Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 28: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:36, 28 December 2009

< 2009 December 27

Deletion review archives: 2009 December

2009 December 29 >

28 December 2009

Climategate scandal

There were a significant number of opinions expressed in support of keeping the article and after reviewing the arguments the issue seemed far from settled. Further, a close on a disputed AfD less than 12 hours after it was opened when it doesn't meet speedy conditions seems very premature. jhe_iv (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:IAR. I also proposed blocking the article creator for disruption at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Serious_BLP_problems_at_Climategate_scandal. Rd232 ^talk 11:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That ups the ante - that's pretty clear abuse of tools in pursuit of pushing an agenda - you need to step aside here. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh! That page is clearly forum shopping. There is a discussion in AfD for a reason. If the deletion is overturned as premature I hope your actions will be reviewed as well. jhe_iv (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: obvious POV fork William M. Connolley (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(as article creator) The article was speedily deleted as a "POV fork". That seems to involve an accusation regarding a POV I was supposedly espousing, which I can assure you is not a POV I hold. I have repeatedly denied that I have a POV on the subject, and that the article is supposed to be a fork of something. A large number of editors seem to agree. Many to most of the delete opinions ignored or missed the point that this is a simple splitting of one article into a parent and and a child because they involve disparate albeit related subjects, that were growing unwieldy by being pushed into the same article. From the looks of it, the article was heading towards a "no consensus to delete", although it is a brand new article that, along with the AfD, has been around for only 12 hours. For an admin to speedily close it as delete, ignoring my rationale and the numerous people who have posted thoughtful rationales in support, seems to ignore process. There has to be an orderly way for people to bud single articles about multiple subjects into multiple articles about one subject each. It looks very much like people simply do not wish to acknowledge as an encyclopedic subject that there is a controversy / scandal arising from this particular climate change incident. There is such a controversy, as the sources describe and as a large number of Wikipedians have weighed it. For an admin to unilaterally overturn that by calling it a POV fork, before the discussion has played out, is to take a content position and use the tools to enforce it. This ought to be relisted to let the discussion continue, and resolved by consensus not fiat when done. - Wikidemon (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted at ANI, the proper way to do what you claim to want to do would be to spin off the reaction section of the existing article in WP:SUMMARY style. You know this perfectly well, as can be seen from the way you referred to the existing article in your fork. The content of the article you created covered all of the terrain of the existing one, under a POV title. We call this a fork, and generally, when we're not avoiding WP:SPADE, we call it a POV fork. Rd232 ^talk 11:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should note that the closing admin, above, has been calling for me to be blocked simply for having created the article, and engaged in some rather abusive accusations against me on AN/I. They've been completely unresponsive to my attempts to explain my good faith attempts at content edits here. Splitting single articles into two is part of the daily business of Wikipedia, and any admin who does not understand that should not be speedily deleting articles on that basis. They're too involved in the content matter, and really should not be exercising their tools here. This ought to be overturned as a simple process violation by an involved admin. Obviously I think the article should exist and should not be deleted, but whatever the outcome is it should be decided by consensus, not muscle-flexing by involved admins. - Wikidemon (talk) 12:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"abusive" accusations? such as? "involved"? how? Like your claim that it's not a fork, truth is not a function of volume. Rd232 ^talk 12:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, and please respect other editors with whom you disagree. Mackan79 (talk) 11:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - The deletion was maybe not in process, but the closing admin was just doing the only obvious thing. A textbook case of fork (being POV or content fork, doesn't matter). The editors of that article should contribute to the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident article and expand the post-theft controversy section, but creating a fork cannot be allowed in any circumstance. --Cyclopia ^talk 11:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relist per mackan79 mark nutley (talk) 11:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as noted in my closure, the proper way to deal with issues of titling and article focus of the existing article (Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident) is to discuss at the relevant talk page, doing an WP:RFC if necessary, and perhaps spinning off a daughter article if necessary. What should not be done is creating a blatant fork (User:Wikidemon/Climategate scandal). Since a blatant fork is unacceptable, a relisting is unnecessary. Further discussion of the concerns motivating the fork, which may or may not be valid but wouldn't make a fork acceptable either way, should be elsewhere than at AFD or DRV! Rd232 ^talk 12:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relist if only for the simple fact that the AfD was inexplicably ended prematurely. This does not seem like appropriate use of admin tools. jhe_iv (talk) 12:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, mostly per Cyclopia. Good application of WP:IAR. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No matter how long that AFD lasts, it will end in no-consensus with the article in the current form. That effort is better spent working on the article in userspace. Start an RFC in a week or two, which has the added benefit that the discussion can go longer than a week. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Angry students turning over police cars.jpg

quote:Reason=As other pictures in the article, this one conveys the situation and overall atmosphere of the scene much better than words can and also proves that what is said in the sentence is true (assuming, of course, the photo was really taken there and then, which is not being challenged, though). I say keep until a free image showing the same (or a reasonably similar) scene is available. Jimmy Fleischer. Arilang ^talk 09:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restore and Relist, at the risk of sounding unpopular, the image had a fair use rationale, and nobody argued for keep other than the nominator. Closing as "Delete" under those circumstances without a further rationale is bizarre. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

File:Zhou Shuguang(Zola) and Li Shufen's family.jpg

Zhou Shuguang(Zoula) was the first Chinese citizen reporter who showed support for Li Shufen's family when all the main stream Chinese media refused to take up the story. Zhou Shuguang(Zoula) used his mobile phone and internet cafe to file his report, and has since became famous among Chinese netizens. Arilang ^talk 09:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, I'm not seeing anything in the debate that suggests WP:NFCC are satisfied in this case—one comment saying that it was irreplaceable (NFCC#1) and another saying that the subject is important. Neither says anything about the other NFCC—NFCC#8 in particular. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PresidentRamonMagsaysay.jpg

Not sure if this is the proper place for this but it seems it might be appropriate so I'll ask here. I've skipped the step of informing the admin who deleted the file because it's more of a policy question and perhaps due to a technicality in this particular case deletion could be justified although I'm unsure because the page has already been deleted. I suspect, however, this topic will come up over and over again in the future, so I'd like to request guidance on proper procedure when it does so that a more permanent solution may be developed.

The picture is of the 7th President of the Philippines Ramon Magsaysay. He died in 1957. According to Philippine law, as described in the license template {{PD-Philippines}}, pictures after 50 years enter the public domain. Because of this I'm uncertain why the picture of President Magsaysay was deleted. It is now 2009, 52 years after his death. One rationale I can see is that Wikipedia states that it has a benchmark of 80 years to conform with U.S. law. If this is the reason for deletion then the {{PD-Philippines}} template is useless and is misleading to anyone using it. A side issue this raises is of systemic bias since then it would increase the likelihood that pictures from the United States government or foreign governments will be relied upon. It would seem as if a Philippine government picture of a Philippine president even if conforming with Philippine law is not eligible for use on Wikipedia. I must also note the Philippine government is not particularly diligent in labeling pictures so the 50 year limitation is pretty important in keeping things simple. Anyway, I guess my question is this: If someone wished to upload a picture of a long since deceased president of the Philippines what rationales are acceptable? Must one rely upon non-free rationales? Lambanog 2 edits. (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really DRV fare, but you're essentially correct that all images must first and foremost be acceptable under US copyright law. The various country-specific templates are only there to give information on potential ramifications to using images elsewhere. In this case, a fair use tag for uses in the US, plus a Philippine public domain tag would indicate that the image is not PD in the United States, but it is in the Philippines, and people in that country can freely use it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

So many such country tags are purely for information purposes and on their own do not contain any information that might prevent the deletion of a picture? That should be made far clearer. The image uploading process is messy for anyone not willing to spend considerable time trying to sort through the pages dealing with the restrictions. I get the feeling those patrolling images would do themselves a favor by reorganizing the information pages. The page that says a rationale must be provided with an information template for example is not as obvious as it should be. Thank you for the response. Lambanog (talk) 05:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So is this resolved? Timotheus Canens (talk) 06:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 27: / Line 27: @@
 * '''Relist''' if only for the simple fact that the AfD was inexplicably ended prematurely. This does not seem like appropriate use of admin tools. [[User:jheiv|jhe<sub><small>iv</small></sub>]] ([[User_talk:jheiv |talk]]) 12:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse''', mostly per Cyclopia. Good application of [[WP:IAR]]. [[User:Timotheus Canens|Timotheus Canens]] ([[User talk:Timotheus Canens|talk]]) 12:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
+* '''Endorse deletion'''. No matter how long that AFD lasts, it will end in no-consensus with the article in the current form.  That effort is better spent working on the article in userspace.  Start an RFC in a week or two, which has the added benefit that the discussion can go longer than a week. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:John Vandenberg|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:John Vandenberg|chat]])'''</sup></span> 12:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 ====[[:File:Angry students turning over police cars.jpg]]====