Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 April 21

:{{DRV links|File:Yehuda Amichai.jpg|xfd_page=File:Yehuda Amichai.jpg|article=Yehuda Amichai}}

file deleted as "(F7: Violates non-free use policy)"; however, commercial photographer, not " from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty)"; previously published at non-profit website; small resolution; one use in infobox. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Deleting admin's comment: Image is from a commercial photographer, who displays it prominently in his professional portfolio [http://www.porges.net/FamilyTreesBiographies/dan.porges_portfolios/dan.porges.portfolio3_AH.html]. It is distributed via a commercial image agency, topfoto.co.uk [http://imgp.pars03.fr.topfoto.co.uk/imageflows/preview/t=topfoto&f=ARP1050941]. This [http://songeveryday.wordpress.com/yehuda-amichai/] website, which admits to having at some time used this image without permission but then evidently had to take it down, suggests that the photographer or his agents are protective of their copyright and take action against infringment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• apparently, the source website has permission [http://www.ithl.org.il/page_13198]. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• That may of course very well be the case. They may have simply bought a license the normal way, or the photographer was kind enough to grant them one. Or they took it without authorization and the owner hasn't noticed yet. What is that to us? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• source is not agency. i take it, it is your position that all photos distributed through an agency should be deleted, not merely those for which they are the direct source. start here :File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, since an agency can't waive policy. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 19:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse provided that this is the same as the photo [http://imgp.pars03.fr.topfoto.co.uk/imageflows/preview/t=topfoto&f=ARP1050941 here]. That photo is obviously sold commercially, and using it on Wikipedia would violate WP:NFCC#2 unless used in an article specifically about the photo. It can't be used on Wikipedia solely to illustrate the subject of the photo in the article about that person. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Can someone confirm that we are indeed discussing [http://imgp.pars03.fr.topfoto.co.uk/imageflows/preview/t=topfoto&f=ARP1050941 this] image, as Stefan suggests? Second, what is WP policy if an image released by a copyright holder with a free licence is subsequently sold by a commercial firm, with or without the copyright holder's permission? Is Slowking claiming this is the case and is there supporting evidence? I agree that the image being displayed on some website apparently with permission has got nothing at all to do with whether WP has permission and very little to do with whether a fair use claim is tenable. Thincat (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Yes, as I said above, it's the same image. As for the other question, no, there's no indication the photographer ever granted a free license (in the Wikipedian "free content" sense) to anybody, and I don't think anybody has claimed he did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Thank you. Well, unless contrary evidence is brought to bear, endorse the deletion. Thincat (talk) 22:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted per Stefan2's link. I don't necessarily say "endorse" because if Future Perfect was aware of that link at the time of the deletion, it should have been included in the deletion summary, but given that link this image 100% needs to stay deleted. --B (talk) 01:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse / Keep Deleted Above and beyond the fact that this is a professional photograph for which a free image should be available, I am offended by these staged photos of people with their hand on their chin. What are they hiding? Alansohn (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Civilization Jihad|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GroundRisk/sandbox|article=}}

This article was wrongly flagged for speedy deletion on the grounds it was an attack page. This page should not be deleted because the subject in question has been written about in the US by a variety of scholarly sources. I have made appropriate edits to the current article in my sandbox, added more reliable sources, and got rid of areas of concern. The page still needs improvement but again, should not be flagged for speedy deletion. --GroundRisk (talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Please wait for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GroundRisk/sandbox to close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

::Oh sorry, I didn't know! Thanks! GroundRisk (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

• The MFD is as good as a dead horse. Besides, we are not appealing the MFD here but the speedy deletion of the article.
  For what it's worth, this user {{UT|GroundRisk}} is relatively inexperienced in Wikipedia. He doesn't understand much of the nuances and mechanisms of Wikipedia-policies (or should I say Politics?). Having said that, I sincerely believe that the article ought not to have deleted speedily. Right from the very beginning (check its history, other logs) this article has been a target of some few editors who aren't yet ready to brook dissent or offensive material on Wikipedia. Regardless of how we officially frame the issue, it is a case of WP:OFFENSE.
  It has been CSDed multiple times and this time it was deleted. "Civilization Jihad" at least in the Europe and USA has received much notability and is a verifiable topic, we simply need to revamp and rephrase some of the sections of the article wherever needed and raise the neutrality. It needs an overhaul at best, not a deletion. Mr T^(Talk?) [{{fullurl:User_talk:Mrt3366|action=edit§ion=new&preload=User_talk:Mrt3366/new_section}} ^{(New thread?)}] 05:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Beautiful Store|xfd_page=None - was speedy deleted|article=}}

{{admin|Deb}} speedy deleted the article Beautiful Store (see original version in sandbox at User:GaHee Park/sandbox, disregard some junk at the top) under "G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". G11 states: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". I think it is clear it does not fall under G11 (it is not "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", but at best, a poor grammar article about a notable organization with promotional tone). While quite possibly the article in question is a valid target for being tagged with {{tl|Advert}} (and {{tl|Cleanup-english}} or {{tl|Grammar}}), neither of those make it a valid target for speedy deletion. Let's also take a look at {{tl|Template:Db-g11}}. It states that the target article in its "current form serves only to promote an entity, person or product". Well, this article was doing more then just promoting it, it was informing about it (for example the first lead sentence is quite clear and non-promotional "Beautiful Store(아름다운 가게) was launched in 2002 as an example to the Oxfam shop, is a not-for-profit organizations and social enterprises."). Ev To quote further from G11 template: "Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{tl|advert}} tag to alert others to do so.". And again, this article has many parts that are clearly non-promotional, and would remain a valid stub/start class article even after removing problematic sentences. (Even if only the quoted sentence was all that remained, it would be a valid stub, but I think that most if not all of the article is valid, as well - again, suffering primarily from poor grammar, not promotional tone). I ask that this article is restored, with no prejudice to being tagged with the templates mentioned above (I will likely do so myself when it is restored and they are not there the next time I review it). PS. Disclaimer: the user who created the article is a student in a course I am an instructor/ambassador for. {{tl|Advert}} and :Category:Articles with a promotional tone are not candidates for speedy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

::I was about to say that my comments on my own talk page adequately represented my point of view on this, but, reading what Piotrus has written here, I see a more fundamental issue. For Piotrus to say that "the first lead sentence is quite clear and non-promotional" about a sentence that reads almost as nonsense suggests that his threshold for identifying "poor English" is well below my own. As I said in my discussion with him, it is hardly surprising that we disagree about whether the content is promotional if the meaning is not clear - but apparently Piotrus understands what that first sentence means. As it stands, I freely admit that I don't.Deb (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Also see [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:LittleBenW_edit-warring_over_diacritics_again. this] AN thread for background.

:*Wrong link, I believe, I think what was meant was [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Improper_use_of_speedy_deletion.2C_asking_for_article_restoration_and_review_of_admin.27s_use_of_deletion_tools this]. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse deletion. Article is written in a fundamentally promotional tone and would have to be completely re-written to comply with guidelines, which puts it squarely in the remit of CSD G11. Articles which talk about the subject's "mission" in the first paragraph are rarely worth keeping. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• We clearly disagree about the fundamentalism of the tone :) Where to you see the promotional tone in the first line of the lead: "Beautiful Store(아름다운 가게) launched in 2002 as an example to the Oxfam shop, is a not-for-profit organizations and social enterprises."? What is promotional about the description of operations in the second paragraph of the lead (granted, the last sentence or two descend into broken English gibberish)? I'll buy you a case of beer if you explain to us what is promotional in the sentence "The head office is at Anguk-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul.". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - can the article be temporarily undeleted so that non-administrators may view and judge it for themselves? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

::: It's already here in a sandbox (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

::{{done}} Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 12:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse As I said at ANI a moment ago: that should never have been in articlespace. That should have remained a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT until it was ready-to-go, which will take a lot of work. Bad judgement and horrible expectation-setting by anyone who encouraged (now discouraged) this new editor (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Not ready for articlespace. There's likely a reasonable (small) article in there but the writing is so subpar its difficult to follow. NE Ent 12:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Please note that poor grammar is not a reason for deletion. The article has poor grammar, but more than half is understandable. While it would be ok to delete sentences that are so mangled they are gibberish, there is enough of the content that is possible to understand for the article to be (IMHO) useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse, and trout Piotrus for wasting everybody's time. If he had expended only half the time and energy he spent wiki-lawyering about this deletion process to instead simply do the obvious thing and rewrite the article, it could by now be safely back in mainspace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Uh, you can't expect a teacher to do students homework for them, so take that trout and smack yourself with it. I stand by my assertion that this was deleted in violation of G11. Poor grammar, for the n-th time, is not a speedy criteria; this article is not gibberish. Case in point, even if we just trimmed the article and kept just two sentences (first one from the lead and the headquarters location), you still get a workable stub that would be useful for readers right away. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• He's a student of yours and you gave him that as an assignment? With that level of English skills, you should never have let them anywhere near such a task. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• This is, unfortunately, a student problem. I am teaching a freshman level course in English. The students should have passable English communication skills. Sadly, some don't. At the same time in the years past this assignment had about a 50% success rate of creating Good Articles. That said, for the next edition with a similar ESL class I will most likely stick to the sandbox for a while longer; what I am seeing this time is... painful to read, indeed. Which doesn't change the fact that poor grammar is not a speedy criteria... but I guess the admins don't have to care that much about such rules these days, apparently. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Uh, you can't expect a teacher to do students homework for them"! So, you expect other Wikipedians to do your students homework for them instead of you? Mainspace isn't a language lab for first-year EFL students. Articles like this clutter up the cleanup backlogs and waste hours of time for editors who might otherwise be working on genuinely encyclopedic content. Please, bear the effect on other editors in mind before letting students with insufficient English language skills loose in mainspace. Thank you. --Stfg (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

• A speedy G11 wasn't the least bite-y way of dealing with this material. I'm pleased to see that Deb has had the good taste to put a personal note on the user's talk page about it, but I would have preferred more encouraging wording for that note.

  I think we've dealt with this effectively but high-handedly. Editors from South Korea are to be supported because we don't have very many of them and they can read sources most of us cannot. They can cover topic areas that are currently missing from our encyclopaedia. Editor retention is an issue and our approach to new editors is an important part of the reason why. I wouldn't want to overturn the deletion, but in future I would like to see more thought and care going into the messages we send to new editors from foreign countries. This is a collaborative encyclopaedia. Content is paramount but the contributors are also important.—S Marshall T/C 13:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Don't expect much editor retention when newbies are dealt with like that. The ideal solution would be to move parts of the article suffering from promotional tone and/or poor grammar to the talk of the article, and explain the situation there; leaving the other parts in the article (as I noted above, there is enough non-problematic content to create an average stub).Alas, this would require much more effort than a speedy. I know every active admin is overworked, but in the end, this is yet another good example of how to scare a newbie away. Another acceptable solution, hardly more time consuming than speedy, would be to contact me (the instructor for the course) with a note that if issues are not addressed quickly, this would be deleted. Heck, we even have a pretty good procedure for that (proposed deletion, allowing for a few days of reaction on the part of involved parties, whereas a speedy deletion was not appropriate). Either of those is more friendly then a speedy, which causes a distressed student to wonder "what happened". Well, what happened is that Wikipedia is not a friendly place to be a new editor, and doubly so if one's command of English is only intermediate. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse, deletion was sound, the content is clearly promotional. And Piotrus, yes you can't expect a teacher to do students homework for them, but you would expect a teacher to show said student how to do it in the first place--Jac16888 ^Talk 13:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• I've been doing so. Unfortunately, while I can teach the students that, I can't teach them good English. Which, btw, brings me again to the point that I don't see much issues with promotional tone here, certainly not enough to justify G11 speedy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• I've been asked to comment here. While this article shouldn't be in article space, it definitely shouldn't be deleted because a glance at it shows me that its only fault is piss-poor grammar. If it was up to me, I'd put the article back in mainspace, bung a {{tl|grammar}} template across it and place it on my to do list.--Launchballer 13:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• I wouldn't disagree with some of your comments. However, "to-do" lists have a habit of getting longer rather than shorter, and we have a massive problem at the moment in trying to sort the wheat from the chaff during the deletion process. I could give you numerous examples of articles I've deleted recently by contributors whose first language is not English and who appear to have been paid to post up spam they can't even read or who are trying to advertise their own small businesses without understanding - or, more importantly, being capable of understanding - the wikipedia guidelines. The proper place for them to "practise" editing wikipedia is on their own language wikipedias. If you look at my contributions, you will see how often I have tried to assist new editors and improve their contributions. Whilst I recognise this as part of my duties as a wikipedian, it is then frustrating to see people arguing about the finer points of our guidelines and taking me to task for not being sympathetic enough rather than themselves spending time on helping those contributors.Deb (talk) 13:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Look, Deb, I appreciate your efforts. The point is two fold. First, I disagree on the promotional aspect - at best, if you were following G11 own wording, you could've deleted parts of the text that seemed promotional and still live the remainder of the article in place; this would be more friendly to a newbie than deleting the entire article. Second, poor grammar is not a speedy criteria. Again, I'd have no problem if you just deleted parts of text, tagged the article with avert/grammar or such. I do have a problem that you just speedied it. And I am sorry we are wasting time of many editors here - but I stand by what I said; this shouldn't have been outright speedied. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. This was a textbook G11 - "Beautiful store gets their energy from the participation of citizens"? "And individual people`s are could participate this share marketplace, if they have just one donation"? Yes, the English is poor, but completely aside from that, the article uses advertising buzzwords, describes how great the business is, and solicits donations. Yes, there are some sentences that are factual. No, that doesn't mean that without a fundamental rewrite from a completely different approach, the article could stand on its own. And that - the fact that it couldn't stand as a non-advertisement without a fundamental rewrite - is exactly what G11 is for. Now, if the student or Piotrus wants to keep working on the article, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't move it to their userspace(s) and keep hacking away at it. Maybe something can be made of it. But as it stood today, its deletion from mainspace was absolutely correct. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse. Content is obviously promotional, which sufficiently meets WP:CSD#G11, and until I see anything that would meet WP:CORP, it should remain deleted. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Deb/Piotrus, am I correct that the article itself had no indication it was part of a class project? Whether I defer to the instructor of a course project depends to a considerable extent on the reliability of the instructor/ambassador. I trust Piotrus to correct the errors of his own students when notified of them . DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• This was mainspaced and deleted before I got to tag it with. Good reminder, though, I forgot about those. Will add them to the current articles. At least one of which I'll move back to the userspace, probably, as the students are not addressing the issues which I think should result in article's speedying :> --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
• Restore Looking at the article history and the editor's talk p, Deb was apparently aware that this was a page written for a class Piotrus was supervising. Yet she chose to do this deletion, rather than discuss it with Piotrus. Further, she did the deletion single handed. I too have sometimes deleted some G11s single-handed -- especially some old AfCs by G11 that we truly unmistakable advertising beyond any possible question, but I would never do this in any situation where there matter might be open to even the slightest question, but tag them and send them to Speedy for another admin to confirm. I think I'm pretty accurate, but I know I'm not perfect, and a few percent of my G11 nominations have been declined by another editor--sometimes they may even have been right at that. I consider the deletion an over-reaction, but i do not in the least blame Deb for it, for the problems with some of the students in the ed program are enough to induce one in anybody. But when there's a responsible instructor or ambassador, they should have first chance to deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse obviously promotional to the point that deleting it was in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
• endorse use of WP:TNT I've found several English-language sources from which a short article could be written. But what we have now would not be that article. I'm not especially enamored of articles that are entirely lacking in English language sources, but the current tone and poor English make this unsalvageable. Mangoe (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
• Userfy if the article creator or anyone else wants the page to be userfied. The topic seems like it could be the basis for a legitimate article. However, if nobody wants the page any more, endorse deletion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

:{{DRV links|Captain Tsubasa 5: Hasha no Shōgō Campione|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_21#Animated_game_GIFs.3F|article=Captain Tsubasa 5: Hasha no Shōgō Campione}}

Listing the discussion for review on the grounds of

WP:DRVPURPOSE#1 - the closer didn't correctly interpret the discussions' consensus. Two animated gifs illustrating the "Cinematic Soccer" gameplay (:File:Captaintsubasa5.gif and :File:Captain tsubasa 5 cutscenes.gif) were deleted under the subjective criterion WP:NFCC#8, lack of contextual significance.

User:B closed the talk as "general agreement that this is not appropriate fair use", which disregards the editors expressing the need to keep at least one of the images, and the various suggestions on how to improve both the article's text to provide more clear significance, and the images to reduce the amount of non-free content used. I contacted the closer here for a more thorough explanation, confirming that deletion was based exclusively on WP:NFCC#8's interpretation of context (although there were some concerns about minimal usage but also some arguments on how to fix it).

Discussion was still ongoing; under these circumstances, the closing prevented the possibility to achieve a thorough consensus on how to best use the non-free content to improve the article. Wikipedia:Non-free content review instructs administrators to close as no consensus when there's no clear outcome, which B should have done in this case. Diego (talk) 07:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

:Hi fellow Wikipedians. I'm the editor who created/edited the Captain Tsubasa 5 Wiki article. I can't comment using my main account because I was blocked for insulting a High-functioning autistic (and etc) Wikipedian. A Wikipedian who spent the last 7 years adding false/nonsense/fake/extremely silly info on Wikipedia. No one cared about it. I did care, and the result was: block :)

Anyway, I just read everything about those two gifs and my opinion is: sometimes these so-called "administrators" can be amusing. They think they can do everything (deleting this and that) just because they have the "power". They don't care at all about other ppl's "work"/opinion. Sometimes (I said sometimes, I am not generalizing) they are like... the Hitler, Mao Tse Tung or Mussolini from Wikipedia.

About the article, yes, it can be improved. But the reason I didn't add more text was because... I didn't want the article to look like a game guide or something like it. But in this particular case, removing one of those gif images would be reasonable, but removing the two gifs..?!? I'm not sure if the images can be restored, however I still have them (because I knew that sooner or later some random Wikipedian would make a complaint), so IF you want to re-add one of those images you can e-mail me: rickenn yahoo com .

P.S. don't bother blocking this IP or something, I use hundreds of different IPs and have been editing Wikipedia anonymously, in different countries, so it's fine.

Cheers everyone and keep up the good (or not so good) work. --89.214.149.123 (talk) 09:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see a consensus in that debate. B's closing statement clearly does not mean that there was "general agreement" at that debate. It clearly means that there's "general agreement" at FfD that the fact that a game's abandonware doesn't affect our copyright-related decisions.

  I sympathise with admins who close FfDs. There's low attendance and the debates don't necessarily generate a consensus; but the closer can't relist everything. NFCC#8 is the one we always see at DRV because it's so subjective. And we always see it at DRV when the closer's treated it as if it was objective. (It's not appropriate for a closer to write "this fails NFCC#8". That's an opinion statement about content, and we don't elect sysops to make content decisions. The closer should be evaluating consensus. What the closer should write is either "there's a consensus that this fails NFCC#8", or "there's no consensus that this fails NFCC#8". The closer's opinion about NFCC#8 carries no weight, if he wants to give weight his opinion he should !vote instead of closing. It's only his assessment of consensus that matters.)

  I think that in the absence of a consensus, B's relied on previous debates and discussions to form an opinion on this one.—S Marshall T/C 09:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

• Were anyone interested in it, you can see an explanation that I gave for my decision at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:B&diff=551121060&oldid=551117161#animated_gifs]. --B (talk) 13:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Request: Can somebody please add proper links to the FFD discussions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• There was not an FFD discussion. This was a NFCR discussion, which is now archived at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_21#Animated_game_GIFs.3F. If it is preferred that there be a formal FFD, I am not opposed to summarily restoring the images and listing them there, though from my review of WP:NFCR, it seems to be typical that images that have no remaining valid uses are deleted upon closing a review. (For example, you deleted a large number of Star Trek: Voyager images based on this discussion.) --B (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• As noted, closing image discussions can be hard. I think that deletion was a reasonable outcome given that discussion. But I'd also take away from that discussion if the article gets to the point that this gif would help with understanding (so we are told what we are seeing and why) the gif should be reconsidered (and probably shortened if at all possible) Hobit (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• If a decision is made to restore one or both of the images, my strong advice would be to either pick one still that best represents what it is you are trying to show or to turn it into a video. From an aesthetic standpoint (which did not at all enter into my reasons for the close), the endlessly looping animated gifs are incredibly distracting when you're trying to read the article. It's one thing when you're looking at JPEG artifact#Images - the animation there is pretty unobtrusive. But when you've got a whole lot going on, it's really distracting if you're trying to read. Take a look at :Commons:Category:Animated GIF and pick out a few of the really "busy" ones. Very few are used in articles. --B (talk) 23:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse Looking at the discussion and the article, I get the impression that the purpose of the files was mainly to explain what 'cinematic soccer' is and not to contribute to the understanding of the game. Also, the article doesn't even seem to explain what 'cinematic soccer' is. It is common to have a screenshot to illustrate an article about a game, but I don't see why we would need a film for this purpose. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

::You don't think cinematic soccer is relevant to the game? In any case, if you read the article you'll find that the image was not just to illustrate cinematic soccer, but how the game deviated from it to include a classic field view. This was also illustrated by the deleted images, and it's now not explained in the article in a way that can be understood. Though, deletion review is not to rehash the arguments justifying deletion, it's here to evaluate whether the closing admin followed proper procedure. Diego (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

:::The purpose of the article is to describe the game, not to describe what 'cinematic soccer' is. Lengthy explanations about cinematic soccer are out of scope for that article. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

::::The game is in the cinematic soccer genre, so if you don't explain cinematic soccer you're not describing the game. And this is still unrelated to the purpose of this review. Do you think B's close accurately reflected the discussion consensus or not? And why? Diego (talk) 06:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)