File:Colbert Dinner.JPG ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This file is a critical element of a Featured article. Its Fair Use status was unchallenged at FAC in December 2012. No rationale provided for deletion. No consensus to delete. This should not have been closed. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 08:23, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn/Relist-I know FfD doesn't typically involve as much discussion as other XfD processes, but when an editor makes a good faith objection to a deletion nomination and an admin proceeds to delete without addressing it at all, something is wrong.-- Fyre2387 ^{( talk • contribs)} 13:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The image is irredeemably non-compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Stifle ( talk) 14:54, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • How can we say that and then require that the article have an image? Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC) reply
    • We do not require that the article has an image. If an article can't be rated as FA without an image, and if no policy-compliant image is available, then the article simply needs to lose its featured status. No article is "required" to be featured. And, by the way, it would help people to understand what you are saying if you were to let us know which featured article you are talking about. Phil Bridger ( talk) 10:44, 21 July 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Perhaps if it is re-listed, then this can be discussed. An image with a valid WP:NFCC justification is a policy-compliant image. The contextual significance depends on the article in question, but it was deleted without reference to it, and therefore WP:NFCC#8 could not possibly have been the grounds for deletion. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 10:51, 21 July 2013 (UTC) reply
      • FWIW FAC here -- 86.5.93.42 ( talk) 16:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse（deleting admin's comment). First, why was I not notified of this DRV? Now, about the merits of the case. In the FFD, no argument was brought forward about how the picture passed NFCC#8. The only thing that people discussed was whether or not the image might in fact be public domain, which turned out to be not the case. In the absence of anybody addressing the actual NFC concern as expressed in the nomination, the nominator's argument stood unchallenged and was actionable. I also note that the FUR on the image page was false, as it claimed the image showed "George W. Bush's reaction to what Stephen Colbert was saying". In fact, the image is so tiny and Bush's face is caught at such an angle that I can impossibly discern how he is reacting. The only thing this image contributes to the understanding of the article is to show the layout of the seating and the decoration of the podium. As for the FA status, that is neither here nor there. Back at the time when the article was first featured, FA processes were notoriously uninterested in upholding NFC policy, and the more recent re-nomination failed to even mention image use. The complaint that the article could not continue to be featured without an image is also a red herring. The FA criteria say that an article should have images "where appropriate", but since having a non-free image that breaches NFCC is, by definition, not appropriate, the absence of such an image cannot possibly be held against the article (and if people really insisted on images, you could still use free portraits of Colbert and Bush anyway). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I think that the image is important to understanding. The reader can see the formality of the occasion, and just how close Colbert and the President were. The are plenty of screencaps on Wikipedia with valid NFCC tags, and there is no reason why this is not one of them. The image is small, a single frame, too low-res to use in a book, the entire video is available on YouTube so the is no commercial impact. A non-free image with an appropriate fair use justification does not breach NFCC. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I did not get notified either. Without a valid close, it is hard to know what sort of image to use. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• relist I find closures like this very frustrating, and I'm certain many editors are even more frustrated than I. In general, when closing a discussion, it would be helpful to actually explain the closure. I hope everyone can understand that getting one's work "trashed" without even an explanation as to why is frustrating and not helpful to editor retention. In this case (and as is common in FfDs) the closer literally never edited the discussion when closing. I'd hope folks can see why that isn't ideal. Secondly, as far as I can tell, the closer did provide a rational for deletion, but only in the DRV (above). It certainly seems that issues are being raised by the closer that weren't in the actual discussion. I don't see how such a view can be the consensus of the discussion when the discussion didn't include those views. All that said, FAC requirements aren't a policy-based reason that NFCC is met. I think we need a better discussion (perhaps with the closer of this discussion providing his views above) and a reading of consensus of that discussion. Hobit ( talk) 19:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • There was no need for any more substantial explanation on the FFD page because there had been no argument for keeping. A single pertinent argument had been made, by the nominator, and that remained unchallenged. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:51, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply
    • There was a challenge--a user asked for more details about what the nominator saw as wrong, both with respect to the FUR and what exactly the relevant policy was for critical commentary. No one responded and your close didn't explain either. Hobit ( talk) 20:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply
      • A question is not a challenge. To challenge an argument, you need to raise a counter-argument. Nobody did that. When I'm tackling a backlog of literally hundreds of old open FFD discussions, I can't separately re-explain the policy to every uploader who happens to not understand it, and as you rightly saw, closing obvious FFDs without additional closing remarks is standard procedure. Did you notice your whole argument is actually self-contradictory? On the one hand you demand that we should close FFDs only on the basis of arguments that "were in the actual discussion", but at the same time you complain about me doing exactly that: the only argument that "was in the actual discussion" was an argument for deletion. If you want me to restrict myself to reading what's said in the discussion, what else but this argument would you want me to base my closure on? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply
        • What you are saying is that in the interest of clearing away old FFDs, you have been short-circuiting the proper procedures that require prior notification of involved parties, consensus to delete, responding to objections and providing a valid rational for deletion, on the assumption that an image can always be re-listed if someone complains. I would suggest that someone has. The case has been made for re-listing. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:08, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply
          • Huh? What are you even talking about? I did not short-circuit any procedure. I found an FFD that had been open for almost a month; the weight of opinion expressed in it was clear (one argument for deletion, zero arguments for keeping); I closed it. That is the procedure. And what prior notification? Incidentally, you failed to notify me of this DRV, so don't you now go lecturing others about proper procedure. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Someone tried to raise a counter argument, but didn't know enough about how to do so. Their questions were reasonable. I do (seriously) appreciate that there are a lot of back-logs around here. But I'd argue that we're better off with those being backlogged than we are with closing a discussion like that with no comment. Further, that an editor is asking for an explanation of the deletion nomination _is_ a challange. The user felt the FUR was enough and said so. We've got two people with an "is/is not" argument. They also couldn't find a policy-based reason that critical commentary was needed. That too is a challenge. Hobit ( talk) 21:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC) reply

Chung-Chiu Hong Sudden Death Event ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The article was speedied twice so I would want to bring it here for discussion. Certainly not a hoax, and while for the subsequent recreation the quoted source was not the best this event has caused quite a stir in Taiwan: many high ranking army officials have been charged, and the scandal has reached to the extent the Defence Minister has tendered his resignation (but declined by the president). Chinese sources indicate that there's more than it meets the eye - too early to say that this article is not notable. Also consider the amount of content on the chinese version. Definitely not a speedy case.

• Sources: The Standard (Hong Kong) Taipei Times BBC Chinese Washington Post AFP China Post.
• Note: Should be renamed to Death of Hung Chung-chiu if overturned. Mailer Diablo 08:16, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse my deletion. Wikipedia is not news. We had a similar event in Wales recently when two soldiers died. Did that reach Wikipedia? The event may prove to have lasting notability as Mailer Diablo claims but the article gave no indication of that. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 09:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• I was the second admin to speedily delete the article, which I did pursuant to WP:CSD#A7. Whether the article could be notable is largely irrelevant on an A7. As RHaworth states, the issue is whether the article "indicates" that the "subject is important or significant." All the article said was a soldier died because of physical training during disciplinary confinement. Apparently, the soldier had been disciplined for bringing a camera phone onto the base. That doesn't even come close to making a claim of significance. I would also like to point out that yet a third admin, User:DGG, tagged the article for deletion.-- Bbb23 ( talk) 21:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I think the "military abuses" factor was clearly missed in both instances. Generally, military abuses and scandals tend to be well-documented here. - Mailer Diablo 13:53, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, valid invocation of CSD:A7. Stifle ( talk) 14:57, 20 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn the second deletion. The article contained a link to news coverage of the incident. While that doesn't guarantee the topic will be encyclopedic because of WP:NOT#NEWS, it should be sufficient to get past A7. Evidence of notability, or even possible notability, is enough to get past A7, and speedy deletion is not an appropriate forum to make non-obvious determinations concerning notability or newsworthiness. Hut 8.5 11:32, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send to AFD. I can't see the article since it is deleted, but based on the title, it appears to be about an event, and not a biography of a person's life. Assuming the article was about the person's death and not all the other events of the person's life, then I do not think it was subject to A7 and the speedy deletion was thus invalid. It is quite possible for a notable event to involve a non-notable person, and I don't think the intent of A7 was to require people involved in events to have a claim to significance for articles about events they were involved in to be kept. Regardless, there seems to be news coverage of the event in reliable sources, which seems like a indication of significance. Even if the article was on a topic subject to A7, then it would seem to pass the requirements to not be deleted by A7 (again, I can't see the article, but per Hut 8.5's statement, some of the news coverage was apparently in the article). RHaworth's statement that the article should be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS seems like a reasonable statement to make at an AFD, but not a reason to speedy delete an article, so I think the article should be taken to AFD. Calathan ( talk) 19:04, 22 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn NOTNEWS is not a speedy criteria and A7 is intended to be a significantly lower bar than WP:N. a single good source is enough. -- Hobit ( talk) 02:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Hobit. A single RS is evidence that something was deemed important enough to cover, and is entirely enough assertion of importance to overcome A7, every time. Jclemens ( talk) 04:26, 24 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Since when is WP:NOTNEWS a speedy deletion criteria? Also other stuff exists, in a DRV, really? -- Cerejota ( talk) 18:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion but allow recreation. The deleted article is really thin, consisting of only one sentence stating why a person died, and without any more context, I can understand that the article failed to establish why it was covering a notable event, so A7 was understandable. It is correct that WP:NOTNEWS isn't a speedy criterion, and from the sources that many of the "overturn"-s provided, it may well be that the subject deserves an article (for example, we have an article on the Martin Anderson case). But I think it is better to start from scratch instead of trying to build on the article that was speedy deleted. Sjakkalle (Check!) 18:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The reason I brought this up here is because the article would risk getting speedy deleted again and salted if recreated without discussion. Apparently the article was indeed recreated for the third time under Hung_Chung-chiu after this discussion had begun. I have prepared a rewritten draft article here which I intend to combine and rename everything to Death of Hung Chung-chiu if the closer agrees to allow this subject to be recreated. - Mailer Diablo 19:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I'm sorry that I missed the 14 July version, which should not have been speedy deleted (hence I am withdrawing the "endorse deletion" part of the vote). I agree that your draft is suitable for putting into mainspace. (Good work with that draft by the way. :-)) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC) reply