|
I discovered that two separate files for deletion discussions which were running concurrently were closed with one week inbetween, on 14 and 22 July, respectively, with completely different outcome. The discussions were on different FFD subpages and they were closed by different administrators, so it is possible that the two administrators were unaware of the other administrator's closure. Both discussions concern whether posters of boxing events satisfy WP:NFCC#8 in the articles about the boxing events.
This seems awfully inconsistent and anyone would agree that both of the discussions should have the same closure. I think that all of the files should be deleted for the reasons I expressed in the deletion discussions, but the completely different closures show that this isn't completely settled, so it may be best to relist the whole set at WP:FFD.
Note that the deletion discussions also sparked a request for comments at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 59#Promotional event posters as identification. It looks as if this wasn't mentioned at all in the deletion discussions (at least not in the latest closures), so the closing administrators may have overlooked that discussion. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All Should be Restored and Kept: I may seem biased being that I'm the uploader of these images and creator of a large amount of boxing match articles, but the proof that these images are indeed used 100% legally and are important to article itself is right there in front of us. Long-time and respected administrator Nv8200p said it best when he opted to keep the Holyfield–Bowe poster, just like movie posters, these boxing posters do satisfy the contextual significance criteria as stated by NFCC#8. I don't think Stefan or any other user realizes just how important these posters are to the sport and just how big a purpose they serve. I don't think there is any doubt that these images should be kept. Beast from da East (talk) 02:04, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But why do you think that posters identify boxing events in the same way as a posters identify films? Book articles are often represented by cover art because readers commonly see cover art when looking for books, and even if cover art currently is absent, no one would question its addition. However, the article Iphone 4 doesn't contain any cover art, simply because no one identifies mobile phones by their box art. Some things are identified by posters or box art whereas other things are not. Whenever I read about a sports event, what I see is not a poster but one or more photos from the event, so it seems that photos from the event provide more identification than advertisements for it. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Boxing is different from, say, the four major American sports leagues in that most of boxings top events are not aired for free and instead shown on pay-per-view. As a result, boxing is 95% about promotion and drawing people into wanting to spend money to watch these events. Posters are shipped around in mass to get the word about these events around. Pretty much all of these posters feature both of the combatants, the date and location, the sponsers of the fight and if applicable, the title (ex: "Repeat or Revenge" for Bowe-Holyfield II) For boxing, as well as MMA and professional wrestling pay-per-view event, the poster BECOMES the de facto image associated with the event and that is why I feel that they should be kept, no questions asked. Beast from da East (talk) 18:32, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be helpful if you can find reasonable sources (not necessarily reliable, though that would be preferred) that use the posters in such a way or talk about using them as representative of different matches. It's not required, but it would certainly help if we had more than your opinion here (though I tend to think you are correct...) Hobit (talk) 02:05, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn and relist all of them together. I deleted them in good faith and Stefan tagged them in good faith, since we didn't know the big picture, but now that we know what's going on, there's no good reason to accept either one of these contradictory decisions. Nyttend (talk) 17:02, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition to what I wrote above, I would also like to point out that there wasn't much discussion between the delete closure and the keep closure. Three comments were added, two saying delete and one saying keep. I do not think that those comments could have the effect that any consensus changed between 14 July and 22 July; the consensus on 14 July must have been identical to the consensus on 22 July. This shows that one of the closures was wrong, and this is better solved by relisting everything in a bundle. --Stefan2 (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think there is nothing wrong with contradictory results. That happens. I'm certainly leaning keep on those (per my arguments at the FfD for the one that was kept) but I think a relist isn't unreasonable. Honestly might be best as an RfC given that I'm pretty sure which ever way it goes people will claim it as a precedent on a huge number of images so it's really more than an FfD. Hobit (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Guideline WP:NFCI para 4 has a section specifically saying that posters (promotional material) may be allowable, subject of course to the policy stipulations in WP:NFCC. Arguments at the FFDs specifically against boxing posters in particular (as distinct from book covers or film posters) seem to be contrary to the guideline. It is perfectly acceptable to argue against an established guideline if you disagree with it and it is fine to seek to change the guideline. However, a bundled FFD may not be the best way to assess whether the present guideline no longer has consensus. Hobit's RFC suggestion is well worth considering. Thincat (talk) 07:46, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All restored on request of Nyttend, the deleting admin, at WP:REFUND#Several G4 image undeletions needed. JohnCD (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm the deleting admin of some of these at Ffd; sorry about chiming in late here folks. I'm unconcerned either way but given that the images existing or not is not earthshattering, the simplest path is to undelete them and then they can be relisted, if people want. Ffd discussions are often poorly attended and there are many of similar ones that have dissimilar outcomes. Undelete and relist looks like a sensible move from here - Peripitus (Talk) 02:55, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
|
