Was not closed with respect to the strength and validity arguments which were made. None of those supporting keep provided any reason why lack of this particular image would be detrimental to understanding
Eye contact in rugby union, and therefore would meet NFCC.8 and 1. At best, it serves as an illustration of the damage an eye gouge can do, but a free image could be found or created for that purpose, thus failing NFFCC1. ÷
seresin18:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
EndorseRational closing, and correct reading of consensus. As this is the most prominent recent example--it very much clarifies what is actually being talked about. DGG (
talk )
18:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
No word in bold from me, just a clarification of the file history: Originally deleted F7; deletion review
here led to deletion being overturned and listed at FFD
here, which close is itself now being challenged at this DRV.—
S MarshallT/
C19:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
The question of whether a particular image passes or fails the NFCC is to be decided by consensus in each case. The consensus that was arrived at in the deletion discussion was that this image passes the NFCC, and therefore the image was kept. The deletion process has therefore been properly followed, and I must endorse the closure.
Stifle (
talk)
20:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
I'd almost !voted to delete there, but decided I didn't know enough about the subject to understand the significance. In any case, endorse exactly as Stifle.
Hobit (
talk)
21:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn This is not how FfDs should be closed. It was plausibly asserted that the image failed NFCC#1. The only attempts to refute this were based on a clearly incomplete understanding of that criterion (particularly the "or could be created" part). Therefore the correct close was "Delete".
CIreland (
talk)
03:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)reply
This is part that caused me to not !vote in the original discussion. Those pushing for keep made an argument about how hard it would be to recreate this (quite dangerous etc.). Could you address those concerns?
Hobit (
talk)
10:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn and delete - news media photos are almost never acceptable to use here. This photo would only be acceptable to use if it were an iconic photo where the photo itself was the subject of interest. --
B (
talk)
14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)reply
A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject
Thomas Lutz has achieved a lot in holocaust remembrance and is still working in the field. Check the German Wiki for more:
Thomas Lutz
Yup, I recognise this situation. In fact, I'm so familiar with it that I've had a special template made in order to deal with it, which is {{beingtranslated}}.
The reason why it happens is that articles on de.wiki don't have to begin with an immediate assertion of notability. Only en.wiki has that rule. So when you're translating an article from one wikipedia to another, if you save it partway through the translation, then new pages patrol will A7 it while the translation is still in progress. This can happen even if the new pages patroller's quite diligent when searching for references, because for users based in English-speaking countries, German language sources come up very low on the google rankings.
For future reference, the way to overcome it is to add {{beingtranslated|de|Thomas Lutz}} to the top of the page while your translation is in progress. Remember to add {{translated|de|Thomas Lutz}} to the article's talk page when the translation's done.
Permit creation of a translation from de.wiki. No negative reflection on the new pages patrollers or deleting admin, because their mistake is very understandable.—
S MarshallT/
C11:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
How do I get my translated texts back to the English Thomas Lutz article? And is it enough to use code like that {{translated page|de|ICE 1|version=45565777|insertversion=210289191}}? How do I permit creation of a translation from de.wiki?
I'm confident that an admin will restore the text, either directly to the article or into your userspace, after this DRV is concluded. You'll be able to proceed after that, and on behalf of en.wiki I'm sorry that this happened. It's a relatively rare situation.—
S MarshallT/
C13:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn deletion As a preliminary , the requirement for passing AfD is not to have an assertion of notability in the first sentence, but for the article as it stands to have some indication of importance. the wording is used to make it clear that this is a much lesser conception than actual WP notability. The article should never have been tagged in the first place for A7:. the very first version
[1], contained "Today he is the head of the Memorial Museums Department of the Topography of Terror Foundation in Berlin." To me , saying one is the director of such a department is a clear indication of at least some possible importance. But the version actually deleted by the admin contained much more, and can not conceivably have been seen as a valid speedy--it will almost certainly pass AfD if there are references. That this was actually deleted despite a hangon tag seems to have been careless--but the admin is a long-term admin who makes many deletions, and the best of us have a certain proportion of errors. But his refusal to overturn it when asked on the talk page appears to be based on his view that it needed to pass WP:BIO to avoid speedy, which is just plain wrong; nobody who said that at a RfA would be confirmed at the present. I've notified him of this discussion. DGG (
talk )
16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, I have a rather high level of notability threshold when I'm patrolling CSDs. Especially when dealing with the rarer types of individuals like Lutz. It's hard for me to see the notability, and perhaps I should have elevated the A7 to an AFD in this case, as I often do. I also prefer not to self-restore deletes; I'd rather multiple eyes come onto a situation like this, turning it into a reverse AFD. I think it's better to get more eyes on a problem than to do otherwise. Sorry for the inconvenience; I think we've all learned something in this process. -
UtherSRG(talk)03:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)reply
I think you mean "CSD A7" rather than "AfD" in the first sentence of your remark? In any case, in practice, whether translating or writing on your own account from non-English sources, you need to have an assertion of notability somewhere in your article before you save it, or an A7 is guaranteed, because new pages patrol won't find your non-English sources on the first page or so of their google searches.—
S MarshallT/
C17:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
PS: Oh, I've just seen the version that was actually deleted, as opposed to the cached version. I see DGG's point now. Upgrading my recommendation from permit recreation to overturn, with optional
gentle piscine caress.—
S MarshallT/
C18:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
This article was initially deleted due to the references allegedly not demonstrating notability. This was partly due to one of the references linking to the wrong website! I re-created the article, corrected the mistaken URL and added an additional reference, but the article was again deleted, without explanation as far as I can see. I would like to know why it has been deleted as the most recent version meets all of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the references are equivalent to the references enjoyed by similar web-app articles on Wikipedia.
Lumpthing (
talk)
10:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Was not closed with respect to the strength and validity arguments which were made. None of those supporting keep provided any reason why lack of this particular image would be detrimental to understanding
Eye contact in rugby union, and therefore would meet NFCC.8 and 1. At best, it serves as an illustration of the damage an eye gouge can do, but a free image could be found or created for that purpose, thus failing NFFCC1. ÷
seresin18:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
EndorseRational closing, and correct reading of consensus. As this is the most prominent recent example--it very much clarifies what is actually being talked about. DGG (
talk )
18:56, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
No word in bold from me, just a clarification of the file history: Originally deleted F7; deletion review
here led to deletion being overturned and listed at FFD
here, which close is itself now being challenged at this DRV.—
S MarshallT/
C19:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
The question of whether a particular image passes or fails the NFCC is to be decided by consensus in each case. The consensus that was arrived at in the deletion discussion was that this image passes the NFCC, and therefore the image was kept. The deletion process has therefore been properly followed, and I must endorse the closure.
Stifle (
talk)
20:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
I'd almost !voted to delete there, but decided I didn't know enough about the subject to understand the significance. In any case, endorse exactly as Stifle.
Hobit (
talk)
21:49, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn This is not how FfDs should be closed. It was plausibly asserted that the image failed NFCC#1. The only attempts to refute this were based on a clearly incomplete understanding of that criterion (particularly the "or could be created" part). Therefore the correct close was "Delete".
CIreland (
talk)
03:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)reply
This is part that caused me to not !vote in the original discussion. Those pushing for keep made an argument about how hard it would be to recreate this (quite dangerous etc.). Could you address those concerns?
Hobit (
talk)
10:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn and delete - news media photos are almost never acceptable to use here. This photo would only be acceptable to use if it were an iconic photo where the photo itself was the subject of interest. --
B (
talk)
14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)reply
A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject
Thomas Lutz has achieved a lot in holocaust remembrance and is still working in the field. Check the German Wiki for more:
Thomas Lutz
Yup, I recognise this situation. In fact, I'm so familiar with it that I've had a special template made in order to deal with it, which is {{beingtranslated}}.
The reason why it happens is that articles on de.wiki don't have to begin with an immediate assertion of notability. Only en.wiki has that rule. So when you're translating an article from one wikipedia to another, if you save it partway through the translation, then new pages patrol will A7 it while the translation is still in progress. This can happen even if the new pages patroller's quite diligent when searching for references, because for users based in English-speaking countries, German language sources come up very low on the google rankings.
For future reference, the way to overcome it is to add {{beingtranslated|de|Thomas Lutz}} to the top of the page while your translation is in progress. Remember to add {{translated|de|Thomas Lutz}} to the article's talk page when the translation's done.
Permit creation of a translation from de.wiki. No negative reflection on the new pages patrollers or deleting admin, because their mistake is very understandable.—
S MarshallT/
C11:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
How do I get my translated texts back to the English Thomas Lutz article? And is it enough to use code like that {{translated page|de|ICE 1|version=45565777|insertversion=210289191}}? How do I permit creation of a translation from de.wiki?
I'm confident that an admin will restore the text, either directly to the article or into your userspace, after this DRV is concluded. You'll be able to proceed after that, and on behalf of en.wiki I'm sorry that this happened. It's a relatively rare situation.—
S MarshallT/
C13:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Overturn deletion As a preliminary , the requirement for passing AfD is not to have an assertion of notability in the first sentence, but for the article as it stands to have some indication of importance. the wording is used to make it clear that this is a much lesser conception than actual WP notability. The article should never have been tagged in the first place for A7:. the very first version
[1], contained "Today he is the head of the Memorial Museums Department of the Topography of Terror Foundation in Berlin." To me , saying one is the director of such a department is a clear indication of at least some possible importance. But the version actually deleted by the admin contained much more, and can not conceivably have been seen as a valid speedy--it will almost certainly pass AfD if there are references. That this was actually deleted despite a hangon tag seems to have been careless--but the admin is a long-term admin who makes many deletions, and the best of us have a certain proportion of errors. But his refusal to overturn it when asked on the talk page appears to be based on his view that it needed to pass WP:BIO to avoid speedy, which is just plain wrong; nobody who said that at a RfA would be confirmed at the present. I've notified him of this discussion. DGG (
talk )
16:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, I have a rather high level of notability threshold when I'm patrolling CSDs. Especially when dealing with the rarer types of individuals like Lutz. It's hard for me to see the notability, and perhaps I should have elevated the A7 to an AFD in this case, as I often do. I also prefer not to self-restore deletes; I'd rather multiple eyes come onto a situation like this, turning it into a reverse AFD. I think it's better to get more eyes on a problem than to do otherwise. Sorry for the inconvenience; I think we've all learned something in this process. -
UtherSRG(talk)03:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)reply
I think you mean "CSD A7" rather than "AfD" in the first sentence of your remark? In any case, in practice, whether translating or writing on your own account from non-English sources, you need to have an assertion of notability somewhere in your article before you save it, or an A7 is guaranteed, because new pages patrol won't find your non-English sources on the first page or so of their google searches.—
S MarshallT/
C17:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
PS: Oh, I've just seen the version that was actually deleted, as opposed to the cached version. I see DGG's point now. Upgrading my recommendation from permit recreation to overturn, with optional
gentle piscine caress.—
S MarshallT/
C18:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
This article was initially deleted due to the references allegedly not demonstrating notability. This was partly due to one of the references linking to the wrong website! I re-created the article, corrected the mistaken URL and added an additional reference, but the article was again deleted, without explanation as far as I can see. I would like to know why it has been deleted as the most recent version meets all of Wikipedia's notability guidelines and the references are equivalent to the references enjoyed by similar web-app articles on Wikipedia.
Lumpthing (
talk)
10:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)reply
