. However, this is still a straightforward substituting the admin's interpretation of policy for the consensus of the discussion. As a rule, if I disagree with the consensus of a debate, I enter the debate, not close it.--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn as keep on the basis that this was the consensus based on policy argument, or at the least there was no consensus. I append a post I made to User:Nv8200p, the deleting admin, and his reply to this. There may not be policy or guideline that seeing an artist's work will increase an understanding of the artist and their oeuvre but there is an essay and an information page. It could only fail to increase understanding if every art work were the same as every other art work. Otherwise, to see an artwork is to gain an immediate visual knowledge of that artist's similarities to and differences from other artists. This by definition increases understanding. Once it is stated what school and technique are applicable to the artist, the image will be "illustrative of a particular technique or school" per Wikipedia:Nfc#Images#7. Ty 02:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Start of copied text

You deleted Image:Nash-Rain_Pattern_3-1969.jpg [1] per WP:NFCC#8, which states: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding."

The image was in an article about Katherine Nash, an artist, and the only reason for the existence of the article is because of the art she has done. The removal of the image means there is no example of her work in the article. Surely an image of an artist's work by definition will increase the reader's understanding and not having one will again by definition be detrimental to that understanding. Without an image, the reader has to imagine what her art looks like, and this is bound to be inaccurate.

The article says she is best known for computer art. This will bring to the normal reader's mind the kind of art which nowadays comes under that classification, which is highly sophisticated image manipulation as can be seen in a google image search for computer art. Nash's work comes from an earlier period and is of a primitive nature that bears very little resemblance to what people nowadays think of as computer art. Not showing an example of it will be greatly misleading for anyone who reads the article.

You made a comment: "There is no supported critical commentary on the image that makes it significant to the article." This is not related to the deletion link given of WP:NFCC#8, but concerns Wikipedia:Nfc#Images:

7. Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.

There is a referenced statement in the article, which specifically cites the image:

ART 1 output, like Rain Pattern, No. 3 from 1969, was an early example of not writing algorithms to produce art but of instead creating art with software.

Surely this image passes the NFC criterion of illustrating a particular technique. I note that after this text was added to the article, the nom User:PhilKnight said:

the article now at least mentions the artwork in the main body of text, which largely overcomes the deletion reasoning.

This is effectively a withdrawal of the nom.

In the light of the above, I feel that deletion was not the right outcome of the debate, and lessens rather than improves worth of the encyclopedia.

I wonder whether you would be prepared to take another look at this.

Ty 13:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no guideline or policy I am aware of that states an example of an artists work should appear in an article about the artist or that by definition having an image of the art will increase the reader's understanding and not having one will again by definition be detrimental to that understanding. The general requirement that a non-free image have referenced critical commentary to support use of the image. If this image is as important a work as claimed then there should be ample references to take from and create a good sized paragraph about the image itself that would make the image significant to the article or create an article about the image like The Starry Night. -Nv8200p talk 23:18, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

end of copied text

On the deletion review page, there is an instruction "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question. This should be attempted first – courteously invite the admin to take a second look". I haven't noticed this discussion taking place. While I'm aware that some users consider this an optional step, I would appreciate if the nominator could please explain why he omitted it (or, if there was a discussion that I missed, point it out)? Stifle (talk) 09:35, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Um, you will find it immediately above your post on this very page. Ty 10:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  I should have mentioned this in the nom & have now added it. It is copied in full by Ty above. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I guess I missed that one. Overturn to keep, because that's what the consensus was for. Stifle (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and keep per Ty. His citing policy and explicitly giving reasoning why the image enhances understanding of this particular artist are convincing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Keep per Ty. His reasoning was sound, and the decision to close as delete in the face of a clear consensus to keep and good policy arguments supporting that consensus seems baffling. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse deletion (from deleting admin) Although User:PhilKnight nominated the image, it was the discussion from howcheng that highlighted how the non-free image failed to meet WP:NFCC#8. Past opinions from admins at deletion review for endorsing deletions of non-free images seem to have supported that the image must have reliably referenced critical commentary about the image itself for the image to be significant to the article, not that there is an automatic "visual requirement" for an illustration for any purpose or that a non-free image should be allowed in general because a group of editors believes that it is illustrative of a particular technique or school. The image is supposed to be an important, necessary and informative descriptive of Nash's work yet the editors presented one sentence to support this claim - "ART 1 output, like Rain Pattern, No. 3 from 1969, was an early example of not writing algorithms to produce art but of instead creating art with software." This sentence, based on my past experience of the requirements for non-free images, did not stand as enough commentary to make the image significant to the article. The keep discussions at the IFD all centered on the idea that you cannot have an article about the artist without the art; whereas, the standard for non-free images has been that there must be reasonable commentary on the image itself for the image to be considered significant. -Nv8200p talk 04:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that you don't think the image was "illustrative of a particular technique or school"? If a "group of editors", who include several of the most experienced editors in the visual arts field, say that it was, don't you think that your dissenting view deserves a rather fuller rationale? You seem to miss the sense of the word "illustrative". You are no doubt correct in falling back on "past opinions from admins at deletion review", but I note with interest that you don't make any attempt to reconcile these decisions with the actual policy and guidelines, as quoted in the debate and above. Johnbod (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you are refering to as above Wikipedia:Nfc#Images point 7, the list of examples of things which are typically ok (it's not the policy itself) which says "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school.". It doesn't say merely being illustrative is OK, it still requires critical commentary which is covered in the comment the deleter made above. The examples are just examples, they don't supercede the requirement to meet the policy itself, which still requires "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." --82.7.39.174 (talk) 09:53, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFC#7 defines "images illustrative of a particular technique or school" as a form of critical commentary, which it is. It is common practice in art writing to define the artist's work as being in a specific genre and then to provide an image to show they way they interpret that genre. The definition of somone as an artist, as a particular kind of artist (sculptor, painter etc) and as practising in a particular genre of art (e.g. computer art) is all critical commentary. It is a value definition which has to be made by critics, as opposed, for example, to saying that Katherine Nash's computer output is just doodling and has no artistic merit. I have pointed out at some length above how seeing an example of an artist's work cannot fail to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the artist. Ty 10:13, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of interpretation, I don't interpret it that way. Specifying if as NFC#7 is to my mind totally misleading, it's #7 of examples which generally meet the criteria, not a criteria itself. Regardless of the way you or I interpret it, or as to if it meets NFCC#8 (quite honestly I'm undecided), the deleter clearly lays out his reasoning based on the policy itself and the application of that in line with community norms. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 11:03, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]