Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 21: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 23:12, 21 May 2009

< 2009 May 20

Deletion review archives: 2009 May

2009 May 22 >

21 May 2009

template:nearest tube (closed)

template:nearest tube

This TFD closure represents a blatant misinterpretation of consensus, using bogus arguments for deletion. Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is an essay, not a policy, the former having no force other than persuasive power, and not necessarily reflecting consensus. Even so, WP:USEFUL deals largely with AFD discussions, in which perceived utility does not justify the retention of articles violating Wikipedia's content policies. Consequently, the very essay Stifle is referencing describes a number of situations in which "usefulness" may represent valid grounds for inclusion / retention:

There are some times when "usefulness" can be the basis of a valid argument for inclusion. An encyclopedia should, by definition, be informative and useful to its readers. Try to exercise common sense, and consider how a non-trivial number of people will consider the information "useful". Information found in tables in particular is focused on usefulness to the reader. An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, "This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject."

There are some pages within Wikipedia which are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more, disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects for instance, so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion.

Surely, insofar as templates are intended to be useful for some purpose (which is why, indeed, CSD T3 applies to "Templates that are not employed in any useful fashion..."), a claim of utility can hardly be an invalid argument per se in a TFD discussion. Stifle's count "of the three keep arguments..." also apparently omitted the following:

*Very Important - This template, if anything, discourages pages being written as tourist guides as it does not need there to be a section on transport links necessarily. It is a quick visual aid that adds great ease of use and has great value as it enables users to quickly find out information regarding the location of a place within Greater London. It would be a great shame should it be deleted as it improves the ease at which users can access information regarding transport on wikipedia. George5210 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I find it preposterous that, in arguing for the deletion of the template on the "strength of arguments", Stifle completely ignored an argument for retention (indeed, one which claims that the template facilitates the enforcement of Wikipedia:NOT#TRAVEL) simply because the editor placing the comment did not prepend it with a boldface "keep", although he clearly favors the retention the template. Erik9 (talk) 11:37, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own closure as a reflection of the consensus. This DRV seems like a vexatious request because I amended the non-admin closure, as any admin is permitted to do. Stifle (talk) 11:51, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure and advice Erik9 again to only close discussions which are unambiguous keeps. Garion96 (talk) 13:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a compelling explanation of why the closure as "delete" was incorrect. To offer, as the sole justification for Stifle's closure, that I, being a non-administrator, shouldn't have previously closed the discussion, is vacuous, and bears little relationship to the matter at hand. When an XFD closure is challenged at deletion review, the closure must stand or fall on its own merits; to impugn the perceived motives of the editor bring the matter to DRV certainly does not serve as a basis to sustain an otherwise indefensible closure. Erik9 (talk) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should only close unambiguous keeps but that was not the reason at all that I endorse Stifle's closure. I endorse Stifle's closure because it was better argumented and a better reading of the consensus at that discussion. Garion96 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chazwozzer.jpg

Deletion was due to the fact that the term was related to the "Simpsons", in fact it has taken on another meaning. A foreign species introduced into an ecosystem. It still is of course also slang for bullfrog but redirecting to the bullfrog page doesn't tell the whole story. Cazub (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm not sure what exactly you are talking about. There is no history at File:Chazwozzer.jpg. I'm guessing you mean Chazwozzer, which wasn't listed for deletion there. If that's right, mind if I fix this? Otherwise, do you have an actual source for more information (because being a foreign term is just a redirect generally). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MASH-episode2.jpg

screenshot, one was used for each episode, this one was deleted rather than fixed, now it is missing in the series Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was deleted because it didn't have a rationale almost two years ago. Since the image was deleted in July 2007 and has remained so since then, has its omission really been detrimental? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same rationale could have been cut and pasted from any of the other 124 episodes. The rule is to attempt a fix before deletion. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no obligation on anyone else to find a rationale if the original uploader can't. Given the reason that the image is not eligible for inclusion on it's own ("Free" encycolopedia) and the sheer volume of such images it is outside of the Foundations requirement for retention of such images to keep them indefinitely waiting for someone to fix them. (Not to mention if the person attempting to fix them didn't believe there was a reasonable rationale, then that's their attempt to fix finished). Additionally if I take a look at episode 1 image the rationale wasn't added until a year after this image was deleted, it would be pretty tough to do a cut and paste in that instance. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:22, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As much as some parties would like to think that WP:PRESERVE was the encyclopedia's primary rule, it certainly does not apply to fair use images at this point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline restoration per Ricky81682. Clearly, if it wasn't missed until now, its omission is not detrimental to the article. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Decline but with no prejudice against another image from the episode being uploaded with proper licensing and NFC rationale. The deletion was in order, but that doesn't mean that such an image can't be used in the article, if it has a proper rationale. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 42: / Line 42: @@
 *'''Endorse closure''' and advice [[User:Erik9|Erik9]] again to only close discussions which are unambiguous keeps. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 13:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 :*I have provided a compelling explanation of why the closure as "delete" was incorrect. To offer, as the sole justification for Stifle's closure, that I, being a non-administrator, shouldn't have previously closed the discussion, is vacuous, and bears little relationship to the matter at hand. When an XFD closure is challenged at deletion review, the closure must stand or fall on its own merits; to impugn the perceived motives of the editor bring the matter to DRV certainly does not serve as a basis to sustain an otherwise indefensible closure. [[User:Erik9|Erik9]] ([[User talk:Erik9|talk]]) 23:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
-::*I think that you should only close unambiguous keeps but that was not the reason at all that I endorse Stifle's closure. I endorse Stifle's closure I think it was better argumented and a better reading of the consensus at that discussion. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
+::*I think that you should only close unambiguous keeps but that was not the reason at all that I endorse Stifle's closure. I endorse Stifle's closure because it was better argumented and a better reading of the consensus at that discussion. [[User:Garion96|Garion96]] [[User talk:Garion96|(talk)]] 23:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 ====[[:File:Chazwozzer.jpg]]====