|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The category has over 49 pages that link to it. — Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:20am • 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Requesting undeletion of these five categories:
CFD was at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_22#Category:Worst_Actor_Golden_Raspberry_Award_winners. The deletion discussion focused primarily on "person" categories, not general categories relating to the subject matter itself, such as screenplays, films, etc. In addition, there is one category of people who specifically do not object to the award and even attended the ceremony in order to accept it. These categories should have been discussed separately and not part of the above deletion discussion. As I had thought that an admin would have closed the discussion as no consensus due to the equal amount of Keep comments, I did not request mid-deletion-discussion to have part of it separated regarding these five categories. I had thought the discussion would have been closed as no consensus, with the categories kept. At the very least, these five categories should have been discussed separately, as they are an entirely separate issue than the "person" issue of the other categories from the deletion discussion. Note that I attempted to raise the issue first with the admin that relisted, and later closed, the same deletion discussion, the admin refused to restore these particular five categories for a separate deletion discussion [1]. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt ( talk)
I was not a party to the discussion--I didn't even know it was under review--I don't really have a dog in this fight. As with most AfD/CfD discussions--they all happen in a small, backroom world populated by a microscopic few. O.K. I've participated in quite a few of these discussions, but it always seems like the result is predetermined. We are doing the WWE version of legitimate discussion. As I see this specific discussion, I see 8 votes to keep vs 8 votes scattered supporting three different other options . . . yet the decision was to delete. Where is the consensus in that? In fact, while the vote was at 7 to 5 they re-listed the discussion long enough to call up a few more deletionists to finally even the score. Its like George Carlin's "Illusion of Choice." Who really is making these decisions? And why is the judgement so often in favor of deletion, or the word I choose to use "destruction" of somebody else's good intentioned hard work? Trackinfo ( talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Image is not uniquely historical, as there has been no critical commentary of the image. Falls under unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails non-free content criterion #8. Although three users !voted keep, none of their reasonings were based in non-free content policy, nor did they answer to the nomination. The first "keep" was the nominator essentially accusing me of bad faith, just like he posted on dozens of other images that were later deleted. The second only argues that the image depicts the casualties mentioned in the article. Depicting something mentioned in an article is not a valid reason to use a non-free image, per WP:NFCC. The third supported the second argument, and went on to say that because the organization RAWA looks for museums and art galleries to host photo exhibitions, it's okay to use their photos. Copyrighted art may be displayed in a gallery, that doesn't mean we can automatically include it on Wikipedia. And this isn't copyrighted art, it's a photo from a press agency (RAWA News), which is deemed unacceptable, it depicts a war, which is deemed unacceptable, and its omission isn't detrimental to the understanding of the article. The deletion discussion produced illegitimate reasons to keep non-free content. Consensus doesn't trump non-free image policy or copyright. Swarm X 13:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Relist The discussion itself does seem faulty, the arguments given for keeping being rather weak - argument by assertion, talk of copyright law when that's not relevant - wikipedia's standards differ to copyright law, strange assertion regarding what the image depicts and a rather vague argument about commercial value. Your listing however wasn't the greatest either with basic assertion which could have done with being expanded upon. This looks like a discussion which needed more input rather than being closed one way or the other. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Comment from closing admin - I did in fact consider the arguments of the nominator. In short, I'll respond to each point the nominator pulls up:
I really don't particularly care either way if the nomination is relisted, but I wanted to illustrate how I came to the decision in light of the comments from the community. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 16:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That's my job, to interpret the community's consensus. And the community was saying the critical commentary was sufficient. It looks completely legit to me. As for the dead part, I only inserted that to distinguish it from violations of NFCC1 - which almost universally disallows images of living persons. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The category has over 49 pages that link to it. — Ancient Apparition • Champagne? • 10:20am • 23:20, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Requesting undeletion of these five categories:
CFD was at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_22#Category:Worst_Actor_Golden_Raspberry_Award_winners. The deletion discussion focused primarily on "person" categories, not general categories relating to the subject matter itself, such as screenplays, films, etc. In addition, there is one category of people who specifically do not object to the award and even attended the ceremony in order to accept it. These categories should have been discussed separately and not part of the above deletion discussion. As I had thought that an admin would have closed the discussion as no consensus due to the equal amount of Keep comments, I did not request mid-deletion-discussion to have part of it separated regarding these five categories. I had thought the discussion would have been closed as no consensus, with the categories kept. At the very least, these five categories should have been discussed separately, as they are an entirely separate issue than the "person" issue of the other categories from the deletion discussion. Note that I attempted to raise the issue first with the admin that relisted, and later closed, the same deletion discussion, the admin refused to restore these particular five categories for a separate deletion discussion [1]. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt ( talk) 19:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC) -- Cirt ( talk)
I was not a party to the discussion--I didn't even know it was under review--I don't really have a dog in this fight. As with most AfD/CfD discussions--they all happen in a small, backroom world populated by a microscopic few. O.K. I've participated in quite a few of these discussions, but it always seems like the result is predetermined. We are doing the WWE version of legitimate discussion. As I see this specific discussion, I see 8 votes to keep vs 8 votes scattered supporting three different other options . . . yet the decision was to delete. Where is the consensus in that? In fact, while the vote was at 7 to 5 they re-listed the discussion long enough to call up a few more deletionists to finally even the score. Its like George Carlin's "Illusion of Choice." Who really is making these decisions? And why is the judgement so often in favor of deletion, or the word I choose to use "destruction" of somebody else's good intentioned hard work? Trackinfo ( talk) 00:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
Image is not uniquely historical, as there has been no critical commentary of the image. Falls under unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails non-free content criterion #8. Although three users !voted keep, none of their reasonings were based in non-free content policy, nor did they answer to the nomination. The first "keep" was the nominator essentially accusing me of bad faith, just like he posted on dozens of other images that were later deleted. The second only argues that the image depicts the casualties mentioned in the article. Depicting something mentioned in an article is not a valid reason to use a non-free image, per WP:NFCC. The third supported the second argument, and went on to say that because the organization RAWA looks for museums and art galleries to host photo exhibitions, it's okay to use their photos. Copyrighted art may be displayed in a gallery, that doesn't mean we can automatically include it on Wikipedia. And this isn't copyrighted art, it's a photo from a press agency (RAWA News), which is deemed unacceptable, it depicts a war, which is deemed unacceptable, and its omission isn't detrimental to the understanding of the article. The deletion discussion produced illegitimate reasons to keep non-free content. Consensus doesn't trump non-free image policy or copyright. Swarm X 13:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Relist The discussion itself does seem faulty, the arguments given for keeping being rather weak - argument by assertion, talk of copyright law when that's not relevant - wikipedia's standards differ to copyright law, strange assertion regarding what the image depicts and a rather vague argument about commercial value. Your listing however wasn't the greatest either with basic assertion which could have done with being expanded upon. This looks like a discussion which needed more input rather than being closed one way or the other. -- 82.7.40.7 ( talk) 14:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC) Comment from closing admin - I did in fact consider the arguments of the nominator. In short, I'll respond to each point the nominator pulls up:
I really don't particularly care either way if the nomination is relisted, but I wanted to illustrate how I came to the decision in light of the comments from the community. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 16:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
That's my job, to interpret the community's consensus. And the community was saying the critical commentary was sufficient. It looks completely legit to me. As for the dead part, I only inserted that to distinguish it from violations of NFCC1 - which almost universally disallows images of living persons. Magog the Ogre ( talk) 16:48, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |