Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Reyk (talk | contribs) at 01:37, 18 November 2011 (→50/50 Twin: -reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

17 November 2011

50/50 Twin

50/50 Twin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

According to WP:Proposed deletion this article must be undeleted automatically on request. Article was deleted by PROD on 12 May 2008. Although first article may have been written too early in his career, this artist has now released 6 albums. Whether or not he has now achieved sufficient notability should be decided through AfD. The same admin had previously denied a Request for Undeletion on 21 October 2011 Ei1sos (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• Undelete as a contested prod and then immediately redirect to The Color Changin' Click#50/50 Twin as a non-notable artist. Since this article is constantly being re-created, protect the redirect until a well-sourced draft is presented to DRV.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse per WP:NOTBURO. I find the deleting admin's rationale to be sensible, and I don't see any reason to overturn correct action on what can only be described as procedural grounds. I think "redirect & protect" or "keep deleted and salt" are equally good ways to proceed from here. Reyk _YO! 23:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse original deletion. I hate to say it 3 times already. If the person is suddenly now notable under WP:MUSIC, write a new one: an article from 3 years ago would be extremely unsavalgeable for the purpose, and indeed would be an insult to the artist in question to start from that point. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse per Reyk and BWilkins. If he's now notable and was not then it makes much more sense to start a new article. As for the contention that we must undelete if requested, it is long established that all Misplaced Pages rules can be ignored if the circumstances warrant it, which they do in this case. I could get behind restoring this solely for the purpose of userfying it to be worked on until it is ready for mainspace, but restoring it as an article without fixing the underlying problems would harm rather than help Misplaced Pages. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• The redirect is clearly appropriate, folks. The WP:BURO violation is to refuse to create it.—S Marshall T/C 01:30, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

• So create it, without first undeleting. Reyk _YO! 01:37, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Chavezcoup.jpg

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

This is a historic photo, one of very few that document an important event in Venezuelan history: the 1992 coup attempt, in which current president Hugo Chávez was involved. It was nominated for deletion with a frankly bizarre reason (that this was merely the record of two men meeting); then the deletion discussion was closed as "delete" even though there was nothing like consensus to do so. I raised the issue both with the nominator (who refused to respond while the nomination was open) and also with the person who closed the discussion, to no avail. jbmurray (talk • contribs) 15:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

• I can't endorse that. NFCC#8 is too vague for the closer to treat it as a question of fact. It's a matter of opinion, and in a matter of opinion, the closer's opinion isn't the opinion that matters. The FFD discussion is more than just an admin's suggestion box. There was no consensus, and the closer should have found accordingly. Overturn to no consensus.—S Marshall T/C 15:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn to no consensus, restore the file. Per S Marshall, NFCC #8 is a decision that requires 1) rational arguments to be set forth about why it applies, 2) an ensuing discussion, and 3) the closer to evaluate the consensus on the NFCC #8 argument as a part of the closing. I really don't see that done there--The one !vote that supports NFCC #8 failure is simply a WP:VAGUEWAVE. Jclemens-public (talk) 16:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • Yes, the delete vote was vague, but the keep vote was also a well know and documented mistake: WP:ITSHISTORIC. That leave us with my well explained nomination (and that was not "bizarre" at all) and the Admin's mission to enforce policy. In the worst case, this could be relisted to attract more !voters, but in the end, it will always be a policy-based judgement, and not a vote counting, and I don't see anyone making anything near of a policy based argument for keeping this image. Calling NFCC#8 "too vague" is a catch-all. --damiens.rf 20:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not. NFCC#8 is not an excuse to purge the encyclopaedia of non-free material. Relevant images almost always enhance the reader's understanding of the topic.—S Marshall T/C 20:06, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse - There was two editors arguing for deletion and one argued for keeping based on the well know failed argument WP:ITSHISTORIC. We need good reasons to keep non-free content, not to delete them. --damiens.rf 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
• Weak Endorse- I agree with S Marshall that there was no consensus in this discussion. However, in cases of non-free content I think no consensus should default to delete. Reyk _YO! 00:02, 18 November 2011 (UTC)