Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 December 5

:{{DRV links|Maisie Williams|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maisie Williams|article=}}

The "redirect" closure is procedurally incorrect because it is not based on a consensus. The reason for this is that only three people contributed to the discussion. They each held different opinions: "delete" (the nominator, implicitly); "keep"; or "merge and redirect", all based on prima facie reasonable arguments. But nobody supported a redirect without merging, which is the solution implemented by the closer. I recommend that the discussion is either relisted or closed as "no consensus".  Sandstein  00:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• This seems a bit complicated to me and it raises issues that I find interesting. I can see two technical ways to understand that close. The "weak" interpretation is:- in his capacity as an administrator, MOP found no consensus in the debate and defaulted to keep. However, in his capacity as an editor he then decided that the appropriate action was to create a redirect and acted accordingly. He could thus be overturned by any editor on the basis of talk page discussion.

  The "strong" interpretation rests on the outcome of this RFC, which appears to give MOP a mandate to enforce a redirect as an administrative decision, on the basis of his assessment of the strength of the arguments.

  I would have absolutely no issue at all with the weak interpretation in which the redirect is an editorial decision. However, the wording of the close, the wording of this DRV, and MOP's comments on his talk page, all seem to suggest that what should be understood is the strong interpretation in which the redirect is an administrative decision. I have various technical and procedural concerns and objections about that. It's a bit complicated so I'll point to my theoretical level discussion with Flatscan here for the details. Subject to subsequent discussion, my interim position is that what I've called the weak interpretation of the debate is correct but I also have no objection to Sandstein reverting the redirect per WP:BRD.—S Marshall T/C 01:20, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist While the closing admin's action was probably within the realm of discretionary outcome, the debate was extremely poor, being based mostly on one interpretation of BLP1E that deviates from my perception of consensus (as expressed in WP:WI1E and WP:WIALPI), and no apparent searching for [https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Maisie+Williams%22&tbm=nws&tbs=ar:1 new sources] that have been published since the initial stub was written. Ultimately, neither trying to "protect" child actors by suppressing their articles, and/or demanding inordinate amount of life details to make a "biography" stick are good options for the encyclopedia, the readership, or the subject. What we need is what we had: a career summary based on multiple, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. Jclemens (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Note also that the article was trending ~600 page views per day per [http://stats.grok.se/en/201111/Maisie%20Williams stats.grok.se]. This is too many readers to disenfranchise via such a poorly attended discussion. Jclemens (talk) 03:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Closer's comment I was in a meeting when I posted my original response to Sandstein, so apologies if it seems a bit hazy. S. Marshall, your first interpretation is correct - I am not an inclusionist, but I felt that, given that the actress has some degree of notability and her name could forseeably be searched, a redirect would be the best compromise based on my weighing of the deletion arguments. It's apparent that there are others who would prefer a relist to draw further debate; I'm perfectly OK with that. I would have expressed this opinion on my talk page, but I wasn't expecting Sandstein to open a DRV so quickly. m.o.p 04:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• I'm absolutely fine with a relist, and I'll make it a priority to demonstrate that the article is merited in the coming week. Jclemens (talk) 06:08, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|File:JesseDirkhising.jpg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 November 21#File:JesseDirkhising.jpg|article=Murder of Jesse Dirkhising}}

Well, the XfD had no Delete votes (not even the nominator, as it was a procedural listing). This was following an earlier DRV [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_November_7#File:JesseDirkhising.jpg_.28closed.29 here] with unanimous support for relisting, following an earlier XfD [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_17#File:JesseDirkhising.jpg here] also with no Delete votes. The XfD was closed as Delete anyway; it's not 100% clear, but I think this was due to the image being orphaned. (Closing admin is on wikibreak and not available to respond.)

Well, it's only orphaned because it was deleted, and consequently removed from the article. If I can get these restored, I'll put them back in the article. (There is a general issue with this, in that, if they're restored they can be be re-deleted as orphaned one minute after that; I can't edit 24 hours a day. I suppose this is a common problem and I don't know if there's a solution to that or not. But if I'm lucky and fast maybe I can get them them back in before they're deleted again. If not, I guess we can go round again, as many times as it takes.) Also applies to :File:Elyse.JPG, :File:Newmaker.jpg, :File:KelseySmith.jpg, :File:StephanieKuhen.png. (Later addtion: also :File:MarthaMoxley.jpg, :File:SylviaLikens.jpg) Herostratus (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

• Snow overturn, because, damn. I presume SchuminWeb was having an off day.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: Huh. I just noticed that the admin who [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AFiles_for_deletion%2F2011_November_21&action=historysubmit&diff=463052030&oldid=463050711 closed] the "all-keep" FfD as "delete" is the one who nominated the image for deletion [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_17&diff=439880963&oldid=439880928 in the first place]. That's... not ideal. 28bytes (talk) 12:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy restore and add to the articles in question. Deleting an image as orphaned when the consensus in the discussion is that it is appropriate for use in a specific article, it just hasn't been re-added pending discussion, is manifestly unreasonable. I sympathize with the concerns about these non-free images, but deleting them in defiance of consensus is not a reasonable use of administrative discretion. As for 28bytes' litotes, I'll refrain from restating it in the positive, but it is the reason for the "speedy" at the front of my comment. Eluchil404 (talk) 15:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn to keep and consider discussing sanctions against the closer for the abuse of administrative tools and the deletion process. I do not understand how an administrator can, in good faith, first request the deletion of a file, and the close the deletion review of the same file as "delete", with an obviously inapplicable rationale, in the face of a consensus to the contrary.  Sandstein  00:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Speedy overturn as an WP:INVOLVED violation, in addition to ignoring consensus. The file was orphaned because it had been previously deleted (at the closer's nomination!), and it is obvious that de-orphaning it would have been trivial. I've left SchuminWeb a note to this effect on his talk page. I would undelete it myself, but I opined in the previous DRV on these images, and there is no deadline, so a completely uninvolved admin should probably do the honors. Jclemens (talk) 04:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn. The F5 / orphaned and WP:NFCC#7 are absurd to apply to a recently deleted file relisted by DRV. The close did not reflect the discussion. Slap the closer per User:28bytes. Presumably, the closer forgot his prior involvement, and he should take more care. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:30, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - IMO FfD/DRV is ill-equipped to handle this situation, as this falls under "Copyright with legal considerations". I believe we once had an RfC to determine once and for all if album art usage in an article about the album specifically satisfies NFCC (it passed, obviously). Has there ever been a centralized discussion on whether non-free images of a person, living or dead, may be used in an article about that person satisfy NFCC #8 ? Tarc (talk) 22:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
• Well, there's this: Wikipedia talk:NFC#RFC: Clarifying policy on pictures of deceased persons. 28bytes (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2011 (UTC)