Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2021 May 21

File:Goines_HSC_Poster_255x396.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The file was deleted despite the only commenter recommending a keep. I was the uploader, the rights are unequivocally mine, as it was a work-for-hire under contract to me. The date of the commission was February, 2006. Bill Woodcock (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears that at the time of deletion, it was an orphaned image without a clear fair use rationale. Bwoodcock, which copyright would it have been licensed under? SportingFlyer T·C 21:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was used in the page Hillside Club, the organization for which I commissioned it. The work itself is CC BY-NC-ND, and this image of it would be "non-free poster." So, I guess, if we're going to use it, there's now a bureaucracy to work through first. Bill Woodcock (talk) 21:06, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It hasn't been used there for a long time. So the deletion seems correct. I'm not sure what the process would be to re-add it and have a new discussion about the image. Hobit (talk) 13:20, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really a bureaucracy, just trying to figure out what's going on - copyright is taken very seriously so want to be sure what we're doing. The file was deleted almost a decade ago and it looks like it was because it was orphaned (it was replaced in 2010 with the current image we see today and deleted in 2012) with no copyright/fair use in the description. It appears the deletion was properly done. If you still have the file, uploading again may be the best bet, but an admin can probably take a look and confirm that's why this was deleted, and potentially restore with the correct copyright tag. (The article also needs to have better sourcing, I'm seeing a lot of coverage from 100 years ago in a search but did do a BEFORE search.) SportingFlyer T·C 14:42, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second time you uploaded it, on 6 August 2008, you tagged it {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}. While that's neither revocable nor downgradeable to any of the no-derivatives or non-commercial CC variants, I can't see it making much of a practical difference here; the article wouldn't benefit from a low-resolution image of a promotional poster even were it free. Certainly no valid non-free use case could be made for it: imagery of promotional material generally requires sourced commentary about the promotional material itself, and such would be grossly undue weight in this article. —Cryptic 15:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Srini Kumar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At least five references for this bio were found in the course of the AfD that I considered to be of WP:BASIC quality. The closer seems to have doubts about this, expressed in the course of the AfD, but gave no justification of any kind for this, either in the comment asking for further participation or the plain close statement. In my opinion, on the merits of the arguments, keep was stronger than close; on participation, for closers who attach weight to number of !votes cast, I can see a case for closing as no consensus. The closer made no case for closing as delete. — Charles Stewart (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes, the link rot AfD. I commented, so I guess I'm technically involved, but this was a terribly written article with a poor discussion and a marginal potential notability argument. I'm not sure it's been incorrectly deleted, but most of the delete !votes occurred earlier on in the discussion and were probably assessing the state of the article as opposed to how the article could potentially be sourced. However, I think delete was a viable option for the closer to close this discussion. This is kind of an IAR suggestion, but I'd support keeping the article deleted but immediately allowing creation of a new draft/mainspace article based on the new sources as long as it's clearly different from what we had before. SportingFlyer T·C 11:11, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse while permitting recreation as a draft. The bolded comments were 4 deletes and 2 keeps and some of the delete votes occurred after sources were found. With multiple relists, the discussion was ready to close and the close as delete (even without commentary) was clearly within the closer's discretion. --Enos733 (talk) 15:53, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CLOSEAFD clearly says Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments. Number of bolded comments is completely irrelevant and invalid for determining consensus for AFD closure. It's literally in the policy. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 03:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: There was no error by the closer:
  • • The closer is not required to make a statement in support of her close.
    • Multiple editors said to delete, and only one editor said to keep.
    • The link rot was discussed, and there were statements that the sources whose links had rotted were of poor quality before the links rotted.
    • The appellant may be saying that the closer should have overridden the numerical result. Such situations are rare, and this is not one of them.
    • As SportingFlyer says, this can be changed to a Soft Delete to allow the submission of a substantially better draft.
      • What WP policy endorses TNT over SOFIXIT? I'm not aware of one. Nor did the page meet the level of irreparability that TNT suggests as a basis. On top of all that, WP:TNT is not a policy.
      • Additionally, numerical result is not the standard for AFD. That is simply fallacious. The standard is: "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." This is specifically stated in WP:CLOSEAFD. If numerical was the criteria, sockpuppetry would decide AFDs. It's clear that positive policy arguments were not considered appropriate weight to, frankly, mostly non-policy-based arguments. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 03:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• weak overturn to no consensus The keep !voters provided sources and the delete !voters didn't really address them. Sounds like WP:TNT may have been a reason to delete, but I think it's stretching things to say that that discussion generated consensus to delete unless you just count heads. Hobit (talk) 19:36, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 22:22, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak overturn to no consensus The keep arguments had detailed rationales, especially Charles Stewart's, which refuted the delete rationale and makes it very hard to justify delete.Jackattack1597 (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep The entire basis is ridiculous. The submitter's deletion argument was ultimately that the nominator had never heard of the person. That is a shamefully invalid deletion reason. Notability is not lost due to age. If this were 2001, the idea that Srini Kumar -- or his projects Unamerican.com or Sticker Nation -- is not notable would be laughed out of the encyclopedia. But because new editors weren't around then, a subject can become non-notable? That's not a thing. Nor is it lost due to the online status of sources. In point of fact, sourcing on Wikipedia does not require links. If it did, WP wouldn't be able to ever use a book as a citation unless it was in the public domain and was transcribed somewhere online. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 03:48, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus as there was none. Each side made reasonable arguments and the sources were not especially strongly refuted. Stifle (talk) 11:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep. Charles Stewart and Keith D. Tyler provided multiple sources and substantial analysis of those sources. The editors who supported deletion did not explain why these sources were insufficient. The editors who supported retention provided much stronger policy-based reasons. Both a "no consensus" close and a "keep" close are defensible but a "delete" close is not.

  Cunard (talk) 10:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse while permitting recreation as a draft. User:SportingFlyer has summed it up well. Deb (talk) 12:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus as is reasonable when one side has the voting majority, and the other side has the better policy-based argument. Jclemens (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify. In one word, weak. Needs better sources. “BASIC” is weak for better sources. Linkrot means sources need to be recovered. Do this in draft. Very possibly, the subject is not notable. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]