| Revision as of 21:05, 22 December 2009 editDamiens.rf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,536 edits →File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:28, 22 December 2009 edit undoA Stop at Willoughby (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers7,160 edits →File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG: OverturnNext edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| *'''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) | ** 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) | ||
| *'''Overturn to delete''' FfD is a debate, not a vote. Yes, there were more "keep" voters than "delete" voters, but the nominator and the other "delete" voter had the stronger reasoning by far. One "keep" voter did not address the policy issues in detail. The second "keep" voter failed to explain how the image could meet ] when the copyright holder is unknown. And a third "keep" voter asserted that the image was in the public domain because it was published without a copyright notice – but provided no evidence that that was the case. On the other hand, the arguments for deletion were strong. The nominator and the other "delete" voter both raised valid concerns about the unknown copyright status, copyright holder, and source of the image. The burden was on the keep voters here to show either that the image was in the public domain or that the image met all the nonfree content criteria; they did not, their arguments were weaker, and because the headcount was 3-2, it's not fair at all to say there was a consensus to keep the image. However, while I disagree with Od Mishehu's closure, I commend him for taking on the unsavory task of interpreting consensus at such a challenging debate. Someone's gotta do it. ] (]) 22:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 22:28, 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)
- Overturn to delete FfD is a debate, not a vote. Yes, there were more "keep" voters than "delete" voters, but the nominator and the other "delete" voter had the stronger reasoning by far. One "keep" voter did not address the policy issues in detail. The second "keep" voter failed to explain how the image could meet WP:NFCC#2 when the copyright holder is unknown. And a third "keep" voter asserted that the image was in the public domain because it was published without a copyright notice – but provided no evidence that that was the case. On the other hand, the arguments for deletion were strong. The nominator and the other "delete" voter both raised valid concerns about the unknown copyright status, copyright holder, and source of the image. The burden was on the keep voters here to show either that the image was in the public domain or that the image met all the nonfree content criteria; they did not, their arguments were weaker, and because the headcount was 3-2, it's not fair at all to say there was a consensus to keep the image. However, while I disagree with Od Mishehu's closure, I commend him for taking on the unsavory task of interpreting consensus at such a challenging debate. Someone's gotta do it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 22:28, 22 December 2009 (UTC)