Gates of Vienna ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closing admin responds to my request on their talk page "75% is consensus enough for me." In the closing no argument at all is given for the decision to close this way. This article was nmominated for a second AfD only 3 weeks following its first nomination, which ended with no consensus. In my view very little has changed in the discussion in the meantime. Also the fact that making a second nomination that closely following the first nom, although permissible, is usually highly inadvisable. __ meco ( talk) 08:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Awaiting the closer's response before adding any words in bold, but I can see several aspects of this which are of concern. Please would the closer explain (a) the reasons why Gun Powder Ma's sources were found to be inadequate or insufficient, and (b) whether the comments and arguments in the first AfD were taken into account in closing the second (and if not why not).— S Marshall T/ C 11:12, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse this particular AfD - with the consensus at 8/3 including the nominator, and all but one of the Keep !votes being "it's notable", I don't see what else the closer could have done. The first one was the same - it had more "it's really notable" !votes but none of them went into any depth. Black Kite ( talk) 18:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Black Kite, this is a good interpretation on consensus. Mark Arsten ( talk) 22:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- based on the clear consensus at that AfD, no other close was possible. Reyk _YO! 23:24, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I don't really agree with the above three commenters. "Not a vote" also applies to people who aren't in the ARS, guys.— S Marshall T/ C 10:42, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Fine. I think a swift re-nomination after a non consensus close isn't a lot different to a relist. So imagine the first AfD had been relisted, and that the opinions thereafter had come in 9-3 in favour of deletion (or 6-2 if you take away duplicate votes between the two AfDs). Even you would not be able to argue for a non-consensus close in that situation. As for "not a vote", I think that's an inaccurate accusation. There was only one two keep votes that attempted to find sources, a half-sentence name drop in the first AfD, and a better attempt by Gun Powder Ma in the second, but which was convincingly shown to be inadequate by AbstractIllusions. The rest of the keep !votes were just "it's notable" and "there are sources out there somewhere". So if you consider the second AfD on its own, the consensus is delete. If you consider both together, the consensus is delete. If you consider the strength of arguments and sourced provided, the consensus is delete. Reyk _YO! 22:24, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    • That'd be a valid point if all the Delete comments were simply "this is not notable", but there's some well reasoned ones and a few per those. I think my point still stands. (And where did ARS come into it? I don't see any of the usual suspects in that AfD.) Black Kite ( talk) 22:32, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I still don't really agree. I didn't find AbstractIllusions at all convincing; he was the character who was trying to dismiss the New York Times and the Journal of the Shi'a Islamic Studies as "blogs" or "passing mentions". Doesn't accord with my reading of those sources at all, and I don't think snout-counting is the right approach here. Still, I seem to be a lone voice in the wilderness...— S Marshall T/ C 16:53, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The closer correctly interpreted the consensus of an 8-3 majority of the discussion, which was that a set of passing mentions did not pass the notability tests. Evidence was cited in support of this policy-based argument, and there was no strong argunment against the validity of either the evidence or the policy interpretation. The closer had no discretion to close the debate any other way. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:05, 20 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. The process on this stinks all way round.

  First, the article was renominated less than three weeks after the first AfD - with a fairly high participation - ended in no consensus. We don't have a hard and fast rule on the wait time before renominations, and no consensus closes can indeed be renominated sooner compared to keeps, but less than three weeks is still way too short. The closer failed to adequately consider or even acknowledge this serious procedural anomaly.

  Second, and more importantly, the debate itself is defective for another reason: it failed to adequately consider Gun Powder Ma's sources, which were not present in the article before they were added to the AfD. The earlier "delete" !voters therefore had no opportunity to consider these sources. After these sources were added, we had one keep and one delete, signifying that the sources are not clearly insufficient. Under these circumstances, the closer's failure to either attach significantly lesser weight to the earlier comments, or relist the debate for a fuller discussion of GPM's sources, is error. T. Canens ( talk) 00:23, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• relist sources came in late and look reasonable on their face. One person seemed to feel they were fine, the other expected articles where this was the subject of the coverage. Seems like a good time for a relist as no consensus would seem to exist about the sources found. Hobit ( talk) 12:39, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the AfD. - Looks like the blog has been around since January 12, 2003, [1] so it's possible that the topic meets WP:GNG. I'm guessing that name of the blog is in reference to when "a Mongol army reached the gates of Vienna in 1241, the future of western Christendom looked doubtful." [2] [3] [4] Neither goes towards meeting WP:GNG, but the article itself lacks context and merely picks and chooses promotional information to post in Wikipedia, which I think it a main oppostion to the controversial topic. I think there is enough reliable source material for the topic to meet WP:GNG. Some in-title relevance to the topic include:

• Mark Townsend (July 31, 2011). "How the far right's web of influence created a killer: Anders Behring Breivik found succour for his extreme views on a host of hardline websites. But these opinions are part of a wider political and cultural shift as anti-Islamic and xenophobic groupings take root across Europe". The Observer. {{ cite news}}: |section= ignored ( help)
• "The Interior Dept. is blocking all blogs with a new filter,...". Washington Internet Daily [5]. October 13, 2006. p. 20. {{ cite news}}: |section= ignored ( help); External link in |newspaper= ( help)

There about 50-80 other news articles that mention Gates of Vienna blog/website, so I think the topic meets WP:GNG, although consensus at the AfD said otherwise. Give that the controversial topic is going to bring some opposition, the best way to combat that is to use only material from Wikipedia reliable sources and write the article in a neutral way that reflects those source materials. That will get a good number of Wikipedians to support the article. However, if you write a skimpy and promotional article on a controversial topic, you won't get many people coming out to support the article. As such, rather than another AfD, the best way to go from here is to write a user space draft and present that to DRV to have it moved to article space. (Regarding OP's "article was nmominated for a second AfD only 3 weeks following its first nomination" comment, the first nomination close with no consensus, so it is OK to immediately list the article at AfD again or wait three weeks to do so). -- Uzma Gamal ( talk) 13:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC) reply

File:Enedina-arellano-felix.jpeg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

This page should not be speedy deleted as an unambiguous copyright infringement, because Enedina Arellano Félix is a high-profile criminal, and the image has been used as a mug shot in the media to identify her. [6] I am not aware that there are any free images of her, let alone another image of her besides this one. In addition, the picture belongs to an international illegal militant organization ( Tijuana Cartel), and such pictures are typically not covered by copyright law (as they cannot legally copyright their material) and therefore it may not need fair use. In that case, it may have no copyright.

Anyways, I made sure to add a mugshot template and a fair use rationale plus the copyright template to add the image. I am aware that there was a previous image of Enedina that was uploaded to Commons when it shouldn't have. I don't know who did it but I was unaware that it infringed copyright materials.

Pardon my horrible English. ComputerJA ( talk) 01:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Is there a speedy criteria in use here? (I'm assuming there was a fair-use rational.) While she is a living person, there are reasonable arguments to be made for fair use and being irreplaceable here. So I'd tend to prefer a "list at FfD" outcome, but I'm willing to be shown it is speediable. Hobit ( talk) 10:35, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• The speedy criterion used was "unambiguous copyvio" (and RHaworth gave the original file address). I agree that an alternative image is going to be hard to come by in this case, but the nominator's claims are going to be difficult to substantiate as well: I think before the file can be restored it'll be necessary to show either (a) that the file does belong to an illegal militant organisation AND (b) that illegal organisations forfeit their copyright in the US, OR (c) that the file is not copyrighted.— S Marshall T/ C 11:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I'm fine with not restoring during the discussion, but I think FfD is a better venue than this. Further, I don't think that an image with a fair use statement is speedible in this situation (but I'm no image-policy guy and I can't confirm such a statement was provided). Just seems like the wrong process was used AND there is a real chance this meets our rules for using copyrighted images. Hobit ( talk) 14:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• What copyright permissions can I use to re-add the picture? I've been using the same rationale in other images and did not have any problems (see 50px, for example). The admin said that he/she deleted the image "... because of its pathetic quality." Is this a reasonable move? ComputerJA ( talk) 15:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at FfD. The claimed justification for the deletion is patently invalid. Neither G12 ("Text pages that contain copyrighted material...", emphasis mine) nor its file counterpart, F9 ("Obviously non-free images ... that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use", emphasis mine) apply, nor is the fair use rationale so obviously invalid as to justify immediate deletion under F7, the only colorable argument for a speedy. It is debatable, however, whether the file passes NFCC, and that's a question that should have been decided by FfD. T. Canens ( talk) 02:01, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Wait a moment—is that correct? There's no speedy deletion criterion for an image that's an unambiguous copyvio, if the uploader makes a claim of fair use? That seems to me to be a lacuna in our rules because it means, technically speaking, that we must restore a known copyright violation for the duration of the discussion (something that DRV's rules say we should never do).— S Marshall T/ C 07:36, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• By definition fair use images are "copyvios". When a claim of fair use is made, F9 no longer applies and the speedy deletion of such images are instead governed by criteria F5 (orphaned non-free images), F6 (missing FUR) and F7 (invalid FUR). I suspect that most of the problematic fair-use uploads are deleted under F7, either immediately in cases of plainly invalid FURs, or after two days as replaceable. T. Canens ( talk) 08:19, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• I propose that we update DRV's guidance notes to reflect this.— S Marshall T/ C 10:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I'm loath to see things speedied where judgement is called for. Speedy deletion is for unambiguous deletions. And by definition if judgement is called for it's not unambiguous. There really is no legal worry unless there is a takedown notice provided (at least under current law, though IMNAL). I don't think 7 days is normally an issue... Hobit ( talk) 17:02, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    • I've temporarily undeleted the description page only. Any deleted fair use image temporarily restored for DRV would likely be orphaned, and thus technically deletable after 7 days. In any event, I don't think being able to view the image itself is essential to informed discussion in this DRV. When and if this is listed at FfD, the image should be restored then. T. Canens ( talk) 17:10, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and list now that Tim has clarified there was a FUR. Hobit ( talk) 16:59, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Sorry, but what does that mean in English? xD Do I have to do anything else? ComputerJA ( talk) 17:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, good question. What will happen is that we'll have a discussion for about 7 days. At the end of that some admin will read the discussion and figure out what to do. My guess at the moment is that they will restore the file but start another 7 day discussion about if we _should_ have the file. I'm not sure what the outcome of that discussion will be. So it will be a couple of weeks (I'd guess) before this gets settled for good. Wikipedia is a lot of things, but rarely fast! Hobit ( talk) 19:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• Yeah, List this one. This is how I work; anything that's uploaded without a fair-use tag (i.e. "own work") which is obviously copyrighted gets whacked with the F9 stick - unless there's a possibility that the uploader's just confused and there's a chance they may be a valid non-free (rare). Meanwhile, anything uploaded that is obviously and unambiguously always going to fail NFCC (i.e. a copyrighted picture of a living public person) gets whacked with the F7 stick regardless of whether there's a FUR. Everything else - goes to FFD. Black Kite ( talk) 20:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• List because there is ambiguity. By the way, fair use (if it really is fair use) is not an infringement of copyright. [7] [8] Also, so far as I know, it is WP policy, and not the law, that requires a fair use rationale. Thincat ( talk) 09:43, 19 September 2012 (UTC) reply
  • De facto, Wikipedia refers to files as "copyright violations" if they are unfree files listed as free images. I know that this isn't the legal definition of a copyright violation, though. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 08:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• I nominated this for speedy and in retrospect I can see this nomination was a poor decision although in my defence I should say that I was fixated with the image being removed as a copyvio so I would vote to list this at FFD. That said, I strongly believe that this image will fail to pass NFCC as a free image is potentially possible. I should also say that the sourcing on the FUR was incorrect as the image is clearly derived from the TIME cover [9] and this should be listed as the source, not some other source that is using as a derivative image after it has been flickr washed. [10]. Clearly when we come to consider the FUR under the FCC the true nature of the image will be an issue. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:34, 21 September 2012 (UTC) reply
• List at WP:FFD The deletion was obviously controversial, so it is better to handle it through a deletion discussion. It is better to do this at WP:FFD than doing it here since more people working with the file namespace will see the discussion if listed there. Also, as Special:PermanentLink/512826030 shows, the file was uploaded with a fair use claim, so the deletion rationale was wrong since neither F9 nor G12 applies to images with fair use claims. Images with fair use claims are handled by F4, F5, F6, F7, WP:FFD or WP:NFCR. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 08:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC) reply