List of publications in law – Endorse but.. I'm not seeing a credible refutation of the scope element of the article so this stayed deleted but 5 year old AFDs are a poor guide as to whether we can now have a list/article and there is clear consensus that a new article from scratch with a new scope is acceptable – SpartazHumbug!04:00, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Question The two main arguments for deletion were problems with scope and redundancy to a category. The latter argument is (now) invalid per wp:CLN, but I do not see how your proposed move addresses the concerns about the scope. What will be the definition of "important" for the new article? Yoenit (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In that case I must oppose recreation, as I think it is a poorly defined scope and the concerns in the original AFD are thus not adressed. I would support a list of notable law publications though. Yoenit (talk) 09:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would have argued for deletion (or redefinition of scope) in the recent AFDs if I had been aware of them at the time. Yoenit (talk) 11:20, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore or Relist The objection to the article was inconsistent with most of the closings in related articles. Though we do not follow precedent, some degree of consistency helps . As an alternative argument, overturn as sources have been shown to be available. The proper scope of the article is for e discussion elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 16:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse by default because no intelligible argument is made why the discussion was wrongly closed or why the concerns identified therein have been addressed. Sandstein 16:44, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be logical to restore the page, move it, then pare the list to important entries. This is better than starting from scratch.Curb Chain (talk) 06:18, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and probably list. It's been 5 years and similar articles are around now. Plus sources have been provided. Worth another shot. Hobit (talk) 13:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Don't restore A god-awful list in its current state. If someone wants to create a new list on the same topic, go for it. The 2006 AfD shouldn't prohibit the recreation of a good list. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
During the course of the deletion discussion about a replaceable non-free image, a free image of the same subject surfaced (File:Flying Yankee 1935.jpg). This, per WP:NFCC#1, replaced the non-free image. With a free image of the same subject located and replaced in the applicable places, the deletion discussion for this non-free image was inexplicably closed as "keep" by Fastily. This seemed faulty because a free image had been located of the same subject, thus the image fell short of WP:NFCC#1 since one had been found, and WP:NFCC#7 because it was no longer being used. When I contacted Fastily about the close, the response that I received was, "I don't think you need me to go into details, but there was never any consensus in the discussion to delete the file." Thus it seems as though policy, specifically WP:NFCC, was disregarded in the forming of this close, and therefore it should be overturned to delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 12:07, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep No free image is available of this specific subject ("Flying Yankee" departing the Portland Union Station) which appeared in the article Railroad history of Portland, Maine to illustrate a paragraph in that article about the importance of this specific MEC train to Portland which the train both served and where it was based. (The generic free image referred to above is not an appropriate or adequate substitute for this one as it does not show Portland Union Station as well as the "Flying Yankee" train set.) As no other image of this train at Portland is available, this one does not violate WP:NFCC#1. The claim that this image also violates WP:NFCC#7 because it was "no longer being used" is disingenuous because it is the proposer of this deletion review himself who keeps removing this relevant and encyclopedically valuable image on the unsupported claim that it is a "blatant violation of non-free content criteria" for which he has made no case that has achieved the support of the WP community. As long as this image is available on WP (which the recent discussion closed in favor of "Keep" makes it), then arbitrarily removing it as being "vandalism" constitutes disruptive behavior and shows bad faith. The closure by User:Fastily of the discussion made in favor of keeping the image (in which no editor other than the proposer of both its deletion and this review spoke in favor of removing) accurately reflects the consensus of the community to keep it. That determination deserves to be respected and accepted as does its use to appropriately illustrate the article on the railroad history of Portland in which it was placed. Centpacrr (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "FFD Part 2". The question is not about the image, but about policy and process. Was policy followed and was proper process followed? SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
WP policy and process certainly appears to have been followed to the letter here. Only two other editors commented in the original discussion and both favored retention. No editors (except the proposer) made any comments that favored deletion. The only reason that the image appeared to be "orphaned" as the proposer has claimed was that he had removed (and keeps removing) it from all articles on which it was being used. On at least one of those (Railroad history of Portland, Maine) there is absolutely no free equivalent that shows the "Flying Yankee" at the Portland Union Station which is the context within the article it illustrates. The original deletion discussion was closed correctly, and with respect this review request seems to be based more on its requester's disagreement with the result as opposed to the process by which it was achieved. Centpacrr (talk) 00:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The policy that was not followed was WP:NFCC. That is not only a policy, but a policy with legal considerations. Therefore, if non-free content slips beneath WP:NFCC over the course of the discussion, as this one did due to the introduction of the free image File:Flying Yankee 1935.jpg, it doesn't matter what the discussion comes up to. Non-free content policy says that it must be deleted if policy is to be followed. Therefore the closer was incorrect in closing this as a keep - for two reasons, actually. First, due to the free file's mere existence, it had fallen beneath WP:NFCC#1. Then due to the fact that it wasn't used anywhere at the time of the closure, it had fallen beneath WP:NFCC#7. As stated in the close rationale at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 November 25#File:Dale Robertson Racist Sign.jpg, "Finally, the delete vote by Schuminweb rightly points out that under F7 the image currently must be deleted, since it is in fact not used in the article." For those two reasons, this was a faulty close because it did not follow policy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I have explained above, WP:NFCC#1 would not apply here as there is no available free equivalent (including the new "Flying Yankee" image) that is an adequate substitute for the "Flying Yankee" at Portland Union Station image as it is used in illustrate the paragraph in which it appears in the Railroad history of Portland, Maine article. (See also my comment on that article's talk page here.) The alleged "violation" of WP:NFCC#7, on the other hand, was completely artificially created by the deletion proposer himself by his unilaterally removing the image from all the articles in which it appeared and then claiming that it must be immediately deleted administratively because it is "orphaned." This appears to me to be an approach designed more to get non-free images deleted without having them go through the open discussion and consensus process. Centpacrr (talk) 03:15, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. The non-free image is nothing that we can't illustrate with the free image, especially lacking sourced commentary on that particular image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:27, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Still Strong Keep Well I've made my case with which you are, of course, free to personally disagree. I will instead let the consensus of all the editors who choose comment decide. However with respect I again counsel the proposer of this review (who is also an Administrator) to refrain from gratuitously accusing other contributors of "vandalism" simply because they happen to have a different editorial view of the "encyclopedic value" of an image or a different interpretation of whether or not an image fails to meet one or more particular subjective criteria of WP:NFCC or any other WP policy. Editorial differences are settled by discussion and consensus, not by making threats and exhibiting a lack of good faith. Such behavior only serves to discourage people from staying in the community and continuing to contribute their skills and knowledge to the collaborative effort of building the project. I will not comment further on this particular matter and will instead await its outcome with the hope that it will be decided objectively on its merits as opposed to fulmination and wikilawyering. Centpacrr (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The late appearance of free media inevitably prejudiced the discussion. I would never have made the comments I did had I been aware of said image, and the closing administrator would have been within his discretion to ignore my comments altogether (I would have in his place). I can't speak for Tryptofish (talk·contribs), but his argument also focused on the real difficulty in (now) creating a free image. These arguments were valid when made but moot by the time of closure. Mackensen(talk)02:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know, if you spent as much effort locating and adding free content as you do in arguing about non-free content that clearly fails the non-free criteria, you might make a really great editor. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:28, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As surprising as it may be to some, there are actually times when there just isn't a suitable free alternative to adequately meet a particular application. And again with respect the proposer of this review might be a better and more constructive contributor to WP if he "spent as much effort" actually adding material and growing to the project as opposed to seeing how much of other editors' contributions (both text and images) he can take out as being (in his personal opinion) "decorative", "unencyclopedic", "unneeded", or suffering from some other alleged failing. Centpacrr (talk) 06:06, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ben, to extend on what Centpacrr said, instead of wasting time deleting irreplaceable, historic, non-free fair-use images, why not just add some images that you don't have on your own site to Wikipedia? You're in the Washington DC area, so why not throw up a pic of the Funicular railroad at Huntington (WMATA station) that the article boasts about for example? And if it's not too long of a road trip for you, why not get a replacement for that Maryland and Delaware Railroad locomotive you deleted? It doesn't necesarily have to be at the Purdue chicken factory, as the previous pic was. Just something of the same color scheme and in decent shape. ----DanTD (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I got involved in this, there would have been no photo of the train at all if the vote was delete. Thought it would be a shame to lose the only image we had, so I managed to find the free use image. Seeing what's happened as a result of that, I regret doing anything. Have been actively trying to add free use images so there are more choices of free use content, thus in some cases, enabling replacement of the non free images for free ones.
NFCC #1 asks the question whether the free image can have the same effect as the non-free one. If we take an example of the moon landing, a NASA posed photo of the 3 astronauts could never have the same effect as a photo of the astronauts on the moon. The same is true for a performer, an athlete, and many non-animate items. Seeing a publicity head shot of the person or a publicity photo of the item doesn't have the same effect as seeing the item or person "in action". Understanding of what this item or person did is greatly increased by including an image of this type, if possible, and if cited commentary is present to warrant it being used. NFCC #1 has an "eye of the beholder" implication in the "same effect" statement. One person may see it as meeting critera, while someone else will not, which is why there are discussions before files are deleted. We are not going to be able to eliminate all non-free content for this and other reasons, but need to try to make more free use images available that may serve to be adequate replacements for some non free photos. We hope (talk) 15:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It meets NFCC, for there is no other photo currently available of the subject it is now being for. Railway operation is among the subject for which illustration is the most essential for understanding, DGG ( talk ) 16:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that this is now a moot point, right? This image is orphaned, and therefore is now eligible for speedy deletion under criterion F5 regardless of the outcome of this discussion. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:22, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moot point? Absolutely not. This file is currently "orphaned" for only one reason: because the proposer himself keeps arbitrarily removing it from the articles which it has been illustrating as a blatant subterfuge to create an excuse to "administratively" delete it irrespective of the outcome of the discussion. For that reason it would be completely inappropriate to consider this as a legitimate reason to delete the image as the "orphaning" has been artificially created by an interested party as a means to force an outcome he desires without regard to the opinion of anyone else. If this were allowed, it would constructively permit any proposer of deletion to then appoint himself the exclusive "judge and jury" as well simply by "orphaning" the image. For that reason this must be a prohibited technique as it clearly violates WP's policy of openness and serves to disingenuously bypass and defeat the free exercise of the community consensus process, something that this proposer surprisingly blatantly admits when he says that the "... image is orphaned, and therefore is now eligible for speedy deletion under criterion F5 regardless of the outcome of this discussion."
I had not intended to post in this particular discussion again as I had thoroughly presented my case earlier, but I also did not see how I could let such a transparent attempt to skew the results of the review go by without comment. An inspection of this proposer's contributions page reveals that he has done this same thing (i.e. arbitrarily "orphaned") to many other "non-free" images and then immediately tagged them for administrative deletion on that basis. To be respected and acceptable, deletion issues and other editorial disagreements must not only be decided exclusively on their merits but also on an unmanipulated, level playing field. Without that the consensus process becomes nothing more than an empty farce. Centpacrr (talk) 18:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, because that's going off topic. This is a discussion to review the result of a specific deletion discussion at FFD. It is not about any one person, nor is it a witch hunt or a public lynching. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't want to do that, but I think he might be right. You've overlooked too much evidence of FU and the lack of non-free alternatives on this latest deletion spree, and turned too many files into orphans when they don't have to be. ----DanTD (talk) 03:32, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The existence of the other photo was not known at the time when a significant portion of the previous discussion occurred. That is sufficient reason to relist. Is the other photo a sufficient replacement for this photo? I don't know, but given the new state of affairs it's not madness or idiocy to claim that it is. Therefore a new discussion is in order. The photo may end up being kept on the grounds that it does contain info that the other doesn't, sufficient to allow the photo being kept. If so, fine; if not, fine; but let the discussion be at the new relisting. Herostratus (talk) 02:00, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The "free" image is not an adequate substitute for the original image but is instead a generic photo of the "Flying Yankee" train set only. The image in question here is of the "Flying Yankee" as it is departing Portland Union Station on August 16, 1937, which is the exact context of the article Railroad history of Portland, Maine which it had been illustrating until the proposer arbitrarily removed it three times claiming first that it was "only mentioned in passing in the text, and so no need for a pic" on October 8, then because he claimed it was a "blatant violation of non-free content criteria" on October 18, and finally on October 19 to "swap" it for the inadequate generic "free" image which was not taken in Portland, one of the two reasons the other image was included in the article. The real reason that he keeps deleting the image is in fact so that the deletion proposer can then claim that it is "orphaned" and thus (as he actually admits above) would automatically be deleted administratively from WP "regardless of the outcome of this discussion."
As noted above, these repeated deletions of the subject image are actually a subterfuge practiced frequently by the proposer against this and many similar images that he wants to delete from WP for the purpose perverting the open FFD process by artificially creating a technical violation of WP:NFCC which did not previously exist. Employing such a technique (especially by a WP Administrator) which only serves to subvert the process of openly allowing the community to achieve consensus on issues of conforming to policies and guidelines, "encyclopedic value", and differences in editorial judgment, hardly seems to be consistent with the objectives of the Wikipedia Project. Centpacrr (talk) 05:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
actually, the technique can be used the other way also: to add a picture someone might want to add but that does not seem to be needed anywhere, people have been known to find an excuse for adding something that would seem to justify it but would otherwise not be included into an article, or even make an article that would not otherwise be made for that purpose only. But then, it requires or should require a community discussion at FFD or AfD to remove it,or at least consensus at the article talk p. and so should this--unless there is prior consensus, not just bold action, to remove the justification from the article, evading a discussion is illegitimate. The two questions of whether the article/article content is a justified and b justifies the picture should be discussed together. It's analogous to the widely practiced trick of deletion by pseudo-merging: first merge the content, then gradually remove it, than justify removing the redirect because it does not point to content. The policy that prevents this is NOT BURO: wikilawyering is not legitimate. I normally take resorting to it as implying one is doing something one knows or suspects the community would not approve of if done openly. Whether this can be called in good faith is an interesting question. it's in good faith in that it seeks to improve Wikipedia as the individual sees it; it's in bad faith as it indicates a refusal to abide consensus about what will improve it. DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Take a look at the proposer's contributions listing. He is currently doing this to dozens of excellent historical railroad photographs from the 30's, 40's and 50's that have been on articles for five or six years and in many cases are the only images on those articles. A typical reason he gives for the unilateral deletions is that the images are "not necessary" or "decorative". I have written four published books on railroad history in the last five years all of which are profusely illustrated because this is a topic that depends heavily on illustrations. The proposer seems to be on a crusade to remove as many fine and irreplaceable illustrations (such as this one) from WP as he can with as little discussion or input from others as possible. That is hardly a way to build the Wikipedia Project. Centpacrr (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
See, this is how we know you have no argument, and are grasping for straws. Question for you: What does this have to do with me? You should be arguing the image on its merits. It's not about me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Again, sir, you have completely missed the point and are failing to distinguish between yourself and your actions. For the reasons stated above it is those which are what I find to be objectionable, counterproductive, disruptive, contrary to, and violative of the policies, objectives, and spirit of the Wikipedia project. As for the image itself, it is exceptional, unique, has no available "non-free" alternative that adequately illustrates the "Flying Yankee" at Portland Union Station in the Railroad history of Portland, Maine article, objectively meets all the tests of WP:NFCC, and fully deserves to be retained on its merits.Centpacrr (talk) 02:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And replaceable. Showing it specifically in Portland, Maine is something that can be described textually. Let me demonstrate:
You now leave me wondering if you have ever actually looked at the subject image which uniquely illustrates both the "Flying Yankee" train set and the iconic Clock Tower and train shed of the Portland Union Station, the most important historic railroad landmark in Portland, Maine, the railroad history of which the Railroad history of Portland, Maine article is about. The generic image shows only the train set which is not the same thing at all. That is the difference between the two images: only the "non-free" one includes both the train and the station as well as actually illustrates the unique historic relationship that forever connects them. "A picture is worth 1,000 words."Centpacrr (talk) 05:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And it is strictly prohibited to run non-free content outside of the article namespace, so I have commented out your usage of the photo.
Also, if that is your justification, all of these images are replaceable by free content. A free image exists of the train, and the structures still exist. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so I was looking at the wrong Portland (oops). However, there are still free images of the Portland, Maine Union Station, and so there is still no need to have a non-free image in order to show both in the same shot. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am gratified to see that you now finally understand what is under discussion here is an editorial judgment, not really a WP:NFCC one. That being the case, the objective then mitigates in favor of finding and selecting the image, be it "fair use" or free, that best depicts all aspects (and their relationships) of what is meant to be illustrated. In this case there is only one such image available: File:MEC Flying Yankee.jpg. Centpacrr (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely is an NFCC issue. If it involves non-free content, it is always an NFCC issue. And there is a pecking order around here. Free content is much higher on the proverbial totem pole than non-free content, and we only use non-free content when we absolutely have to, not because we want to. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:50, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NFCC issue here is "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." The "encyclopedic purpose" here is to illustrate the relationship between the "Flying Yankee" and the railroad history of Portland, Maine. File:MEC Flying Yankee.jpg does that and the "free" image does not. Therefore the non-free image does not fail the WP:NFCC test. Your view of NP:NFCC seems to be so narrow and restrictive that, in your personal editorial judgement, no "non-free" image could ever be used to illustrate anything found anywhere on WP. I do not expect to change your mind on that, of course, but that view simply does not conform to the Project's stated policies or objectives. Centpacrr (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Therein lies the fallacy of your position and argument sir. The very definition of "require" and "requirement" ("Something demanded or imposed as an obligation") makes that a patently meaningless "standard" for the use of any images and illustrations (either non-free or free) on WP (or in any encyclopedia for that matter) as it can legitimately be argued that anything and everything can be "adequately understood" by way of "textual description" and therefore, by the standard you would apparently apply, there would not be a single image anywhere on Wikipedia because no images would ever be "required". The reason that millions of images and illustrations (both free and "non-free") are included on WP, however, is not because a single one of them is "required" but because each one has been added to assist and enhance the reader's understanding of the text. As no image or illustration is really a "substitute" for context but an adjunct to it, the real "standard" for inclusion of images and illustrations is instead "editorial judgement" as none can ever be said to be "required" or, for that matter, "not required". Centpacrr (talk) 19:14, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
