< July 18	Deletion review archives: 2008 July	July 20 >

19 July 2008

John Bambenek – Hello John, good to see you're still obsessed with getting yourself a page on Wikipedia. See you next month as usual. – Guy (Help!) 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
John Bambenek (edit \| talk \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) `(`restore`\|`cache`\|`AfD`)` Last review was years ago, since then besides his work in information security, he has written a book "Illinois Deserves Better" (check amazon). He cofounded a prominent PAC in Illinos to convene a constitutional convention in Illinois, which will be on ballot in Nov. He has done debates and invited talks throughout the state as well as appeared on tv and radio. Much has changed since last review. 216.9.250.98 (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] In situations like this, the best thing is to create an account on Wikipedia and write a new article yourself, with full citations to show A) that he's notable and B) that there is enough to satisfy our Biographies of Living Persons policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] The page is protected against recreation, so can't do in this case. 216.9.250.99 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] In that case, create as a subpage of the user account so that we can review it before allowing it into article space. This page was salted due to repeated recreation of unacceptable articles. GRBerry 20:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

John Bambenek – Hello John, good to see you're still obsessed with getting yourself a page on Wikipedia. See you next month as usual. – Guy (Help!) 21:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Last review was years ago, since then besides his work in information security, he has written a book "Illinois Deserves Better" (check amazon). He cofounded a prominent PAC in Illinos to convene a constitutional convention in Illinois, which will be on ballot in Nov. He has done debates and invited talks throughout the state as well as appeared on tv and radio. Much has changed since last review. 216.9.250.98 (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In situations like this, the best thing is to create an account on Wikipedia and write a new article yourself, with full citations to show A) that he's notable and B) that there is enough to satisfy our Biographies of Living Persons policy. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page is protected against recreation, so can't do in this case. 216.9.250.99 (talk) 18:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, create as a subpage of the user account so that we can review it before allowing it into article space. This page was salted due to repeated recreation of unacceptable articles. GRBerry 20:24, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 2#Image:Last of the Time Lords.jpg – Previous DRV close endorsed, as there is no consensus here to overturn. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 2#Image:Last of the Time Lords.jpg (edit \| [[Talk:Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 2#Image:Last of the Time Lords.jpg\|talk]] \| history \| protect \| delete \| links \| watch \| logs \| views) (DRV) Yes, this is actually a review of a deletion review; DRV actually allows reviewing any closure believed to be closed incorrectly. In this case, the outcome of this review had an overwhelming consensus to overturn deletion, but was endorsed by the closing admin instead. At the heart of the matter is interpretation of NFCC, particularly #8, which some admins consider a justification to have all screenshots removed, while opposing views are often discredited because they "seemingly do not understand policy" (an argument most defenitely to be avoided), and when that does not work, having "policy trump consensus". The issue has been raised at WP:AN (now archived), but with no clear outcome. Therefor, another review is all I can think of. — Edokter • Talk • 06:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Procedural close, or, failing that, relist at IfD. On the merits I agree with Edokter; as I said in the ANI, I think that the DRV was improperly closed based on the closer's application of WP:NFCC, rather than on the outcome of the DRV discussion itself. However, Edokter is probably wrong to bring this here: per the box in WP:DRV, DRV is the process to be used to challenge "the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion", and not "any closure". This implies that the only proper forum for discussing an improper DRV would be community discussion (which was apparently inconclusive in this case) or arbitration. – However, I could see us making an exception here, as the closing admin has apparently left us and won't be able to participate in these other processes. In that case, I think a new IfD is in order. Sandstein 11:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Procedural overturn and relist. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Close - If we DRV the DRV closings, we're going to start creating infinite loops. The proper venue here is to first clarify the NFCC policy. If that then changes to allow this image, then a new DRV can be filed on the image itself to have it undeleted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Speedy Close. DRV is not DRV part 2...or something. Particularly very recent discussions. In any event, the last thing this dispute you guys have needs is more deletion discussions. Like the above user said, discuss things first. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] overturn or reclose by another admin. The closer's logic was bad. The closer claimed that the image did not meet criteria 1 and 8 and thus he could ignore the consensus on the page. However, this is exactly what was at issue and the people calling for overturning were doing so because they argued that it did meet those criteria. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse well-reasoned close per WP:NFCC, who cares who did it. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn simply an incorrect close, without going into the issues. We can review any deletion discussion here. Where better? And there's nothing that Wikipedia decides that cannot be subsequently changed, so there must be a mechanism for doing so. If there';s no statement specificially lettingus, this is oneof the few clear cases for IAR--where procedure doesnt take account of something that needs to be done.DGG (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Endorse and put this finally to rest. It's ridiculous to have this routine case dragged out for two months. Interpretation of NFCC with regard to episode screenshots has been considerably stabilised through a series precedents over the last half year; the clear and unambiguous result is that images need significantly more connection to explicit analytical commentary that they serve to support than this one has. A renewed IfD could not possibly come to a different result, as long as the article is written the way it is. Why don't people invest their time in actually writing that analytical commentary instead of engaging in vain procedural arguments? I'd be the first to support reintroduction of the image once that commentary in the text is there – Has really nobody found some reference to a discussion in the relevant critical reception literature about the acting in this scene? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] With screenshot discussions rising on a logarithmic scale, interpretation has anything but stabilised, let alone unambiguous. Those demanding strict adherence to NFCC, or to be more precise, their interpretation of NFCC, are developing a dangerous habit of discarding other viewpoints as "misplaced", "uninformed" and generally doing them away as if they were uttered by leppers. This DRV was closed so bad, it was hard not to see the contempt for those seeking to overturn the IfD. Consensus to overturn at the DRV was overwhelmingly clear, and should not have been ignored; in fact, any reference here to NFCC is also misplaced, as IfD is the only proper venue for that. — Edokter • Talk • 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Well, DRV is supposed to be a final point of appeal, but in this case I would say WP:IAR and overturn (i.e. keep the image). Stifle (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Question I'm confused. Why are there two simultaneous discussions going on about the same image? One appears to be about the image deletion and this one appears to be a direct appeal to a different afd? Are they two different images? Ok. THIS DRV seems to be of the IfD from June 2. The OTHER DRV seems to be of ~~a similar image~~. Scratch that. It is the same image. Different name, same image. So why are we having two independent DRV's about that? Should we merge one into the other, or are they different in some way I am missing. Because this DRV is seeking to reverse the deletion of the last DRV while the OTHER DRV is seeking to reverse the keep (read: delete) of a similar image. If they are fundamentally talking about the same concept, we should take care not to generate conflicting results from the processes. This is already confusing. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] They are about different images. This one is about the image showing the doctor cradling his dying opponent in his arms, as discussed originally here. The other one (DRV, IfD) is about the image showing fields of rocket launching sites. It was inserted in the article as a second or third choice after the other image had been deleted. The ironic thing is that the image that had a - relatively speaking - better claim to usefulness and much stronger support among the article's editors got deleted, while the overall much weaker image was closed as keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Ahh. Thank you very much. As I couldn't see one (and the history of the page implied they were similar), I was very confused. Protonk (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn. Normally I would be loathe to see a DRV on a DRV, but in this case I am forced to agree that the closure of the original DRV is very difficult to justify. I understand that consensus is about more than simply counting heads, but I also understand DRV to be about the closure of a discussion and not the subject of the discussion itself. The overwhelming majority of the participants in the discussion felt that the original IfD was closed incorrectly, and these were not drive-by votes but rather well considered arguments. Shereth 15:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Close/Endorse. One community-appointed administrator deleted an image, another community-appointed administrator affirmed said deletion. Is the plan here to run the gamut until an administrator favourable to this particular image's retention is found? This image's time has come and gone, its 15 minutes of fame are over regardless of any fears of precedence-setting. — pd_THOR ^{\| =/\=} \| 16:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn and relist As DGG says, there must be someplace for this to go, and here seems like the best place. Closer closed based on his own opinion, not based on arguments/!votes in DRV. Relist at IfD. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Overturn, because consensus existed to overturn at the previous DRV. — PyTom (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 2#Image:Last of the Time Lords.jpg – Previous DRV close endorsed, as there is no consensus here to overturn. – Jerry talk ¤ count/logs 02:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.

Yes, this is actually a review of a deletion review; DRV actually allows reviewing any closure believed to be closed incorrectly. In this case, the outcome of this review had an overwhelming consensus to overturn deletion, but was endorsed by the closing admin instead. At the heart of the matter is interpretation of NFCC, particularly #8, which some admins consider a justification to have all screenshots removed, while opposing views are often discredited because they "seemingly do not understand policy" (an argument most defenitely to be avoided), and when that does not work, having "policy trump consensus". The issue has been raised at WP:AN (now archived), but with no clear outcome. Therefor, another review is all I can think of. — Edokter • Talk • 06:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close, or, failing that, relist at IfD. On the merits I agree with Edokter; as I said in the ANI, I think that the DRV was improperly closed based on the closer's application of WP:NFCC, rather than on the outcome of the DRV discussion itself. However, Edokter is probably wrong to bring this here: per the box in WP:DRV, DRV is the process to be used to challenge "the outcome of a deletion debate or to review a speedy deletion", and not "any closure". This implies that the only proper forum for discussing an improper DRV would be community discussion (which was apparently inconclusive in this case) or arbitration. – However, I could see us making an exception here, as the closing admin has apparently left us and won't be able to participate in these other processes. In that case, I think a new IfD is in order. Sandstein 11:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural overturn and relist. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close - If we DRV the DRV closings, we're going to start creating infinite loops. The proper venue here is to first clarify the NFCC policy. If that then changes to allow this image, then a new DRV can be filed on the image itself to have it undeleted. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close. DRV is not DRV part 2...or something. Particularly very recent discussions. In any event, the last thing this dispute you guys have needs is more deletion discussions. Like the above user said, discuss things first. --UsaSatsui (talk) 12:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
overturn or reclose by another admin. The closer's logic was bad. The closer claimed that the image did not meet criteria 1 and 8 and thus he could ignore the consensus on the page. However, this is exactly what was at issue and the people calling for overturning were doing so because they argued that it did meet those criteria. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse well-reasoned close per WP:NFCC, who cares who did it. Guy (Help!) 21:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn simply an incorrect close, without going into the issues. We can review any deletion discussion here. Where better? And there's nothing that Wikipedia decides that cannot be subsequently changed, so there must be a mechanism for doing so. If there';s no statement specificially lettingus, this is oneof the few clear cases for IAR--where procedure doesnt take account of something that needs to be done.DGG (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and put this finally to rest. It's ridiculous to have this routine case dragged out for two months. Interpretation of NFCC with regard to episode screenshots has been considerably stabilised through a series precedents over the last half year; the clear and unambiguous result is that images need significantly more connection to explicit analytical commentary that they serve to support than this one has. A renewed IfD could not possibly come to a different result, as long as the article is written the way it is. Why don't people invest their time in actually writing that analytical commentary instead of engaging in vain procedural arguments? I'd be the first to support reintroduction of the image once that commentary in the text is there – Has really nobody found some reference to a discussion in the relevant critical reception literature about the acting in this scene? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With screenshot discussions rising on a logarithmic scale, interpretation has anything but stabilised, let alone unambiguous. Those demanding strict adherence to NFCC, or to be more precise, their interpretation of NFCC, are developing a dangerous habit of discarding other viewpoints as "misplaced", "uninformed" and generally doing them away as if they were uttered by leppers. This DRV was closed so bad, it was hard not to see the contempt for those seeking to overturn the IfD. Consensus to overturn at the DRV was overwhelmingly clear, and should not have been ignored; in fact, any reference here to NFCC is also misplaced, as IfD is the only proper venue for that. — Edokter • Talk • 14:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, DRV is supposed to be a final point of appeal, but in this case I would say WP:IAR and overturn (i.e. keep the image). Stifle (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question I'm confused. Why are there two simultaneous discussions going on about the same image? One appears to be about the image deletion and this one appears to be a direct appeal to a different afd? Are they two different images? Ok. THIS DRV seems to be of the IfD from June 2. The OTHER DRV seems to be of ~~a similar image~~. Scratch that. It is the same image. Different name, same image. So why are we having two independent DRV's about that? Should we merge one into the other, or are they different in some way I am missing. Because this DRV is seeking to reverse the deletion of the last DRV while the OTHER DRV is seeking to reverse the keep (read: delete) of a similar image. If they are fundamentally talking about the same concept, we should take care not to generate conflicting results from the processes. This is already confusing. Protonk (talk) 03:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are about different images. This one is about the image showing the doctor cradling his dying opponent in his arms, as discussed originally here. The other one (DRV, IfD) is about the image showing fields of rocket launching sites. It was inserted in the article as a second or third choice after the other image had been deleted. The ironic thing is that the image that had a - relatively speaking - better claim to usefulness and much stronger support among the article's editors got deleted, while the overall much weaker image was closed as keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Thank you very much. As I couldn't see one (and the history of the page implied they were similar), I was very confused. Protonk (talk) 14:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Normally I would be loathe to see a DRV on a DRV, but in this case I am forced to agree that the closure of the original DRV is very difficult to justify. I understand that consensus is about more than simply counting heads, but I also understand DRV to be about the closure of a discussion and not the subject of the discussion itself. The overwhelming majority of the participants in the discussion felt that the original IfD was closed incorrectly, and these were not drive-by votes but rather well considered arguments. Shereth 15:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close/Endorse. One community-appointed administrator deleted an image, another community-appointed administrator affirmed said deletion. Is the plan here to run the gamut until an administrator favourable to this particular image's retention is found? This image's time has come and gone, its 15 minutes of fame are over regardless of any fears of precedence-setting. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist As DGG says, there must be someplace for this to go, and here seems like the best place. Closer closed based on his own opinion, not based on arguments/!votes in DRV. Relist at IfD. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, because consensus existed to overturn at the previous DRV. — PyTom (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.