Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 24: Difference between revisions
Abu badali (talk | contribs) |
Talkshowbob (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: |
ADD A NEW ENTRY BELOW THIS LINE IN THE FORMAT: |
||
{{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> |
{{subst:Newdelrev|pg=ARTICLE_NAME|reason=UNDELETE_REASON}} ~~~~ --> |
||
====[[:William Bain]]==== |
|||
:{{la|William Bain}} <tt>(</tt>[[Special:Undelete/William Bain|restore]]<tt>|</tt><span class="plainlinks">[http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:{{fullurl:William Bain}} cache]</span><tt>|</tt>[[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Bain|AfD]]<tt>)</tt> |
|||
I wasnt around to respond to the prod but this isnt a vanety page, William Bain is quite a noted accademic in International Relations theory. [[User:Talkshowbob|Talkshowbob]] 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC) |
|||
====[[:Dash Signature]]==== |
====[[:Dash Signature]]==== |
Revision as of 23:22, 24 July 2007
- William Bain (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
I wasnt around to respond to the prod but this isnt a vanety page, William Bain is quite a noted accademic in International Relations theory. Talkshowbob 23:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dash Signature (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
The content on the Dash Signature page was an article about the history and development of an audio software company, Dash Signature. The content is worthy of inclusion on the following grounds: 1) the "Virtual Studio Technology" industry is relatively small and young - Luigi Felici and WilliamK, the original founders of Dash Signature, have been involved at some level or another with this computer-based music instrument industry since its inception. They both still remain active and prolific developers in the independent VST industry (although they no longer work together). Several of their products were landmarks, pre-empting ideas that were later picked up on by larger, mainstream companies. For example, their TubiLeSax, a saxophone VST instrument, got further developed and commercialized by LinPlug. EMMKnagalis was the first ever dedicated ethnic instrument sound module in VST format, paving the way for other products. DaAlpha 2K was one of the earliest VST emulations of a hardware synth, followed by their cult classic DaHornet.
2)The idea of the page is NOT to advertise, but to note some important contributers to a new technology for musicians. By only focusing on "mainstream" developers (several mainstream developers have wiki articles that are not contested, and contain blantant advertising- for instance, the Native Instruments page), Wikipedia would simply be recreating a balance of power where commercialism and capital outway innovation and independance.
I hope the deletion will be reviewed in favor of the page being returned. Paulrwalsh 20:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse deletion; valid A7. Article contained no assertion of notability and almost certainly suffered from WP:COI issues. ergot 22:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:Georgecarlinmugshot.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
Mugshot of counter-culture comedian George Carlin. This file was deleted by Howcheng (talk · contribs) pursuant to an ifd nomination. It was undeleted a short time later by Alkivar (talk · contribs) with the claim that "debate at IFD did not have a consensus to delete". Abu badali (talk · contribs) brought the issue up at AN/I, whereupon this image was again deleted by Butseriouslyfolks (talk · contribs). Note that in IfD closings policy often trumps consensus, or lack thereof. Note also that the image was not a blatant copyright violation and there are many instances of {{mugshot}} use in biographies. The copyright status of mugshots varies based on jurisdiction and local laws, so the tag defaults to a fair use claim. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Is this a procedural listing? --Abu badali (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- No, see below. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn - I think that the IfD nomination was largely baseless. George Carlin was a free-speech pioneer following in the footsteps of Lenny Bruce ('cept the obsessive indignant streak) and his "Seven dirty words" bit led to a Supreme Court case and notable changes in FCC policy. The mugshot of a comedian detained for "public indecency" is iconic and would serve a valuable purpose in Carlin's article. It is not, as Abu badali claims, an "Unnecessary, non-notable, non-free mugshot of an actor". ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Dispute: An inconic image is not one that has been produced during an iconic event. An iconic image is one that have been discussed by other sources. Do you know of any discussion (by reliable sources) about this image?
- About the nomination being "baseless"... are you sure you're familiar with item #8 of our policy on non-free content? Non-free material is not used unless it's absence compromises the understanding of the text. It must convey (noteworthy) information that words alone can not. That image was only being used to illustrate the fact that that man was arrested, but this is the kind of information that doesn't need an image to be understood. --Abu badali (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Iconic is not a legal term, it is instead a wonderfully descriptive word used to add emphasis. Your appeal to reliable sources would only be relevant if I was proposing to add the word "iconic" to Carlin's article or mugshot caption.
- I am aware of criterion #8, but it is not wholly aligned to your interpretation. I suppose that almost any photograph could be replaced by a text description; after all, do you really need Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg to visualize JFK sitting in the back of a convertible? It is preposterous to claim that media associated with notable developments must be somehow *proven* to be significant. There are no alternative free-license photographs of Carlin that could adequately portray the artist as he appeared at the time of his arrest. As this photograph documents an important development, its editorial value is self-evident. If you had written the article, I could understand an objection based on editorial grounds. However, seeing as you are a self-professed fair-use inquisitor, you start of with a conservative set of presuppositions and proceed to cherry-pick random copyrighted images without much concern for actual encyclopedic coverage. This is a criticism of your method, the same thought process that led to your biased (and, IMO, deeply flawed) IfD nomination. So no, I don't agree with the assertion that this mugshot violates NFCC#8, or any other criterion. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I never said or implied "iconic" was a legal term. But if you plan to keep this image based on the fact that it's iconic (what I believed was your argument above), then you'll have to provide sources for the claim that the image is iconic. It's not up to us, as an encyclopedia, to establish the image's "iconicness". We in this case, we would be using the image to talk about its notability, and not as a convenient illustration.
- I completely disagree that almost any photograph could be replaced by a text description. A lot of images contain noteworthy information that can't be conveyed by text. But a mugshot is hardly one of those images.
- You're completely mistaken if you believe that the use of non-free material is an editorial decision. We have a (very strict) policy that can't be ignored. Deciding among a non-free image and a piece of free text that conveys the same information is not an editorial decision! Our policy dictates that, as long as the information can be conveyed with text, no non-free image can be used. --Abu badali (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Um... any decision that has any bearing on article content is an editorial decision. You assert that a mugshot does not contain noteworthy information, I disagree. So do several other editors. You appear to agree that not every photograph can be replaced by a text description, but then say that as long as the information can be conveyed with text, no non-free image can be used. I think that it is naive to ignore any possible overlap, or to assume a definite line separating the two extremes. In short: this picture is worth a thousand words. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn The debate itself had no consensus to delete, nor is this a clear case of policy trumping consensus/lack there of, the fair use claim is justified in that the arrest associated with the mug shot has historical value. I have heard of that picture before I saw it here today. Until(1 == 2) 05:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you could point to sources discussing that picture, maybe it could be kept. But besides that, it was a clear case of policy being applied. Both the rationale and the keep vote failed to explain why was this image necessary for the reader's understanding of the text. --Abu badali (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- By the same token, I could claim that you failed to explain why this image was "non-notable" in spite of overwhelming evidence or "unnecessary" despite multiple contradictory opinions. Alternately, I could point out that it is ludicrous to demand a sourced discussion of every copyrighted image on Wikipedia. Some images are notable or controversial in and of themselves while others are notable for documenting a controversy. It is important to recognize the difference. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- You can't use the same token because the onus is on the one wanting to use the non-free material. We need strong reasons to use non-free material, and not to not-use it. Every non-free image must contain a fair use rationale explaining, among other things, what is the image used for and why can't free text (or images) be used for that purpose. This image failed to do so, this was pointed out in the ifd nomination, but the problem wasn't fixed during the ifd discussion. The deletion was the correct decision! --Abu badali (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- As I just said: you simply ignore any reasons put forth for using this image. On a side note, it did include a detailed rationale. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- You can't use the same token because the onus is on the one wanting to use the non-free material. We need strong reasons to use non-free material, and not to not-use it. Every non-free image must contain a fair use rationale explaining, among other things, what is the image used for and why can't free text (or images) be used for that purpose. This image failed to do so, this was pointed out in the ifd nomination, but the problem wasn't fixed during the ifd discussion. The deletion was the correct decision! --Abu badali (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- By the same token, I could claim that you failed to explain why this image was "non-notable" in spite of overwhelming evidence or "unnecessary" despite multiple contradictory opinions. Alternately, I could point out that it is ludicrous to demand a sourced discussion of every copyrighted image on Wikipedia. Some images are notable or controversial in and of themselves while others are notable for documenting a controversy. It is important to recognize the difference. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- If you could point to sources discussing that picture, maybe it could be kept. But besides that, it was a clear case of policy being applied. Both the rationale and the keep vote failed to explain why was this image necessary for the reader's understanding of the text. --Abu badali (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Endorse - Both the rationale and the keep vote failed to explain why was this image necessary for the reader's understanding of the text. Unless some new information arrives (as some claim that this image is notable), the deletion must be endorsed. --Abu badali (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn There was CLEARLY no consensus to delete at IFD as 1 delete and 1 keep does not a consensus make, the only user pushing for this deletion is Abu Badali who has been stalking my contributions for months. Image had a very strong fair use rationale, and met all 10 of the WP:NFCC criterion. Abu Badali's immediate run over to ANI to object to my undeletion clearly shows he's following my actions, as undeletions do not trigger on watchlists. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please, avoid personal attacks. Also, as an admin, you should already understand that consensus has nothing to do with counting votes. --Abu badali (talk) 05:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Umm ... I have no idea how he came to be aware of your undeletion, but right after you undeleted the image, you edited it to remove the IFD notice. That would trigger a watchlist. --B 05:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Don't really care but IFD, unlike AFD, is more a question of policy than of consensus. If the !votes for keeping a replaceable fair use image are 10-1 in favor of keeping it, we still delete it. Consensus only matters when it is an editorial question (ie, should a low quality photo or drawing be deleted) rather than a policy one. Personally, I don't see how a mugshot can add significantly to the article. WP:FAIR, paraphrasing Kat Walsh, says that we use non-free images for subjects "that are hard to discuss in an educational context without including examples from the media itself." We could not, for example, discuss the Kent State shootings without the famous photo. But a mug shot? Unless it's someone like William Morva who will be in jail for the rest of his life and a mug shot is the only photo we will ever have, I don't see a reason for it. A mug shot just to illustrate the fact that the guy was arrested isn't that big of a deal. --B 05:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and relist. I don't see consensus to delete or any policy that trumps consensus. I'm on the fence on Abu's WP:NFCC#8 objection, but that's a judgment call anyway, not a clear matter of policy. When it's relisted, I do think the copyright holder should be clarified per WP:NFCC#10, and I think we need to confirm that it was published (as opposed to just leaked) to satisfy WP:NFCC#4 (unless there's some exception for this sort of public record). -- But|seriously|folks 05:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Considering that both the rationale and the keep vote failed to explain why this image is necessary for the understanding of the text, and that this alone is ground for deletion, what benefit would a relist do? I see we having like 19 votes saying keep while still not explaining why is this image necessary for the understanding of the text. The image would have to be deleted anyway and a new horde of policy-unsavvy users would come to argue about how the "19x1 consensus" wasn't followed. Please, read the ifd achieves from the last months. If it wasn't for Alkivar breach of admin tools, this ifd wasn't different at all from dozen of others closed daily. --Abu badali (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Mugshots are neither published nor leaked, they are a matter of public record. FWIW, here's an example of this mugshot's use in published journalism. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that the copyright status was never an issue in the ifd nomination. Unless this image comes out to be free (in each case it's use would be an editorial decision), it shouldn't be used because it doesn't helps in the article's comprehension. --Abu badali (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strange, I figure the journalist must have had some reason to use it... ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have checked the websites of the authorities that arrested him and they said nothing about the copyright status of their images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is disputed whether booking photographs constitute copyrightable subject matter. Authorities provide access to them as public records, they don't publish them as intellectual property. If they are copyrighted, the copyright is held by local governments, i.e. non-commercial entities, thus easing the standards for a fair use claim. In this case, Carlin's booking photo has been published by the media and holds a unique historic value. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- I have checked the websites of the authorities that arrested him and they said nothing about the copyright status of their images. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 07:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Strange, I figure the journalist must have had some reason to use it... ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:12, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please note that the copyright status was never an issue in the ifd nomination. Unless this image comes out to be free (in each case it's use would be an editorial decision), it shouldn't be used because it doesn't helps in the article's comprehension. --Abu badali (talk) 06:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment from closer: To respond to User:Anetode's argument "there are many instances of {{mugshot}} use in biographies", all I have to say is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. His second argument about a journalist is also irrelevant. Uses that may be allowed under "fair use" in the U.S. are routinely disallowed here because they are not compatible with the goal of free content. As for its "iconic" status -- cite some reliable sources that discuss it and work them into the article. WP:NFCC #8 is supposed to be pretty clear: The article must need the image such that if it were missing, the reader would have a hard time understanding what the article is trying to say. This really is more of a procedural nomination, despite all claims to the contrary. I could have !voted after which it probably would have been deleted by someone else, citing a consensus, or I figured I'd just save that other person the trouble and just do it. howcheng {chat} 16:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Following your interpretation of NFCC #8 the following all fail Image:TrangBang.jpg Image:Tianasquare.jpg Image:Aftermath_of_the_Bath_School_Disaster.png Image:Hitler walking out of Brown House after 1930 elections.jpg ... your interpretation is absolutely 100% without a doubt impossible to pass for any image. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes and no. Image:TrangBang.jpg and Image:Tianasquare.jpg are both absolutely necessary. No discussions of Phan Thị Kim Phúc and Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 respectively are complete without those photographs. The Bath school disaster, I'm not so sure. The Hitler image is definitely not necessary to the article; there are plenty of free Hitler images there to decorate that article. howcheng {chat} 18:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Images like Image:TrangBang.jpg and Image:Tianasquare.jpg were widely commented about by reliable sources. Other examples include Image:Ap_munich905_t.jpg and Image:Inselian.jpg. That's what it means for an image to be iconic. --Abu badali (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Otherstuffexists wasn't an argument for using this particular image, I mentioned it to define the context of prior editorial decisions. That is to say that there are numerous occasions when consensus determined the necessity of using a mugshot in a biography (e.g. Mel Gibson#Alcohol abuse; otherwise, why keep them around?). To address your other point, I believe that there is a clear basis for using this image. It contributes significantly to the article - an editorial stance corroborated by journalists using it for exactly the same purpose. You will be hard pressed to find a discussion of the majesty of this booking photo as it's not an artistic piece. It wasn't exactly like the police department published it in a "best-of" calendar or that this mugshot made it into photography magazines. Nevertheless it does document a very notable event, one studied by first amendment scholars as well as cultural historians. Public records of notable events hold a historic value. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- The ifd nomination and deletion was never about an editorial decision. It's about the policy. The "journalists using it for exactly the same purpose" are not committed to free content. In their case, it is only an editorial decision. We can only see this as "clear basis for using this image" if we choose to ignore what WP:NFCC#8 says: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". --Abu badali (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Following your interpretation of NFCC #8 the following all fail Image:TrangBang.jpg Image:Tianasquare.jpg Image:Aftermath_of_the_Bath_School_Disaster.png Image:Hitler walking out of Brown House after 1930 elections.jpg ... your interpretation is absolutely 100% without a doubt impossible to pass for any image. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- overturn not only the most extremely notable images are important. In the context of his life and activities, this is sufficiently significant to justify itself. DGG (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn. Here is an example of a story on that incident. It uses that photograph. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=626471 That's strong evidence that specific photograph is important enough to be fair use. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- This only shows that the image is useful. Do you understand that, for non-free material be used on Wikipedia, it must be far more than simply useful? --Abu badali (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. 1) Are mugshots produced in the US really nonfree? I was under the impression that they were uncopyrightable and public record, like trial transcripts. 2) I seem to recall there even being a licensing template for mugshots. 3) Did I miss a discussion somewhere? ergot 22:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, to all questions. I'll number yours for easy reference. :-) 1) It's debatable, see the discussion at answer 3. 2) Why yes, there is, Template:Mugshot. 3) Yes, the discussion is at Template_talk:Mugshot. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 22:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Overturn and restore per nom. Golfcam 22:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- This is not a vote. Do you have some new information to add? --Abu badali (talk) 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Abby Abadi (closed)
|
---|
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |
This article on a Malaysian actress got tagged for A7 at the start of an AfD, and was deleted while I was typing up my keep !vote. Arguably, it might technically meet A7, since it doesn't explicitly assert that she is a popular or significant actress. However, despite the lack of notability boilerplate, the evidence suggests that she is very popular in Malaysia. She won the Anugerah Bintang Popular Award for "Most Popular TV Actress" in 2000, 2001, and 2002.[1] She has a major role on a popular TV series, Gerak Khas, and its spinoff feature films. She's got 50 News Archive hits[2], and her raw Ghit count of about 20K[3] strikes me as pretty good considering that a) Malaysia is a less wired country with a smaller population, and b) her peak of popularity seems to have been around 2000-2002. Overturn speedy; I'm indifferent to whether the article is relisted on AfD, if anyone still doubts her notability. Groggy Dice T | C 03:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
|
The above is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it. |