| ||
---|---|---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. | ||
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm going to go with incubate. I agree that the close was within BWilkins' discretion and I think he deserves credit for being willing to make a difficult call. But the whole topic area is very complicated and difficult, and the more I look at it the more neutrality issues I see; our India-related coverage is chaotic and disorganised and an awful lot of it has been written by a fairly small number of people, many of whom have shown up in these debates. Although I see every evidence that those editors are writing in good faith, I think it's rather dangerous to allow our content of articles about violence and dissent in India to be controlled by a consensus of whoever shows up when "whoever shows up" is a small group of people. I think there may be appropriate content and sourcing that, with a little rewriting, could be incorporated into our existing coverage and I think it will all take longer than our customary seven days to assess in detail, so "incubate" looks correct to me.—
S Marshall
T/
C 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| ||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Firstly, this was deleted under
CSD F7 where the relevant policy states
On the face of it, the deletion meets the listed CSD process. The article was nominated for deletion as replaceable on 6 June and on the same day the listing was disputed with the claim:
The article wasn't deleted until 10 days later by an admin who was not previously involved in the article, thereby meeting the requirement to wait 2 days and that, if disputed, the file shouldn't be deleted by the same person tagging it. . So it does look that both policy and custom and practise support the admin reviewing the CSD request using their own judgement on whether or not to list the disputed replaceable file at FFD. None of the arguments around disputed replaceability being requiring listing at FFD really discussed this nuance and I think its fair to say that this argument pretty much amounts to arguing that by not listing, the closing admin incorrectly applied policy. This isn't consistent with the written CSD and the acknowledged practise reflected in the WT:CSD discussion. Based on that, my opinion is that we should not overturn and relist unless we find that the closing admin was manifestly wrong when they used their discretion to delete rather than list at FFD. I am not seeing any consensus to say that this was the case. The endorse side make a strong argument that this image is potentially replaceable and that the stated reasons given at the time of deletion for disputing this are extremely weak - a sprited defence of the irreplacibility of the image during the DRV has been overcome by the endorsing arguments. On that basis I find that the policy based arguments here are to endorse the deletion. This does go some way against general practise at DRV, which is to pretty much list anything at XfD if a decent argument against the deletion is put forward. Why am I not using my discretion as DRV closer to do that? Essentially, I don't see a credible argument to refute the argument that this file can potentially be replaced by a free image. |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The deletion of this image as being replacable fair use ignited a debate on WT:NFCC that is turning into yet another war between those trying to uphold policy as such (like me; a certain editor only called me a deletionist because of my actions in another, very different NFCC 1 case, best described as being carrots to pineapples in comparison), free content purists, and deletionists. The deleting admin stated that "Fair use doesn't apply just because you find it hard to get a free photo. The bat still exists and a picture can be taken of it, therefore grabbing a non-free picture isn't legit." However, this seems to be a special case because this particular species has only really been caught on camera in this particular non-free image; we should just use common sense here and put this up for further discussion with third-parties who have better knowledge of our consensus in NFCC 1 cases. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Respect for Commercial Oppurtunities There is complete respect for commercial opportunities because the owner allows it to be on Google Earth and it is freely accessible online. Having it freely available on Wikipedia will not change a thing. Surfer43 ( talk) 11:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Possibly not quite as sorted as you think. :-) I wish to raise two points in answer. First, we do indeed have a rule that only allows a few dozen fair use images on the whole encyclopaedia---but we also have a meta-rule that governs our rules. From the start, I've been showing that this case is the poster child for a rule that stops you building an encyclopaedia. It's also a rule that's under RFC at the moment and from the beginning, I've been saying that the outcome of the RFC should prevail. These are not views that closers typically disregard, and although it's accepted that they don't always win either, I certainly do join issue with you about whether they should be ruled out completely! Second, your many excellent content contributions are welcomed and appreciated. However, the implication that they give you any moral authority to tell others how they should contribute to Wikipedia is denied. If I decide to improve that article, then I'll be the judge of what I should do to improve it.— S Marshall T/ C 14:49, 21 June 2013 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm going to go with incubate. I agree that the close was within BWilkins' discretion and I think he deserves credit for being willing to make a difficult call. But the whole topic area is very complicated and difficult, and the more I look at it the more neutrality issues I see; our India-related coverage is chaotic and disorganised and an awful lot of it has been written by a fairly small number of people, many of whom have shown up in these debates. Although I see every evidence that those editors are writing in good faith, I think it's rather dangerous to allow our content of articles about violence and dissent in India to be controlled by a consensus of whoever shows up when "whoever shows up" is a small group of people. I think there may be appropriate content and sourcing that, with a little rewriting, could be incorporated into our existing coverage and I think it will all take longer than our customary seven days to assess in detail, so "incubate" looks correct to me.—
S Marshall
T/
C 11:22, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| ||
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |
Firstly, this was deleted under
CSD F7 where the relevant policy states
On the face of it, the deletion meets the listed CSD process. The article was nominated for deletion as replaceable on 6 June and on the same day the listing was disputed with the claim:
The article wasn't deleted until 10 days later by an admin who was not previously involved in the article, thereby meeting the requirement to wait 2 days and that, if disputed, the file shouldn't be deleted by the same person tagging it. . So it does look that both policy and custom and practise support the admin reviewing the CSD request using their own judgement on whether or not to list the disputed replaceable file at FFD. None of the arguments around disputed replaceability being requiring listing at FFD really discussed this nuance and I think its fair to say that this argument pretty much amounts to arguing that by not listing, the closing admin incorrectly applied policy. This isn't consistent with the written CSD and the acknowledged practise reflected in the WT:CSD discussion. Based on that, my opinion is that we should not overturn and relist unless we find that the closing admin was manifestly wrong when they used their discretion to delete rather than list at FFD. I am not seeing any consensus to say that this was the case. The endorse side make a strong argument that this image is potentially replaceable and that the stated reasons given at the time of deletion for disputing this are extremely weak - a sprited defence of the irreplacibility of the image during the DRV has been overcome by the endorsing arguments. On that basis I find that the policy based arguments here are to endorse the deletion. This does go some way against general practise at DRV, which is to pretty much list anything at XfD if a decent argument against the deletion is put forward. Why am I not using my discretion as DRV closer to do that? Essentially, I don't see a credible argument to refute the argument that this file can potentially be replaced by a free image. |
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it. |
The deletion of this image as being replacable fair use ignited a debate on WT:NFCC that is turning into yet another war between those trying to uphold policy as such (like me; a certain editor only called me a deletionist because of my actions in another, very different NFCC 1 case, best described as being carrots to pineapples in comparison), free content purists, and deletionists. The deleting admin stated that "Fair use doesn't apply just because you find it hard to get a free photo. The bat still exists and a picture can be taken of it, therefore grabbing a non-free picture isn't legit." However, this seems to be a special case because this particular species has only really been caught on camera in this particular non-free image; we should just use common sense here and put this up for further discussion with third-parties who have better knowledge of our consensus in NFCC 1 cases. ViperSnake151 Talk 01:39, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Respect for Commercial Oppurtunities There is complete respect for commercial opportunities because the owner allows it to be on Google Earth and it is freely accessible online. Having it freely available on Wikipedia will not change a thing. Surfer43 ( talk) 11:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Possibly not quite as sorted as you think. :-) I wish to raise two points in answer. First, we do indeed have a rule that only allows a few dozen fair use images on the whole encyclopaedia---but we also have a meta-rule that governs our rules. From the start, I've been showing that this case is the poster child for a rule that stops you building an encyclopaedia. It's also a rule that's under RFC at the moment and from the beginning, I've been saying that the outcome of the RFC should prevail. These are not views that closers typically disregard, and although it's accepted that they don't always win either, I certainly do join issue with you about whether they should be ruled out completely! Second, your many excellent content contributions are welcomed and appreciated. However, the implication that they give you any moral authority to tell others how they should contribute to Wikipedia is denied. If I decide to improve that article, then I'll be the judge of what I should do to improve it.— S Marshall T/ C 14:49, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
|
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it. |