Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 18

< September 17	Deletion review archives: 2008 September	September 19 >

18 September 2008

TARGIT

Got deleted for several reasons

I need a review of my article before I upload it again. Thomasrk (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Fixed above. Also seems to be the wrong forum. ~~I'm glad to help, but you don't need DRV for this. Come talk to me at my talk page and I'll take a look.~~ lifebaka++ 15:36, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, all deleted versions appear to be copyvios. Endorse and do not restore. Thomasrk, I suggest you review our notability inclusion criteria for companies and make sure that TARGIT meets it before reposting an article about it, and when you do, write the article from scratch. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:40, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:National Nine News Darwin opener.png

Image deleted against the consensus which was keep, the image did not fail NFCC#8 as the image was used to show the news opener which is only unique on NTD and no other channel owned by the Nine Network Bidgee (talk) 02:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn I reviewed this image before it was nom'd to IFD and think it is the best minimal FU we can have, while still providing context on the topic. Further, a vote of 3 Keep, 1 Delete at IFD is at best No Consensus and probably a Keep close. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Mbisanz. 3 keeps vs. 1 delete, with rational arguments pro and con, does not easily spell delete.John Z (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment close seems perfectly reasonable. Three respondants (other than nom) (Noting ones inappropriate attempt to attack the nominators motive, rather than their argument) all seemed to concentrate on the nom's suggestion of "purely decorative" than NFCC#8 itself, which is "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." - there is a big gap between something being purely decorative and "significantly increase..." in this instance maybe the respondants are correct that it isn't purely decorative, but they don't address the "significantly increase..." part of the actual criteria. The article says "The opener used for National Nine News Darwin uses an aerial shot of Darwin with the National Nine News logo and date." not sure how the image can Significantly increase undestanding beyond that. So in the strength of arguments stakes the Nom cited NFCC#8, the respondants failed to show any significance hence didn't overcome NFCC#8.--82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, in the absence of a bright-line rule consensus is the only thing that we have to decide these issues. Stifle (talk) 09:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plus the closing statement wasn't clear as to whether it was addression the consensus or a personal position. -- Suntag ☼ 16:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is restored, and replaced in the article NTD, will it then be accompanied by critical commentary and discussion as in the non-free content acceptable use guidelines? Reviewing wherein this this image was removed [1], there isn't any currently. In fact, there's appears to be a description of the removed image already? WP:NFCC#1?
Are these pertinent warrants to consider before possibly overturning only to nominate for deletion again? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a logo, to quote from our logo guidelines, Many images of logos are used on Wikipedia and long standing consensus is that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes., this image will go in the NTD#News to provide the reader understanding about the local version of the national news program produced specifically at this stuido. MBisanz ^talk 13:37, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My mistake, I inferred from reading the IfD nomination and the discussions there that this had been a television screenshot. So the 0.6KB section needs another logo in this article for identification and to significantly increase readers' understanding?
    In IfD discussions, arguments supported by policies and guidelines determine retention or deletion, not !votes based on WP:IT'SIMPORTANT, WP:IS NOT!, or WP:THISEDITORDOESN'TCOUNT. While the nomination was on WP:NFCC#8 (and I'll argue, not contested), but those involved here in discussion should make sure this meets the acceptable use guidelines and all of the non-free criteria or it will just be nominated for deletion again under those tenants.
    I personally cannot judge on the appropriateness of this closure because I cannot see the image and corroborate the argument for deletion. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 14:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It appears to be a screen shot of the logo, I know the prior image was a screen shot of the logo that also included the anchor, and I advised against that image, since we don't need a person's image in it to gain context. Just clarifying the exact nature. MBisanz ^talk 14:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, the article already has a logo image Image:Channelnine.svg, so why does it need two? That was not answered at the IfD. Also, a screen shot of a logo that also included the news anchor is a screen shot, not a logo. Television screen shots need only be accompanied by sourced "discussion of the ... television (show? screenshot?)" (yes, it is vague) to meet NFC Images No. 5. What sourced discussion of the television supported use of the image? That was not answered at the IfD. A sourced discussion on the overall visual look and feel of this particular news show would be enought to keep the image. But if no source mentions the overall visual look and feel of the local news show, then why should Wikipedia attempt this via a screen shot? -- Suntag ☼ 16:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]