Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 February 2#File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg

:{{DRV links|John B. Kimble|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kimble|article=}}

The page was deleted in 2007 by Guy and then he deleted the page in 2011 without cause. I have observed his arguments and the individuals that he is communicating with who say his actions have not been appropriate. I agree with the other individuals as the article should have not been removed. Additionally, the initial requester of drv, when first posted for deletion review done in 2007 asked that drv not happen from what I see. I have no idea if Guy aka JZG has some sort of personal connection or animosity towards the subject of the article but his arguments are mean spirited and from what I observe rather bullheaded and without cause. When the article was replaced they were told to not make it too big by administrator Tom who said it should not be too large. I am sure that if the article was a true vanity page that they would have made it much larger. I am asking that the article be restored on Wikipedia because it had been on the Wikipedia system for four years with no problems. If I have not done this correctly I apologize as I have just begun posting to Wikipedia. 69.243.59.171 (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse. Misrepresentations of the edit history of the article aside, the new version of the article is not terribly different from the version deleted in 2007. Kimble's situation has not changed at all in the past three years. I see no reason to restore. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:03, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse – There must be some better reasons behind your challenge of the deletion aside from attacking the deleter with ad hominem remarks. –MuZemike 02:57, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

::Also, I strongly suspect that the IP above is the same person as {{User|69.140.66.1}}, who made some quite imflammatory remarks, of which I am surprised the IP was not blocked as a result. –MuZemike 03:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Restore and relist This is 4 years later and consensus can change. The subject should have a chance to be put to the test in 2011. Shaliya waya (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• 'Restore If I get a vote I believe the article should be restored on Wikipedia. I looked at logs and editorscommented how the article had been visible for years with no problems. There have been no misrepresentations of logs or edit histories that I am aware of.

05:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Per Shaliya Waya, using G4 to enforce a 4-year-old discussion amounts to a denial that consensus can change. The cached article does contain sources that the 2007 deletion discussion could not possibly have considered. This isn't a call that one admin can make on their own authority because the sources need to be discussed. Overturn without prejudice to subsequent listing at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 09:02, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

:: No it doesn't, it just means that I didn't notice the re-creation because the WP:SPA sneakily did it at a slightly different title. It was spam. For a politician who was not elected, Repeatedly not selected, in fact. Guy (Help!) 13:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

::This is the reason that it appears you are showing a prejudice towards the subjected article and person contained therein. I have viewed the public histories for one of the editors and see nothing sneaky or underhanded. The article was up for four years and the only one who seems to be bothered by it is you. Just an observation from the posts. 69.243.59.171 (talk) 18:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse - per Lifebaka. Candidates for elections are not notable, and as there is no new assertion to notability beyond that then the article clearly meets G4. Syrthiss (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist for two reasons. Firstly as noted above, consensus can change and 4 years is a long time. Secondly, the addition of new sources means it wasn't a valid G4 candidate - the community decides whether the sources are enough to meet the notability requirements, not a single admin, and as there are new sources the community needs to decide again - especially as one of the reasons for deletion was there were only primary sources and this is no longer the case (as a non-admin I'm taking this fact on trust as I can't see the AfD'd version). Dpmuk (talk) 13:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse (obviously); the original article was created by WP:SPAs, deleted by AfD and rapidly re-created at a much better title also by a WP:SPA, all subsequent significant edits are also from this or another WP:SPA. The article was a campaigning platform for a minor also-ran politician who has not been elected. The requestor asserts that I deleted it out of bigotry because the article subject is a devout Christian. Not so. I deleted it as a G4 and spam. Guy (Help!) 13:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Four years and some new sources certainly make it not a G4. restore and list at AfD. Also the SPA status of the author doesn't matter in the fairly tight speedy criteria as far as I know. Hobit (talk) 15:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Technically, this is outside of G4's realm because [http://projects.washingtonpost.com/elections/2010/md/senate/1499/john-b-kimble/ three] [http://times-news.com/localelections/x1540414888/Kimble-taking-another-shot-at-seat-in-Congress new] [http://www.fredericknewspost.com/sections/news/display.htm?StoryID=109427 sources] were used, so a second AfD would be a good idea. But being realistic, is there any chance of this being kept? I can't help feeling that it might be a better use of everyone's time to focus on something that at least comes close to meeting the relevant guidelines. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:04, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Relist I must say that the article from what I have seen was deleted by Guy in 2007 and then deleted again four years later by Guy. It does seem to be some sort of prejudice in his decision making. I believe that articles should be allowed if they are newsworthy and notable. Guy's reasoning seems somewhat clouded by emotion. I do not believe that the article was a campaign platform as the man has a campaign website. The person who deleted the article should be able to prove that his decision was not because of a prejudice and based upon a substantial reason because the article had been present for four years after his original deletion on minor grounds. 69.243.59.171 (talk) 17:27, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist since new sources make it "not a G4", such that a new AfD is appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn and relist at AFD. The article is really not similar to the one deleted in 2007, and an AFD discussion from 3 and a half years ago that only four people contributed to is not justification for a G4 deletion now in my view. AFD will give us a more up to date consensus (which I suspect will again be in favour of deletion). --Michig (talk) 19:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn speedy. Article included several credible claims of significance for activity postdating the 2007 AFD, and therefore was evidently not suitable for G4 deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Undelete and list at AfD on the basis of talk of there being new sources not considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Kimble. If it is not quite a G4 and not quite a G11, it is not G4 or G11 speediable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This was deleted at AfD because it showed no notability apart from being a political candidate. The new sources all derive, again, from his being a political candidate - their headlines are "About the candidate", "Kimble taking another shot at seat in Congress" and "Voters Guide: US Senator", this last one listing him along with ten other candidates. They do nothing to address the reason for deletion, making this a correct G4 speedy. We do not need to have a new AfD every time he stands again and gets some more press-cuttings as a candidate. JohnCD (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
• So? He can still meet WP:GNG yes? And as the article is improved (with sources and stuff, the very definition of improved around here), it isn't a G4 right? It may well get deleted at AfD, but that's not a single admin's job to determine, nor DrVs. Hobit (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• question/comment This guy is a scientist yes? Has anyone tried to see if there are any sources about him in that context? If so it might push him over to notability. But right now he seems to run afoul of our standards for political candidates. While I'd rather go through an AfD than have a speedy deletion when the last deletion was four years ago, insisting on such an AfD at this point would seem to be needless red-tape. I will change that opinion if sources about his work as a scientist can be presented. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
• A cursory search didn't get me anywhere. All the results were still references to his political career (and mostly Wikipedia mirrors) or about one John M. Kimble (a scientist working for the USDA). There might be some things offline or locked behind paywalls that Google doesn't see through. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:26, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_January_16#File:Khalid-Saeed.jpg|article=Khaled Mohamed Saeed}}

The image was originally used in the article about Khalid Saeed, whose death was one of the main catalysts for the current 2011 Egyptian protests. He is now one of the slogans for the protest, with the "We are Khaled Said Movement" (Said being another spelling of Saeed) being an example. This image is from his autopsy after his death, likely taken by the forensic examiner. It was released onto the internet somehow in June of 2010 and it caused a major amount of worldwide criticism and backlash against Egypt and the image itself was spread around the world, becoming viral. Because of this, I feel that the image is significant and should be used in the article as a representation of this.

Around the 26-28th of January, since the start of the Egyptian protests, a rather large number of IP addresses had been removing the image from the article and were being reverted by myself and a few other editors. Only a very small minority of the IPs gave a reason and it was invariably about the image being graphic. There was a discussion about this on the talk page here.

After this had been going on for a while, I created a thread on ANI, which you can find here. I wasn't sure whether the edit war on the image was enough to ask for semi-protection through RFPP, so I raised this in that ANI discussion. The prior FfD for the image was then revealed to me and the image was redeleted as it had been a re-upload.

I feel, however, that there is certainly a good enough reason for this image to fall under non-free use and that the image is a necessity for the article because it is one of the main reasons for his notability. Silverseren^C 04:53, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

:Edit: Just realized that I should have a link to the article in question, Khaled Mohamed Saeed. Silverseren^C 01:26, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue where failures to follow the deletion process can be reviewed, and, where appropriate, amended. It is not a venue for users to advance new arguments (or re-advance old ones) that ought to have been raised at the XFD. Colloquially, "DRV is not FFD round 2". Stifle (talk) 09:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

:* This is where all of the admins at ANI told me to take it. :/ Silverseren^C 15:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

::*Comment Can you give the link to that? I get tired of the circular bureaucracy here sometimes too; the least we can do is figure out once and for all where you need to bring these objections instead of just getting voted down for process reasons.Yankeefan233 (talk) 15:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

:::* The ANI discussion can be found here. AniMate told me to take it to DRV. And, on the article talk page here, OverlordQ (also an admin) directed us to take the discussion to DRV. Silverseren^C 15:51, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

:::*It's right at the top of the DRV page, under the bottom of the box with 1, 2, 3, and 4 in it. There is not normally an appeal from deletion decisions, with the exception of where deletion process has not been followed. Stifle (talk) 20:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

::::::Correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following WP Deletion process. A error in evaluating the evidence, the guidelines, the policy or the consensus are all cases of improper process, for the correct procedure for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. Therefore this, and any closing that is asserted to not be in accord with correct judgment, or with the facts of the matter, can and should be reviewed here. All systems except drumhead court-martials provide for review. All admin decisions are reviewable, otherwise the community would not be willing to have admins, as none of them, including myself, are perfect. There needs to be a way of considering new evidence after something has been deleted, and this is the only place available. The guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. If any statement on this page or elsewhere is inconsistent with that, it is not applicable. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

:::::::Reconciling the difference between your reading of policy and others' isn't something we need to do here, but if you want to propose an amendment to the policies and instructions at the top of the page, feel free to do so and gather a consensus for the change you'd like to make on the talk page. Stifle (talk) 20:52, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• I have all due respect for what Stifle says but in the circumstances I think it behoves us to consider this here.

  Warning: We're considering a close-up of a corpse's face. It's not the most distressing image I've come across on the web, but children, and editors of a sensitive disposition, should consider refraining from googling it.

  This image is someone's copyright and we don't know whose. The FfD correctly decided that we cannot be sure it is ethical to use it. Nothing has changed in that respect, so I conclude that (a) the original deletion was correct, and (b) we should enforce it.—S Marshall T/C 17:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

:Have you seen two girls one cup? This does not even come close the most distressing image I have seen in the last week. If you open any news channel you will a more distressing image any day of week -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Original Deletion was Correct agree with S Marshall on all points.Electrojet2008 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Relist The FfD was pretty much solely about the graphic nature of the image and not about the free status and meeting NFCC. Being too graphic is not a reason to delete an image. It may be a reason not to have it in the article, but that should be discussed at the article's talk page, not FfD by people who don't understand the importance or context for the image ("while I am not familiar with the person or circumstances of his death..."). Hobit (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
• Reverse deletion: Support Per Hobit -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: I am still concerned that the image hinders rather than aids true understanding of the case, because to the non-expert eye it is suggestive of a lot of things that may not be true, visually mixing up the effects of the lethal violence (beating) with disfiguring effects of the post mortem investigation. I would say there would be a decent NFC case if we were using it to illustrate a well-informed, well-sourced medical discussion about what we are actually seeing in it. I don't see that discussion in the article yet. If we are using it only as an illustration of the shock value that caused its public impact, we will do better by relying on a verbal description alone ("a photograph of the hideously disfigured face of the dead body after the post mortem investigation appeared and sparked protests and accusations of torture" – that's perfectly sufficient). Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

:I'll see what I can do tomorrow. I've still got all of the sources I pointed out in the AfD that I have to add. Silverseren^C 09:58, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn Decided in contradiction to established policy. The policy about the nature of the image is unmistakable and part of our foundational policies: NOTCENSORED. Whether it otherwise qualifies as fair use is another matter. I suppose we could solve that one very easily by writing an article or section specifically about the image and the effect of it. Such a discussion would be meaningless without the actual image present, and thus meets the NFCC criteria. DGG ( talk ) 20:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

• Note: This debate also has been discussed in Talk:Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed. --   -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
• Overturn because, I see the FFD as being an editorial decision, rather than a policy/guideline-based argument for deletion. The inclusion, or otherwise, should have been discussed on Talk:Death of Khaled Mohamed Saeed and not in FFD, nor here.

:Links, for reference:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Death_of_Khaled_Mohamed_Saeed&diff=410526693&oldid=410526481 Image removal], the FFD.

:So, although I am fully aware that DRV is not 'round 2' of the deletion, I ask that this decision be made by the article content editors, because there were no policy-based reasons given at FFD.

:AniMate wrote, {{xt|If we want to describe the torture we can do so using words and not that image.}} - I strongly disagree with that sentiment; there is absolutely no way that any description can convey the same information about this topic as that image.

:It is encyclopaedic, has unique historical significance, adds to understanding of the subject.  Chzz  ►  13:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

::There is a discussion on the article talk page, actually, if you look. And, including myself, there are five editors supporting inclusion, with the opposers being IPs where this discussion is their first edit. Silverseren^C 18:31, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

:::Quite so, sorry; I just wanted to point out, that an article talk page was/is/will be the the right place for a discussion of this kind, because FFD and DRV can merely act upon policy-based reasons (such as if nonfree can apply) rather than any discussion relating to its specific merit for inclusion in that article. And yes, there is indeed clear support from some established editors over there - which increases the rationale for overturning the FFD.  Chzz  ►  19:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

• Overturn No policy-based reason for deletion articulated by either the nominator or those agreeing with him. I note that the discussion was poorly attended and should probably have been both relisted and DELSORT'ed. Still, arriving at DRV, the deletion is objectively unreasonable and should be overturned. While I respect FPAS's entirely forthright nom, including the honesty about having just orphaned the image himself, the same applied "human decency" standard would have suppressed the two iconic and prizewinning photographs in :Category:Vietnam War photographs. Jclemens (talk) 08:29, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
• Relist - If only to have a proper discussion about the usage of a non-free image, rather than have the deletion be about the graphic/controversial nature of the image itself, which is (or should be; we lost the goatse image from that article because of wiki-prudery last year) outside the scope of a deletion discussion. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• overturn per Jclemens. Wikipedia is not censored. Clear historical importance. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:19, 10 February 2011 (UTC)