| Revision as of 20:23, 22 December 2009 editMarine 69-71 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users80,126 edits →File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG: Endorse← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:05, 22 December 2009 edit undoDamiens.rf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,536 edits →File:Hiram Bithorn.JPGNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| *There was no consensus to delete in that discussion. I '''endorse''' the close, because if there's no consensus to delete, then the closer shouldn't have to take any shit from DRV for not deleting. But I do think the discussion itself was unsatisfactory. Damians.rf's concerns were not properly addressed at all. I suggest that DRV should refer this to the copyright noticeboard, in the hope of getting a view from people who understand the issues more clearly.—] ]/] 15:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | *There was no consensus to delete in that discussion. I '''endorse''' the close, because if there's no consensus to delete, then the closer shouldn't have to take any shit from DRV for not deleting. But I do think the discussion itself was unsatisfactory. Damians.rf's concerns were not properly addressed at all. I suggest that DRV should refer this to the copyright noticeboard, in the hope of getting a view from people who understand the issues more clearly.—] ]/] 15:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Endorse''' - I also endorse the close per S Marshall's reasoning and believe that an opinion of the copyright noticeboard would be most helpful in this situation. ] (]) 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | *'''Endorse''' - I also endorse the close per S Marshall's reasoning and believe that an opinion of the copyright noticeboard would be most helpful in this situation. ] (]) 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ** Do you suggest we ignore the fact we have no source information other than a home made website that copied the image from somewhere and posted it? --] 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:05, 22 December 2009
< 2009 December 21 Deletion review archives: 2009 December 2009 December 23 >22 December 2009
File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG
The closing Admin acknowledgedly counted raw votes instead of considering the strength of the arguments in the face of our police. The votes to keep didn't really addressed the problems raised in the nomination. --Damiens.rf 09:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- There were 3 votes to keep the image:
- The first (by the uploader) just stated the nomination was wrong.
- The second completely ignored the nomination's concerns and mentioned unrelated policy criteria.
- The third argued without evidence the image was PD.
- There was one vote to delete, that reaffirmed the nomination's concerns, and explained why we can't affirm the image is PD. --Damiens.rf 10:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- There was no consensus to delete in that discussion. I endorse the close, because if there's no consensus to delete, then the closer shouldn't have to take any shit from DRV for not deleting. But I do think the discussion itself was unsatisfactory. Damians.rf's concerns were not properly addressed at all. I suggest that DRV should refer this to the copyright noticeboard, in the hope of getting a view from people who understand the issues more clearly.—S Marshall /Cont 15:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Endorse - I also endorse the close per S Marshall's reasoning and believe that an opinion of the copyright noticeboard would be most helpful in this situation. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do you suggest we ignore the fact we have no source information other than a home made website that copied the image from somewhere and posted it? --Damiens.rf 21:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)