Misplaced Pages

File:FilipAndTal.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The closing admin incompetently counted votes and set for a "no consensus", giving no weight to the fact that keep voters were in pure ignorance of criterion #8 our non-free content police, and asked for we to keep a non-free image of two man playing chess just because that was an important chess game (or because it was a "functional image"). It's the closing admin's duty do identify unsustainable arguments in such discussions, since it's much more likely for an average Wikipedian to be completely clueless about our non-free content polices than otherwise. Also, since non-free content is supposed to be the exception here, we need to achieve consensus in order to keep it, deleting being the default option for no-consensus. And even if cases where the closing admin is incompetent enough to know about it all, and decides to blindly count votes, he is supposed to at least know how to count properly, and understand that 1 nominator plus 3 deletes is more than just 3 keeps. The closing admin was asked to review the this (and some other equally obnoxious) closings but he stood by his mistake. damiens.rf 20:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I've redacted the vicious and unnecessary personal attacks made by this editor. Anyone wishing to put them back is welcome to meet me at AN/I, RFC or ArbCom. Dreadstar ☥ 18:14, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Come on Damiens, take your insistence on including personal attacks to AN/I, RFC or RFARB, I'm eager to see what others think. I don't think you know how wrong your actions are. Dreadstar ☥ 04:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Undid it, again. Don't touch my words. I do not share your interpretation that those words you removed are personal attacks. I won't be discussing this here. --damiens.rf 05:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Only three words in the nomination could be called personal attacks by any stretch of the imagination. I have removed those three words. Dreadstar was wrong to remove more than those three—and particularly wrong to add his own words above Damiens’ signature; Damiens was justified in reverting the changes. Damiens’ nomination may have been unnecessarily strong, but not nearly so over-the-top as Dreadstar’s characterization of it as “vicious.” —teb728 t c 06:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

And Damiens, please see WP:NPA. Disparaging comments on an editor rather than his content, even relatively light ones like yours, can be counted as personal attacks. I urge you to accept my proposed neutral synonyms. —teb728 t c 06:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - There was no consensus either to delete or on the reasoning for keep/delete. Personally attacking the admin who did the right thing is a really smart thing to do. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Also note that Damiens' initial attempt to get it deleted failed, so he's trying again. Although I can't imagine he's ever forum-shopped in the past. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • If claims about forum shopping hold any water here, we may as well close down the deletion review process entirely. J Milburn (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Comment contrary to Damiens.rf's comment, no consensus defaults to keep even in NFCC FFDs. There has never been a consensus to change this principle. Thparkth (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • I competely disagree. The burden of proof lies with those wishing to keep non-free content, as the criteria quite clearly state, and so if there is no consensus to keep content, it should clearly be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 21:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • There was no consensus that point 8 was being violated. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I know that you disagree, because you have disagreed in the several of the discussions which failed to gain consensus for your position. Thparkth (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • What on earth are you talking about? I quoted policy as written, and as it has been written for some time. I hardy endorsed a controversial position, and nor is that something I make a habit of doing... J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
        • Your quoting policy does not prove that it applies in this case. There was no consensus. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
        • See JHeald's comment below, which covers everything I was going to say in reply to this. Thparkth (talk) 22:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
          • Very well, Thparkth, then I also disagree with JHeald. Whether or not previous discussions have concluded that policy does not apply in certain cases, it remains policy. It's written right there. BB, I disagree, but that was not the point of my reply, nor is it the point of this "thread". The point I was making here is about whether or not "no consensus" defaults to "keep" or "delete" in this case. J Milburn (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
            • (Which, as an aside, is a point which is somewhat irrelevant to my arguments below- even if you disagree with my understanding of policy here, I don't use it as a basis for the main arguments I forward...) J Milburn (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. The only substantive "delete" argument was from Jhlead, who stated that in his opinion the image did not "significantly add to understanding". Both FPaS and J Milburn incorrectly argued that an image must be essential to understanding the topic, which is in fact not required by WP:NFCC which merely requires that the image's presence would "significantly increase" the reader's understanding. J Milburn also argued that there was no "entitlement" to use the image, but in doing so did not seem to address any policy issues. The "delete" !voters might have argued, but did not, that the content of the image could be adequately conveyed using text only per WP:NFCC#1, but in any case, DGG effectively demonstrated that it could not. The nominator's own argument, simply stating that the image was "unnecessary", carries no weight since it states no basis for this opinion. On the other hand, the arguments on the "keep" side, with the possible exception of one underdeveloped argument, were policy-based and directly addressed the requirements of WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI, demonstrating that the image illustrates a historic event and cannot be adequately described in text alone. I would personally have read this as a "keep" but I find the "no consensus" close quite reasonable and understandable. Thparkth (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Rather than "endorse" (i.e. "delete"), I think you meant to say "keep". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:47, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I certainly did not. This is a DRV. Endorsing the no-consensus outcome of the discussion means the image will not be deleted (at least, not right now). Thparkth (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • So, do you "endorse" the claim that the admin was incompetent? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
        • You must be one of those mythical editors who actually spend their time improving the encyclopedia rather than wikilawyering around DRV like me ;) To say "endorse" here is to say "I agree that the administrator who closed the deletion discussion did so appropriately, so I endorse their decision". It doesn't necessarily mean you're happy with the outcome, just that you accept the process was followed correctly. Thparkth (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
          • OK, as long as the closing admin understands it, then we're good. :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • You attack my argument that there is no kind of "entitlement" for an image of this sort, but that serves as adequate opposition to the arguments of DGG and Bubba, who argued only for the significance of the event, and seemingly used this as evidence that, therefore, there was some kind of entitlement for the image (if I am wrong in this assumption, then, so be it, they didn't actually mention the image at all, and should be ignored with even more ferocity). You are utterly and completely wrong that the arguments forwarded by DGG and Bubba "were policy-based and directly addressed the requirements of WP:NFCC and WP:NFCI"- to repeat, they served only to argue for the significance of the event, not the image, and that the event "cannot be adequately described in text alone". Neither of them addressed the issue of whether the image significantly adds to reader understanding (as is required by NFCC#8) which is one of the two things what was challenged in the nomination. J Milburn (talk) 22:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn, this should clearly have been deleted. Even if we were simply vote-counting, we have four in favour of deletion and three in favour of keeping. None of the arguments in support are based on policy- Bubba73 (the uploader) and DGG argue for the significance of the event (irrelevant for the use of non-free content) while the other keep argument is meaningless. No one has challenged the importance of the event, but the mere fact that an event is important does not mean that a non-free image showing it is necessary. Instead, our question has to be the value of the image itself. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Policy does not require that showing the image be "necessary" in order for it to be used, only that it "significantly increase understanding". Thparkth (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Yes, or, to put it another way, "necessary". If something "significantly increases understanding", it is "necessary". If you want to argue semantics, we can... J Milburn (talk) 22:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I think it's very obvious to anyone reading this that "significantly increases understanding" does not imply "necessary". I don't think further discussion on this point will be productive as long as you believe that the two terms are equivalent. Thparkth (talk) 22:34, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
        • If something significantly increases reader understanding, it belongs in the article. If something belongs in the article, it will be in the best article we can produce. We aim to produce the best articles possible, and so anything which will produce the best articles possible is, in the long term, necessary. Of course, that assumes that you are the kind of contributor who aims to produce the best articles possible. If you're going to attack my choice of words in such pathetic ways, you're forcing me to defend them. J Milburn (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
          • If you'd prefer (and, I must be honest, I absolutely love pandering to the whims of you) I can change "is necessary" to "significantly adds to reader understanding". The argument still stands... J Milburn (talk) 22:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
            • A picture of an event does significantly increase reader understanding of that event. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
              • You're a parody, right? You don't actually exist, surely? J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
                • "A picture is worth a thousand words". Or is that old adage a parody? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
                  • If you are of the opinion that pictures of events automatically pass the NFCC, that's fine, but I think you should probably avoid discussions of this sort. If you are not, I'm afraid I do not understand your comment. J Milburn (talk) 22:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete (Updated from Comment). Per both guidance and practice, "no consensus" defaults to "do not delete". The most extensive discussion of this was in 2009 at WT:FFD (See Wikipedia_talk:Files_for_deletion/Archive_6#No_consensus). One admin subsequently gave the following assessment of the discussion, closing a DRV in August 2009: "Guidance to this question is provided in the deletion guidelines for administrators. There is no consensus regarding potential changes to this rule allowing no consensus discussions at Files for Deletion to be closed as delete." That has been endorsed at DRVs in for example August 2009, May 2010, July 2010, and May 2011.

  On the other hand, we clearly direct closing admins to consider whether arguments are strong or weak; and the requirement to make a case is placed on those who seek to keep the image, to argue why it is compatible with policy. (The implications of which I have recently discussed at greater length here). It is only if a decent argument has been made as to why the image is compatible with policy (an intentionally high bar) that a closure of "no consensus" can be contemplated. At the very least, I would like to see an explanation from the closing admin as to where in their view that argument was made; because on the face of it I don't clearly see what it is about this image that is being claimed to "significantly improve" a reader's understanding of the topic (NFCC #8). Jheald (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

  • • Update I've updated my stance to "Overturn to delete". It will be fairly clear that that is the direction I was leaning towards anyway, but I wanted to hear what Fastily (and others) had to say first. Overturning someone with Fastily's commendable experience and dedication is not something that should lightly, and I wanted to know whether there was something he had seen in the "keep" !votes that I hadn't; but it seems there wasn't. DGG and S.Marshall make eloquent arguments that we have to trust the mood of the discussion; any closing admin here should also be aware that the whole issue of historical images and NFCC#8, and what actually is our policy stance, is and has been the subject of a currently ongoing discussion at WT:NFC. But I am not convinced. The central point here, I believe, is that if an image is to be kept, then implicitly or explicitly a rationale has to be forthcoming as to how the image satisfies NFCC#8, i.e. how it adds something significant to reader understanding of the topic. I have yet to see an argument, either in the original FFD or here, that really even tries to set out a case for this. DGG suggests here that if any event is sufficiently notable, then seeing an image of it advances reader understanding. If one accepts that argument, then I think a "no consensus" close would be sustainable. But I don't think that that is our policy stance, I think we deliberately seek our use of images that we do not have a copyright clearance for to be more spare and more restricted than that. Finally, to those who say that this is just a re-run of arguments presented at FFD I disagree. The primary purpose of FFD is to seek out the facts and argumentation particular to a given image; but what is happening here is primarily a discussion on whether the policy framework to evaluate those facts and argumentation has been correctly applied, which is exactly the intended focus for a review venue like DRV. I hope the admin closing this discussion will consider very closely the argument made by DGG, on the value of actually seeing any particular event, if it is sufficiently notable; and will give a reasoned assessment of that argument, rather than just counting heads here. But for myself, I do not think that is our policy stance; and therefore, with regret, I have to conclude that I do not think Fastily properly took policy into account when closing this FFD. Jheald (talk) 11:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The OP's personal attacks against the admin should result in (1) throwing out this bad-faith request for deletion; and (2) putting the OP on ice for awhile. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 21:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Oh BB, I completely agree. There has never been anyone who has ever legitimately challenged anything while, at the same time, attacking someone else. Nietzsche, Hobbes, Hume, de Beauvoir... We know for a fact that all of these people were wrong because they attacked others. J Milburn (talk) 22:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
      • If any of those guys show up on wikipedia and forum-shop, get back to us. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:25, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, who are you trying to accuse of forum shopping? J Milburn (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
          • I'm not trying to "accuse" anyone of forum-shopping. However, it's clear that the OP is forum-shopping. He lost in one place, so he's trying elsewhere. If he fails here, he'll escalate it to somewhere else. Bet on it. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Is that not the point of DRV? (Oh, and as you've now said something moronic, does that not entail that we ignore your arguments? Is that how it works? I struggle to keep up...) J Milburn (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
              • An admin calling an editor "moronic" for disagreeing. Very impressive. So how did you get to be an admin? Did you win it in a Cracker-Jack box? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:44, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
                • I didn't call you moronic, and nor did it have anything to do with disagreement. I claimed that you said something moronic, and explained the claim, while sarcastically using a similar argument to one you had previously. Very different. For instance, you're perfectly welcome to accuse me of saying something moronic if I do, though I would not welcome you calling me a moron; equally, I would be perfectly happy to say that someone with whom I agree had used a moronic argument. J Milburn (talk) 22:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
                  • So, you did win your adminship in a Cracker-Jack box? :) ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
                    • Shhhh, don't tell everyone. J Milburn (talk) 23:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. Despite the rather intemperate comments made in the OP's initial comment, I believe he's right on policy, at least with regard to the use in this article. (I'd probably have a different opinion if it were illustrating on article on the tournament or game itself, a distinction that's lost in the FFD discussion.) There's already a perfectly suitable individual image in the article infobox. There's no division in the community over the underlying policy issue; it's simply a question of applying the policy to an individual photo. In that context, I think the burden must fall on those wishing to retain the image, and I don't see that it's been met in the FFD. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:42, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • The photo is in a section (but not article) on that particular game. Bubba73 02:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete. Closing admin gave no rationale despite a contested discussion on fair use issues. In these circumstances I am not inclined to defer to the usual "within admin discretion" approach. The "keep" !voters in the discussion failed to demonstrate the satisfaction of the NFCC. The delete !votes -- particularly those of Fut Perf and J Milburn -- were policy fluent, convincing, and unrefuted. How would the omission of this picture decrease the readers' understanding of the subject? NFCC8 requires that question to be answered. It wasn't. In FFD debates that concern fair use issues, the arguments/numbers balance should be more weighted towards the former than is normally the case. Here, not only is it impossible to discern how the closing admin weighed those arguments, when they are actually examined, a delete outcome is clear. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:58, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse. Obviously correct closure. Arguments here are XfD arguments, not DR arguments. Nominate it again if you feel there is now a consensus to delete. Deletion review is not the forum for this. _matic 00:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • What is at question is the strength of the arguments used at the XfD discussion; myself and others are of the opinion that the discussion was improperly closed. Is that not the whole point of DRV? The image should have been deleted (or otherwise) based on the strength of the arguments used. J Milburn (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse no consensus close. NFCC #8 is not to be a crypto-IDONTLIKEIT: when consensus is split, a minority interpretation of NFCC #8's applicability should not trump the fact that the community is clearly divided on its presence, hence no consensus and hence not deleted. Jclemens (talk) 03:00, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Whether or not people are "clearly divided on its presence" (which I consider an odd claim...), NFCC#8 is policy, and those arguing to keep the image did not address it, despite the fact that the image was challenged on those grounds. This is exactly the same as, for instance, someone nominating an article for deletion, claiming that the subject is not notable, and someone arguing it should be kept because "it's not a hoax". J Milburn (talk) 11:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn - there's no rational argument that this meets our non-free content policy. This isn't like AFD where different people have different legitimate opinions about what subjects an encyclopedia should cover. Rather, this is a cut and dry policy and just because a bunch of people who don't like the policy get together and !vote keep doesn't mean that an admin should ignore the policy. --B (talk) 03:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse when there is no consensus there is no consensus, and admins are suppose to recognize that; if they take a non-consensus situation and then close according to what side they agree with, they should not be doing the closing. They should be joining in the discussion--where their arguments might well make a true consensus in favor of their position, in a more direct fashion. I don't think admins who close according to the side they prefer are usually intending to cheat by using what amounts to a supervote--they are merely expressing the human tendency to think the side of the argument they support to be the stronger. Myself, I never close a seriously divided discussion except against my general position. If even the closer think the way they want to look at things was not supported, it undoubtedly wasn't. If they think their way of looking at things was, they might or might not be right. Closing against one view is the only way to be sure to be honest. Frankly, I would make it a requirement. Myself, I think the image meets NFCC and I said so at the time. A match at this level is probably an historic event, and an historic event can always give a proper sense of the significance in pictures. That's why people take pictures of them in the first place: understanding is both abstract and emotional. The only question, & I am not an expert in the subject so I need to leave it open, is whether a match at this level is indeed a sufficiently historic event. Others in the community will have to judge that part--if it is not very highly important, the picture should not be used, and I think there would definitely be consensus there. The community clearly does not support NFCC 8 to justify including a fair use picture of everything. Would my view open the use of NFCC to support a photograph of any truly historic event? Yes; that's how I think the policy should be interpreted. At present, I think there is in fact a divided consensus about this--the virtue of closing non-consensus is that we can revisit it in 6 months and see which way the opinion is turning. (why 6 months--because it takes at least that long to shift consensus.) I think consensus was against my position a year ago, but it's changed. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • "an historic event can always give a proper sense of the significance in pictures." You cannot just declare something a "historic event" and claim that, therefore, we need an image of it. We use an image when the image adds significantly to reader understanding, not when we have made a certain judgement about the event. That's what policy requires (NFCC#8 is about judging the image, not the subject). If you disagree with policy, that's fine, but you should not be forcing what you think policy should be on others, and you certainly should not be spouting it in discussions like this. J Milburn (talk) 11:54, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • I'm not aware I'm forcing policy on anyone. I don't do admin work on files, so how can I possibly force anything. My arguments have results only if people agree with me. Discussions like this are a very good place to remind people that policy can change--and in fact to see if there is increasing consensus for one interpretation or another. What we do here is one of the ways we make policy. I agree that if i fought every FFD to the bitter end it would be unconstructive, but I've never even brought one here of my own accord. When someone does bring something to discuss, I sometimes discuss it. As for what I did say, I said very clearly that the question is whether the item is sufficiently historic, and I specifically said I do not support such a non-free illustration for everything that can be claimed to be historic. We disagree about where to draw the line, & there's no need for either of us to get nasty about it. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete: The closer failed to follow the guideline for determining if rough consensus was reached. The guideline requires “looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy”. The “delete” arguments made a strong case that the use was in violation of policy, and none of the “keep” arguments countered those arguments. —teb728 t c 06:46, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse my own decision. I carefully evaluated the deletion discussion thrice, on separate occasions, to determine consensus. I found none. -FASTILY 07:30, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Will you say which if any of those !voting to keep, in your judgement, gave a plausible argument as to how what a reader sees in the image should be considered to significantly add to contextual understanding about the topic of the article? What is it they said that seeing this image adds, that you considered to be substantive and at least plausible? Jheald (talk) 08:40, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
• If I had taken part in the discussion, I would have !voted "delete", on the basis that while the image in question is not replaceable, it also does not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic, when used in context. But this is not FfD round 2, and JClemens' point is excellent. It seems to me that the central question of this DRV is: How should a FfD closer decide whether NFCC#8 is passed or failed? And it seems to me that the answer is: On the basis of the consensus at the discussion. We elect admins to implement the consensus. Admins' power to make unilateral deletion decisions is limited to the speedy deletion criteria and to PRODs. Fastily may well have had his own opinion, but what he did was to implement the consensus and we can only endorse. But a "no consensus" close allows for an early renomination for deletion, and in this case I would suggest that the file in question is renominated in early course.—S Marshall T/C 09:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
  • But see WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS. In judging an XfD, a closer has to judge the strength of the arguments, in the context of what is required by policy. And policy requires that those arguing keep in an FfD have to provide a rationale for why an image passes NFCC#8. Fastily had to judge whether a substantive rationale had been provided, and that is the specific point where I hope he will give us more clarification as to how he came to the judgement he did. Jheald (talk) 09:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
    • On what basis would you have wanted Fastily to disregard the good faith opinion of an established editor? Should every !vote include the phrase "I think this passes NFCC8 because..." or be discounted? Are we to ignore any view that doesn't contain a bluelink to a policy? I think the view that you express here, Jheald, would require Fastily to enforce a rule that we don't actually have.—S Marshall T/C 10:29, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
      • The "good faith opinion of an established editor" is worth little without decent supporting arguments. If ten people pile on and say "delete, nn" in an AfD, that counts for little if the five support the retention of the article have unearthed a number of reliable sources and expanded the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:42, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
        • The reason why that's an entirely different matter, J Milburn, is that "non-notable" is an opinion statement that is capable of being decisively refuted. If our hypothetical five people unearth reliable sources and cite them, then those people have countered an opinion with evidence. In Misplaced Pages, as in law and the scientific method, evidence trumps opinion. But here the point of contention is about NFCC#8: the opinion that this material does not significantly enhance the reader's understanding of the topic -v- the opinion that it does. Those opinions roughly balance one other out, hence the rough consensus is hung between the two views.—S Marshall T/C 12:10, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
          • You're misrepresenting the nature of the debate. Ok, maybe there was not evidence, as "evidence" is harder to come by in these discussions than in the example I gave, but we do have reasonable arguments. In this case, there were no reasonable arguments supporting "the opinion that it does"; only assertions about the significance of the event. This isn't just a case of "opinions roughly balance one other out", as not everyone there was just saying "well this is my opinion". You're just falling into the trap of vote counting; "well, there is not chance of evidence, so we'll just count the votes and see which opinion wins out". J Milburn (talk) 00:08, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
            • Well, that's largely true. I am throwing up my hands and saying, "there's no evidence, just opinions, and the opinions balance out." And it's also true that I see no reasonable basis on which to prefer the one over the other. I don't agree that I'm vote counting and I don't see where you got that idea from. I also don't agree that there were "no reasonable arguments" on the "passes NFCC#8" side. A neutral closer might well infer users' positions on that, on the basis of WP:AGF, without needing the arguments to be spelled out, and this is indeed what Fastily seems to have done.—S Marshall T/C 02:00, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
    • One problem with that guideline, and the above argument, is that policy is supposed to describe practice, not restrict it. If a bunch of people say "IAR keep" giving an encyclopedia-building reason that isn't covered by the letter of current guidelines, and one person argues to delete looking at the letter of the current guidelines, what happens? If policy is only changed in advance by discussion, then the minority of one would win. In the Wiki-way, however, IAR is a core policy, and coherent arguments based on the pillars should be accorded appropriate weight, which is more than that of simple guideline-based wikilawyering. This isn't relevant to many debates where the arguments on one side are things we know we don't care about, of course, but when multiple editors are each citing conflicting interpretations of policy, (IAR included) then extreme caution should be applied in seeking to overrule the community's numerical voice. Jclemens (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
      • I agree entirely, when reasonable arguments are given. In this case, the "argument" appears to be "the event is important, so we should be allowed to use non-free content to show it off, no matter how useful or otherwise the picture actually is". That makes a mockery of our NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 00:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

In summary, when closing this debate, I found:

• The strongest reason(s) to delete: failure to satisfy WP:NFCC#8
• The strongest reason(s) to keep: notable historic event and while not explicitly stated, file meets WP:NFCC#8.

Taking into account the loose wording of WP:NFCC#8 (which is frequently open to highly opinionated interpretation), and seeing how the number of rational !votes to keep and delete were almost split equally down the middle (4:3), I logically defaulted to close the debate as no consensus. -FASTILY 20:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• On the keep side how does notable historic event imply meeting NFCC#8 ? Every article on wikipedia is supposed to meet the notability guideline so clearly NFCC#8 requires more than the subject merely being notable, if it doesn't it's a pretty meaningless criteria. --82.7.44.178 (talk) 21:13, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

• Those wishing to retain the image may have implied that they believed that the image met NFCC#8, but they most certainly did not argue for it. J Milburn (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Which on the basis of strength of argument is considered weaker than direct argument on the point? --82.7.44.178 (talk) 06:43, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, per Fastily, the loose wording of WP:NFCC#8 is frequently open to highly opinionated interpretation, and he number of rational !votes to keep and delete were almost split equally down the middle (4:3), it was only logical to close the debate as no consensus. The personal attacks and obnoxious remarks by the editor asking for review of the close don't help anyone and are detremental to the project. Completely unacceptable. Dreadstar ☥ 18:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn to delete, with some reluctance. I think it's troubling that rigorous enforcement of NFCC#8 often detracts from the quality of Misplaced Pages articles, and I think that it's a shame that unique non-free photographs of notable historical events are being removed because they don't meet the letter of the non-free content policy. However, despite my personal distaste for these sorts of deletions, I think that Fastily should have deleted the file in question when he closed the relevant FfD discussion. The arguments for deletion were strongly rooted in the NFC policy, with Future Perfect at Sunrise and J Milburn providing solid reasons why NFCC#8 was not met in this case. DGG and Bubba73 gave good explanations of the importance of the chess game photographed, but they did not successfully show that the image's "presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding," as required by criterion #8. DGG wrote that "individuals cannot be adequately described in words," and (in this DRV) that "a match at this level is probably an historic event, and an historic event can always give a proper sense of the significance in pictures. That's why people take pictures of them in the first place: understanding is both abstract and emotional." While DGG makes a case for NFCC#8 being met in this instance, and while I am sympathetic to his position, I'm afraid that DGG simply did not show that the letter of policy was met – that is, he didn't show that the image significantly increased reader understanding. While I would prefer it if non-free photographs of important historic events could be included, I don't think there's a consensus for that at this juncture. In the meantime, we have to follow the NFCC policy as it stands today, keeping in mind that it was handed down from high as a WMF edict. As such, I think those seeking deletion had the stronger arguments in this FfD. I'm not willing to say that "no consensus" should default to delete for non-free files, especially since NFCC#8 is so subjective and many debates over files' NFCC#8 compliance have solid arguments on both sides (for example). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)\

the term "significantly increase understanding" is not something with precise definition; it's the sort of "reasonableness" test which can only be decided by opinion. -- There is an alternative: treating it as a question in social science, deciding what actual measurable quality to measure, finding a validated way to measure it, determining the statistical level of significance to apply, and running an experiment with a properly stratified and adequate sample of actual readers. Probably there are a few people here who could do this, and if we found one who would work full time at it, we could decide scientifically on a half-dozen images a year. After all, what we cannot measure, we do not know. But if we cannot measure scientifically, all we can do is collect unscientifically the available grab sample of global opinions here--and that is a good definition of "consensus." When its a matter of pure opinion on something a nebulous as one's understanding, nobody here is an authority & no admin has a better way of telling than anyone else. Unless we know an opinion is given in bad faith, That is why I think the NFCC criterion 8 is worthless: it has no definable meaning. I say the increase in understanding is significant to me, you say it is not significant to you. Both opinions are equally valid, and neither of us has any rational way to prove the other to be wrong, DGG ( talk ) 02:42, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, this is not just about opinion counting; it's not that some people think it increases reader understanding, some don't, it's about arguing how useful it is. If convincing arguments are put forward, whether or not I personally get anything from an image, I will support its retention, and vice versa. So, I am not looking to prove that you do not consider the image increases your understanding, I'm looking to argue that the image is not needed in the article as it is not likely to increase understanding significantly. For instance, perhaps your increase in understanding came from the fact the image drew your attention to a significant part of text; it will have served to significantly increase understanding, but this is not a legitimate use of non-free content. Again, all you argued for is the significance of the event. At no point did you argue for how this picture significantly increases reader understanding, subjective or not. There's a wonderful habit among some to equate "subjective" or "unscientific" with "everything's as good as everything else". They're not as closely linked as some would like to believe... J Milburn (talk) 10:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

DGG – if only it was as simple as, say, running a chi-square test to decide whether there's a significant relationship between two variables. Unfortunately, there aren't any variables here, and there aren't any numbers to crunch. All we've got are the policy interpretations provided by whoever happens to have showed up during a given week at FfD. In this case, you personally have voted to keep an image based on a quite loose interpretation of NFCC#8; I suspect that the word "significant" was specifically included in the policy to prevent the use of loose interpretations like yours. Once again, however, I personally dislike the policy as it stands, and I hope that it will be changed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and if there is any change then keep. This is a powerful image whose presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It is an unrepeatable historic photograph. TerriersFan (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Hello, TerriersFan, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Please note however that a deletion review is not AFD round 2. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process, and your argument should revolve around whether the debate was correctly interpreted by the closing admin. Never thought I would have to explain this to an administrator, but if you act like a newbie you get treated as one Yoenit (talk) 10:46, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• IAR Endorse A Stop at Willoughby has it exactly right. I reach the opposite conclusion he does though. The harm caused by our historically extremely narrow reading of NFCC#8 is too great for far too little benefit. The picture doesn't, and can't, significantly impact the understanding of the topic. It's two guys playing chess. But the picture really should be in the article as it provides an illustration of the subject engaged in one of the more important, and historical, moments of his life. Of course any article on a person should include such an image. It makes it much easier for the reader to relate to the subject and truly understand them. But by rule and historical precedent this should have been deleted. I invoke IAR and say the rule is wrong. This is effectively a protest !vote :-) Hobit (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn/delete. Of the three keep votes, one completely failed to address the issue of NFCC#8, talking only about the perceived importance of the event and persons pictured, but not about the importance of the image for understanding the event; it was therefore not policy-compliant. The second had no substance whatsoever. The third was based on the mistaken notion that there was a parallel practice of a general allowance of non-free images of important sports events, which is simply wrong. All three keep votes should therefore have been discounted or assigned significantly less weight than the delete votes, which were visibly based in policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete – notability does not override the non-free content criteria, which was nowhere close to being addressed by those arguing for retention. Moreover, local consensus cannot set aside the official policy on non-free content. –MuZemike 17:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Discussion noted at WT:NFC, here Jheald (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

• While I would agree that this should be deleted under failure to provide any reason to use under NFCC#8 (and that "two men playing chess" is a free text replacement for the image, per NFCC#1), I have to go on the policy approach that DRV is not AFD#2 and to endorse the closure as Fastily's interpretation of the results. I don't agree with his conclusion, but a "no consensus" is a legitimately possible read off the few !votes and ensuing discussion that occured, taking into account how NFCC#8 is highly subjective. Because of this, closing admins should not be making subjective judgement calls when appropriateness is split. Those that believe this should be deleted should consider a second AFD in a few weeks with stronger arguments based on why the image was failed to be deleted before. To us at NFCC, this may be the type of case that we can used to narrow what is are appropriate historical images, (with believing that as this image is used now, it is not appropriate. --MASEM (t) 13:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and delete; The Miroslav Filip article contains no mention of the image in any respect. The match is referred to of course, but the discourse between the opponents after the match isn't discussed at all, nevermind there's no discussion of the image itself. The article readers perfectly fine without the image. It's not connected to the text in anyway. I also note the rationale's stated purpose is "illustration of article's subject". If that's all it takes to include non-free content, then there's absolutely no limit to the amount of non-free imagery we can have here. In sum; exceptionally weak rationale, no connection to the text, no sourced discussion of the image. Blatant failure of WP:NFCC #8 and #1. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)