Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 27

< August 26	Deletion review archives: 2008 August	August 28 >

27 August 2008

[[:{{{ns}}}:Picoku]]

UNDELETE_REASON

Image:Velasquez, Vosloo.jpg

The image that I uploaded was in the same logic that the image at The_Mummy_Returns#Cast but deleted because it didn't have a valid fair use rationale. At the time, I was a newcomer and didn't know about some procedures, and my mistake to didn't ask for help. Now, I'm trying help other people to make things right and if I find an image which is missing a fair use rationale, I'll try put it if I'm familiarized with the subject. This didn't happen to me when I was a newcomer! If it happened, I wouldn't be blocked by violating the rules, when I didn't know what to do. So, doing my routine, I found this image linked to a biographical article, similar with to the image deleted. So, if this fair use image can be linked to living people, so the image uploaded by me, linked to the movie article and articles of actors appearing in the image deleted. Now, for fair use rationale, I can use {{ScreenshotU}}. Today, I'm thinking how many times daily I find something like this. How many times I try to others images be accepted on Wikipedia. Is my attitude with others over good or the attitude given to me was bad. Sdrtirs (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paris Hilton Responds to McCain Ad.jpg

(1) An image went through [Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 19 deletion review], had many keep votes and also a number of delete votes, but was determined to be a "delete" by its closing admin anyway, which is fine. In any case, the primary deletion criteria of the deletion votes was because it was a headshot from a video, which was argued didn't supply enough information to be encyclopedic. (2) So today I uploaded a completely different image -- that's not a head shot and that illustrates information in the text it accompanies. Yet, a user mistakenly deleted it as a recreation. (Which isn't too terrible; deleted material can be recreated.) OK, finally, here's the presenting problem. I can't find where to appeal this delete since this new image is not listed for deletion anywhere, whatsoever, akin to its being a stealth action. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 21:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC) PS the new image is here. It shows Hilton smiling. The original one has her talking, with a serious look on her face. (I'll post it as soon as I locate it.) $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 21:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC) Well there's so many screenshots out there, but there's a both a closeup and (if you click the No. 2 under it) a farther-away shot found here. $\sim$ Justmeherenow ( ) 23:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would be very careful before you start making accusations about the deletion discussion. The discussion for the new image was here: WP:IFD, after which it was speedied as G4. You didn't mention that the old image, discussed here was a crop of the new one. The arguments in the old deletion discussion apply for the new one as well and since the new image is a portion of the old one, I believe it qualifies as a recreation. Also, if an image or article is deleted at AFD or IFD, it can be speedy deleted under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion. I would be equally careful about calling such actions "mistakes."
The old image was not deleted because it did not "supply enough information" but because it failed item #8 of the nonfree content criteria, which states that a nonfree image must significantly enhance a reader's understanding of the events. The discussion for the old image indicated that any portion of the video would not satisfy that criterion, since it could just as easily be described in the text without having to use an image. The closing administrator for that discussion concurred with that assessment and rightly deleted the image. The exact same argument would apply to this new image and so, again, it was correctly deleted under CSD G4. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Article:Fred R. Klenner

This is from way back in 2007, but there was still no consensus to delete: 1 delete, 6 keeps. The delete vote says he had only 2 publications, and other comments seemed to indicate that that was misleading or false. The delete vote updated this to 5 publications and 1 book section publication. Because of the way this AfD started, it may have been hard for the admin to follow. Still, I don't see justification for overriding 6 editors. Not all of the keeps were from "OMM advocates", either -- Espresso addict voted keep and Gordonofcartoon voted weak keep, noting something called the "Fultz quad connection" (not sure what that is). II | (t - c) 18:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Leaving Trains (closed)