Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:09, 17 October 2015

8 October 2015

File:Babyface lovers.jpg

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

I don't know why a well-known cover art is deleted other than allegedly violating WP:NFCC#8. The original album cover is deservingly used, but almost no one knew that the image existed. It was a reissue cover art, but that shouldn't make it merely decorative, should it? No one voted for or against this image because no one was aware of the FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• As a minimum, relist. Nobody can be expected to follow all discussions, and when wider attention is needed, this is a good place to ask for it. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 16:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
• Sounds like a reasonable objection, no reason not to relist given lack of participation. Hobit (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
• The deletion process has been properly followed; FFD process states that unopposed nominations are closed as delete. Therefore, it is endorsed pending new information or argument. I would note that NFCC#3a is likely to be the key issue here in that multiple covers would not be considered compliant with that criterion absent actual critical commentary on the alternate cover, and a strong rationale detailing why the removal of the image would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  the deletion process is inadequate when it has unrepresentative participation: the entire system of WP depends on control by the overall community, not cliques at special processes. Since nobody can follow all potentially relevant processes, the only practical way is to allow review on the merits to a general and widely watched place. DGG ( talk ) 13:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

  • I agree process was followed correctly. But I also believe that a discussion without any participation should not have a high bar to a relist request (much as WP:REFUND works). Hobit (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
    • I'm hoping to pre-empt going around the circle again by asking the nominator what arguments he/she proposes to advance at a theoretical FFD which would overcome the high bar that is NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Reasonable, though I'll note it was deleted under #8 I believe. Still 3a seems to be the main issue. I don't see the bar as high as you do, but I too would like a more clear explanation. I think that's more of a FFD issue, but don't see the point in doing this unless a reasonable argument can be made (DRV doesn't have to agree that the argument is enough to clear the bar IMO, merely that they have a rational argument--I don't know enough about the subject to see such an argument (and one may not exist...). Hobit (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse the process was followed. In other circumstance such as an article, then relisting would be a sensible option. In a case such as this where the onus is on those wishing to keep to show nfcc is met, then absent some sort of apparently reasonable argument NFCC could be met (given the general observation that allowing two "similar" images is an exception not the rule), such a relisting seems unneeded. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)