| Revision as of 19:42, 17 November 2011 editDamiens.rf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,536 edits →17 November 2011← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:00, 17 November 2011 edit undoDamiens.rf (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,536 edits →File:Chavezcoup.jpgNext edit → | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
| *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'''.—] <small>]/]</small> 15:57, 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'''.—] <small>]/]</small> 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 ]. ] (]) 16:19, 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 ]. ] (]) 16:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ** Yes, the delete vote was vague, but the keep vote was also a well know and documented mistake: ]. That leave us with my well explained nomination (and that was not "''bizarre''" at all) and the Admin's mission to <u>enforce policy</u>. 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. --] 20:00, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | |||
| * '''Endorse''' - There was two editors arguing for deletion and one argued for keeping based on the well know failed argument ]. We need good reasons to keep non-free content, not to delete them. --] 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | * '''Endorse''' - There was two editors arguing for deletion and one argued for keeping based on the well know failed argument ]. We need good reasons to keep non-free content, not to delete them. --] 19:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 20:00, 17 November 2011
< 2011 November 16 Deletion review archives: 2011 November 2011 November 18 >17 November 2011
File:Chavezcoup.jpg
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)
- 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)