File:MightBooshTonyHarrison&Saboo.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Fair use rationales given were not criticised, except by general statements that they do not apply. Direct questions were ignored. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - as nom OrangeDog (talk • edits) 23:19, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep deleted. Closure seems accurate- there was no clear consensus to retain the image, which defaults to a delete as per the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you explain where in the criteria it says that no consensus defauls for deletion for a non-free image? I wasn't aware of that policy and I don't see it in the policy page linked to. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Unique interpretation of CSD policy by nominator-for-deletion of "orphaning" the image, then attempting to have it deleted without discussion to get around NFCC 7; only vague answers given to direct questions, with even more vague references to "burden of proof "- no matter what argument was presented, it was "wrong"; deletion nom's claim that a "no consensus" close defaults to delete as per non-free content criteria, even though the only reference to "deletion criteria" on that page (the link he provided) links to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion - and there's no mention of a close "defaulting" to any particular outcome there; deletion nom then appealed directly to the closing admin to change the close to "delete", rather than using conventional channels of appeal. Radiopathy •talk• 02:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep arguments for keep were much, much, stronger than to delete. 4 images on a list of 19 characters and pretty clearly in line with all guidelines and policies for list articles. Hobit (talk) 02:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• All of this is missing the point. The question that needs to be answered that was not answered by those opining keep in the IFD: how is exclusion of this image detrimental to the user's understanding? One user complained that the nominator had previously nominated the image for speedy deletion (which is irrelevant in an IFD and a deletion review - that's like saying you shouldn't be able to get a hamburger at McDonald's because when you were there a year ago, you ordered a chicken sandwich.) One pointed out that Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles would seem to permit the use of the image, which has nothing to do with whether or not the image meets NFCC #8. One user said "failure to demonstrate how image fails NFCC 3 or 8", but the burden of proof is with those seeking to retain the non-free images, not on the person seeking to delete them. The singular question that needed to be answered in that IFD was whether or not excluding this image from the article is detrimental to the user's understanding. I don't see that question answered. As a note for the admin that closes this DRV, there are three more images on this page at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_30#File:Old_Gregg.jpg right below this one. Whoever closes this, please take the same action on the other three images there (keep them all, delete them all, whatever you decide here.) That saves us the trouble of four deletion reviews. --B (talk) 03:08, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The question is not whether the exclusion of the image is detrimental to the user's understanding. Where did you come up with that? Nothing in policy uses the term "detrimental". The question is not asked in the negative: NFCC 1 asks, ""Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" The answer to both, in this case, is no; thus, the image is allowed. This was argued quite effectively at the Ifd, and included in the revised fair use rationale.

Also, why do you feel that it's irrelevant for me to call the nominator on his underhanded tactics? He's bullied his way through the whole process, interpreting policy anyway he felt at the moment, and you don't think that needs to be part of this discussion? Radiopathy •talk• 05:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the policy says detrimental? WP:NFCC#Policy point 8 - "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." You have to meet all the NFCC criteria, you can't just select that you believe it passes one of them and ignore the rest. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I stand corrected, and it passes all of them, okay? No one has yet shown how this image doesn't meet all the criteria, but they've been shown conclusively, repeatedly, that it does. And how about logging in when you comment. Radiopathy •talk• 06:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well how about addressing the question of B? - "The question that needs to be answered that was not answered by those opining keep in the IFD: how is exclusion of this image detrimental to the user's understanding?" merely asserting that it passes all of them doesn't do that. Stating that it has been "shown conclusively and repeatedly that it does", doesn't make it so. I've looked through the debate and the only attempt towards that is one person saying it helps them understand it, given multiple other people opine it doesn't I can't see that as "conclusively" and given it's only one of them "repeatedly" either. As I look through the debate your keep says that no one has shown how it fails to meet 3 or 8, but the further commenter points to where the burden of proof lies which you fail to address. I'm not sure what me logging in or not logging in has to do with anything, but if it helps I don't have an account. Okay?--82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because one of the primary things that distinguishes The Mighty Boosh is its visual style. These characters were selected for illustration because they appear frequently in many media and display the most outlandish character design. Without these images the visual aspects cannot adequately described in prose alone. Thus excluding them is detrimental to the reader's understanding of both the specific appearances of these higher-profile characters, as well as the visual style of the Boosh brand overall. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 09:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other point is that we actually have explicit guidance on where the line is to be drawn here, namely Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles, which the closer seems to have wilfully ignored. That guidance takes as a given the proposition that showing what a character looks like adds (to some extent) to the understanding the article conveys, added understanding which is lost if the image is removed.

The question to be decided is if that additional understanding is sufficiently significant to justify the additional piece of NFC; and this is the issue the guidance then specifically discusses in detail. Now, as was set out in some detail at the IfD in remarks that were subsequently not questioned or disputed, these images are about as close as you could get to a paradigm case of following that guidance and getting it right. It's very hard to think what more an image could possibly do to be compliant than these ones. They have been carefully pared down to include only the four most significant out of nineteen. (And note the parallel "minor characters" article has no images at all). Of the recurring characters, these images are carefully selected as the guideline recommends to be only the most significant, that have most caught in viewers' imagination, and about which there is most content in the article; they are hardest to completely convey in words; they cannot be replaced by a group shot, because they also convey the extent of actor doubling up in the show, and the variety of makeup treatments applied all to the same performer; and, particularly, they give the best 'representative visual reference' of any of our articles on the Boosh for the "bizarre and surreal"-ness of the characters, discussed in the article, and which as OrangeDog has set out immediately above is such an important distinctive feature of the whole show.

When we have direct policy guidance on what factors contribute to the understanding conveyed by an image being sufficiently significant to justify its inclusion, and the article reflects that guidance, then it is not appropriate for FFD to simply ignore that guidance, and come to a decision which flies in the face of it. If these images don't satisfy the policy guidance, it's hard to think of any that would. Jheald (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, per Hobit. Jheald (talk) 06:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. Proper arguments relating to the NFCC, which is policy, were correctly considered superior to other arguments. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, arguments which reflect the explicit guidance on that policy should be considered superior to those which ignore it. Jheald (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This is utter nonsense. Seriously, what the Hell? To quote Hobit above, "4 images on a list of 19 characters and pretty clearly in line with all guidelines and policies for list articles". This is the kind of tripe that we have to put up with from long term editors. Seriously, if you don't like the fact we're a free content encyclopedia, go away, I'm sure there are plenty of other projects that could do with some help. J Milburn (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you have an issue with the fact we allow fair use and have specific guidelines in place for list articles using images, then I suggest you avoid discussions on this topic or try to change those guidelines rather than arguing that "we are a free content encyclopedia" and (apparently) arguing that fair use of images is contrary to that even though we have policies and guidelines on the topic. Hobit (talk) 15:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no issue with the fact we allow non-free content in very strict circumstances- I think we're a far better work because of it. However, we already have our compromise between being a free content encyclopedia and allowing non-free content as we please, and they are the NFCC. Let us not water them down further. J Milburn (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (FYI: Further discussion taken has been taken our talk pages) Hobit (talk) 16:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• While I agree that we need to watch the # of images in a list, (and unfortunately, unfamiliar with the source material), I'd have to edge out a bit in overturning the deletion -- but with the stipulation that there needs to be a revisit to improve the list article language and considerations for image removal. Right now, based on my reading of the list and the images, two of the non-frees are well and truly justified: the cast image (which, good, does the work of many images) and the image of Old Gregg, which appears to have significant outside of the show, and of course represents a heavily-made up actor. I'm hesitant to outright say the other non-frees (including this one) should be removed as they are describable in text (the Spirit of Jazz can be easily said to have a Haitian/Baron Samedi look, for example) and don't seem to have much more to say about the characters within the context of the show. But that's not a reason for outright deletion, as I have a hard time calling this overuse. Thus, I'd encourage an overturn to have improvements made to explain why the characters are shown, with some revisitation on the issue in a few weeks or so to see if there's better necessity to keep the images. --MASEM (t) 15:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, I'm going to say that the images should be restored and put back in the article - but there should be no prejudice against opening another bulk XfD to reconsider these images. The means by which they ended up deleted is questionable - I can see the acceptable process being: 1) remove extraneous images believed to be violating NFC 2) images replaced by another user 3) discussion at talk page 4) brought to XfD to evaluate. But here, there was the added step that the images were removed after the revert and then brought to XfD to be reviewed with the images having been deleted in the interim due to being orphaned by the removal. Restart the XfD with images in place and no image removal timer going to properly access them. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse from yours truly on this one. If the said characters had their own articles, I would have !voted otherwise, but I just don't think they're important enough to merit using a fair-use image.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unsure if "important" plays a role here. The question, I think, is if not having them is detrimental to the article/topic as a whole. Hobit (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, Hobit, I personally think "importance" plays a role when it comes to fair-use images of living people. On principle, I'm quite deletionist when it comes to fair-use images of living people because I think they potentially pose quite a serious threat to Wikipedia. I think retaining them requires a strong justification (just short of an actual "need"). I realise this is an exception to my habitually inclusionist stance.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've never really thought of you as an inclusionist, more as a "rules-ist" if anything, which is why I think you'd be a good admin :-). In anycase, I'd need to see the deleted image to know if the claims of "bizarre" looks were actually the case. As this is DrV I generally accept any reasonable claim that no one disputed. If the looks are so bizarre that no image of the actual person could replace the character and still convey the sense of the character, I think it's not replaceable. If they aren't then I'd understand the deletion. Hobit (talk) 00:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• From my knowledge of the Mighty Boosh, I think I can safely say that every single character on the show is of profoundly bizarre appearance.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn because "no consensus" outcomes at XfD default to "keep", not "delete", as made clear at WP:FFD: "Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised."  Sandstein  21:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then it needs changing. Sandstein, please read our non-free content criteria- they are clear as to where the burden of proof lies. Not to patronise, but others have needed it- you may also want to take a read of burden of proof. This current RfC is also quite clear on the matter. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of who has the burden of proof in a discussion is unrelated to whether that discussion reaches a consensus, and what the outcome of it not reaching a consensus is.  Sandstein  21:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof lies with those wishing to retain the image, meaning that the assumed position is that of not retaining the image. Therefore, if they are unable to demonstrate that the image should be retained (IE- not able to demonstrate there is a consensus in favour of the image's retention) then the assumed position is held- that the image should be deleted. Again, I don't mean to patronise, but taking a read of burden of proof may be helpful. J Milburn (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am a lawyer and quite familiar with the concept. (I am also aware that Wikipedia is not a court and does not simply apply legal rules.) Policy does not simply state that "the burden of proof lies with those wishing to retain the image." It says that it is "the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale". This does not change what happens if there is no consensus about whether they have provided a valid rationale. See also Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No_consensus for discussion of this point.  Sandstein  22:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What constitutes a valid rationale is decided by consensus, though. Therefore, if there is no consensus that the rationale is valid... J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you might imagine, I think that's a huge and unsupported stretch. I agree with Sandstein. Hobit (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a unique and tortured reading of the policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are two policies that are based on Foundation mandates that err on removal instead of keep: NFC and BLP. That's not to say that removal should have been the default action here; the Foundation licensing policy only pushes for deletion when key objective factors of the rationale are not met, which we can take as lacking any rationale, lacking license info, and other details. Here is clearly a disputed rationale, which should be argued and aimed towards consensus, but that's something that's subjective, not objective. Clearly in this case, keeping the images should be done until a better consensus is made. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is "is a unique and tortured reading of the policy" that what constitutes a valid rationale is decided by consensus? Bullshit. J Milburn (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly what constitutes a valid rationale is decided by consensus. However, if there is no consensus as to if the rationale is valid or not we keep per WP:DEL. That includes BLP and NFC as far as I know. I'm willing to be wrong, and could imagine defaulting to delete could have consensus. But I don't think that has been demonstrated. Hobit (talk) 23:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there have been proposals to change BLP in this regard, but they have not been accepted, at least not yet. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn it seems clear that the images meet the rules well enough, and there was consensus of the policy based arguments to close as keep. And if B really thought there was no consensus, he should have closed as keep. That was and remains policy until it gets changed, which I hope it never will. We should certainly reverse any closes based on the opposite of policy. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's looking likely to be changed based on current discussions at WT:FFD#No_consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - since when does "No consensus" default to delete? --GRuban (talk) 20:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may want to read our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 22:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I may. So may you. You're reading that "it's the duty of users to provide a rationale" as "no consensus means delete". That's not what it means. It means, surprisingly enough, that it's the duty of users to provide a rationale. Whether or not they have provided a sufficient rationale is for the deletion discussion to decide. A no consensus in the deletion discussion does not suddenly default to delete because of this. --GRuban (talk) 01:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are the administrator instructions for that deletion discussion. Wikipedia:Files for deletion/Administrator instructions: "If the decision is Keep (including any variant such as "Redirect" or "No Consensus")"... --GRuban (talk) 13:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. - The enforcement section of WP:NFCC only covers cases where the rationale is so invalid that it can be speedily deleted... which is obviously not the case here. Otherwise, we should assume good faith, which means that we keep fair-use content unless there is consensus to remove it. — PyTom (talk) 21:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when has "assume good faith" meant "assume that people are correct"? Completely different issues. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • When someone makes a judgement call (like claiming an image meets our non-free content criteria), we should respect that judgement until such time as there emerges a consensus that judgement is wrong. It's a bad idea to assume, by default, that a user made the wrong decision. (Which is why procedures do make the opposite assumption.) — PyTom (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: B had it right. Radiopathy is very wrong that there's no verbiage regarding detrimental. It's clearly in WP:NFCC #8. Nobody made any arguments that the removal of the image was detrimental to user's understanding of the subject of the article. Not one. In this DRV we see some arguments, but they're abstract, not specific to this image. Essentially, because the visual style of this series is unique all non-free images are ok. It doesn't work that way. Further, we have a text description of the character that adequately represents the character (WP:NFCC #1). Later in the text we see reference to his having tentacles, but we don't need a picture showing him with tentacles to understand he has tentacles. Also PyTom, WP:AGF asks us to assume people are trying to help the project, not hurt it. It doesn't ask us to assume people are right. That's why edits are routinely reverted with edit summaries like "revert good faith edits by ...". WP:AGFC supports this conclusion. Read it carefully please. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Read my comments carefully, please, where I say, "Okay, I stand corrected..." Don't take an old comment that was later amended and attribute it as though it's still valid.

Could you draw a picture of Tony Harrison based on the text in the article? Is the text so precisely accurate that you can see Tony Harrison in your mind, making the absence of an image in the article of absolutely no consequence? Or in other words: define detrimental.

The arguments to endorse the deletion just keep getting more and more absurd, and it should be clear by now that rational discussion is taking a back seat to an almost desperate sort of deletionism. They need their fix and will go to any lengths.

Also, the arguments to keep are very specific to this TV show; no one is saying that this image sets a precedent for all non-free images. Please read the whole discussion carefully. Radiopathy •talk• 15:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Characterizing people advocating deletion as "needing a fix" like we're some kind of crazed drug addicts is absolutely reprehensible behavior. Cut the bullshit and focus on responding to the arguments rather than trying to ridicule those making them. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cut too close to the quick, then? Radiopathy •talk• 16:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Read and understand WP:NPA. If you continue to insist on blatantly violating it, you will find yourself on the wrong end of a block for it. There isn't anything you can do to insult me that has any effect on me. If you disbelieve me, look at my userpage. I wouldn't give two piles of mouse shit to find out what you think of me. I do care about your behavior here. Referring to your co-editors as "needing a fix" is completely out of line and not in keeping with this project's policies. If you want to violate WP:NPA, that's your business. The only effect it will have is you being blocked and everyone else thinking less of your opinions for you thinking that descending to insults somehow buttresses your opinion. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Who was personally attacked? You're making a bad faith assumption here, even if I am right. Radiopathy •talk• 19:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You made a statement that people opining for deletion were "needing a fix". Your words. I noted that this is an inference that we are crazed drug addicts. To that, you responded "Cut too close to the quick, then?" meaning that you felt I am a crazed drug addict. It has no relevance whatsoever to the debate at hand, and has every bit of relevance to me and the people opining for delete. I'm not going to argue further on this, as it is not germane to the discussion. You've been warned about violating WP:NPA. If you honestly feel that acting as you have isn't in violation of that, then by all means continue acting as you have, and call anyone who disagrees with you a crazed drug addict. See how long it takes before you are blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Accepting that there are arguments for inclusion of some image, but then refusing to accept any, is an inconsistent position. The reason that arguments are being presented for the first time in this DRV is that no-one asked for them in the IfD. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 14:42, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Huh? You're suggesting no one should produce any arguments for keeping an image until it gets to deletion review???? --Hammersoft (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn Simply put, the notion that no consensus defaults to delete for non-free images is simply false. No consensus defaults to keep. Claims otherwise are a serious misreading of policy. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

African admixture in Europe (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The editor who nominated the article for deletion did not fulfill all the steps required in the nomination process. The nominator did not list the AFD discussion in the deletion log Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 August 6. When I noticed the nomination process was incomplete, I listed the article, yesterday (16th August 2009). As a result the AFD went for 10 days without input from the wider community and in particular users who monitor the AFD discussions. I have discussed this with the administrator User:RoySmith, who deleted the article based on a limited discussions that took place. I am requesting the undeletion of the article, and relisting of the AFD, because the wider community was not given an opportunity to participate in the process. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Reversing myself. Sigh. Ok, I took another look at the history logs. You are right about the original listing being faulty. I still think you're being silly here. Despite the listing error, the AdD got plenty of discussion over the course of 10 days. More to the point, even without the AfD, I think the two were similar enough that WP:CSD G4 could reasonably apply. If you had put the effort you've put into winning this argument into working with your fellow editors to reach consensus on editing the article into which this material had been merged, we would all be better off. But, rather than drag everybody through a long and loud DRV debate, I'll just put it back on AfD for another round. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for relisting the debate. The reason I think it may be necessary, is only one editor, who I have never known to edit the article or related article participated in the discussion. And he said "Keep. Sound and referenced. No valid rationale for deletion beyond animosity of certain editors". diff. Sometimes we get isolated in obscure corners of Wikipedia, and we don't know what independent editors will think. This independent editor felt we should keep the article, rather than delete it. I don't know what others would say, but I would be more comfortable with a wider participation. When relisting an AFD, do we need to keep the original thread or start a new one. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark_Prindle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

If someone saw him on Fox News, they should be able to find him on here Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)— Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, am new to this. Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 08:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You didn't have any problems making this listing, so I find it hard to believe that you managed to miss the three separate places in the instructions where it said to contact the administrator who deleted the page, but successfully opened the review request in the right place. Stifle (talk) 11:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, still nothing to indicate notability. If there is a claim, go ahead and show verifiable reliable sources which establish notability. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 12:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• question- is there a deletion discussion we could look at? Umbralcorax (talk) 16:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now linked in {{DRV links}}. 76.228.194.251 (talk) 16:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. In that case, Endorse, aside from the 4channers, only one editor made a case for keep, and the remaining votes showed a delete consensus.Umbralcorax (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  changing my vote, as S Marshall's argument about the original has convinced me that a relist is in order. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question The original AfD was from Feb 08. Are there new sources that should make us reconsider? How have things changed since then? JoshuaZ (talk) 20:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The G4'd version has references, but nothing terribly great. Of the six, three are to Prindle's website, one is to a glam rock blog, one is to an interview of Prindle, and one is to the personal site of another author (who cites Prindle as an inspiration for starting writing). Godgaverockandrolltoyou, if you would like to work on a version of this article in your userspace, you can feel free to create one (at, say, User:Godgaverockandrolltoyou/Mark Prindle). Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I mean, where did the old page go? He was already referenced in say, The Melvins Book Neither Here Nor There and some Pavement book, he has tons of interviews with (relatively) famous people and he's even on Fox News late night program "redeye", not in passing, but as an announced guest. I see no good reason why he shouldn't be able to be on this site, and don't understand why he was ever deleted. Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 05:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse – Proper admin close when you look past all the single-purpose accounts and IPs. This is not AFD round 2. MuZemike 03:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Question I'm new to this, am I missing something, can someone explain to me if I'm doing this wrong? The man has been on TV multiple times, on Fox News. He was in Spin magazine, he was referenced in a book by the Melvins, and according to the other delete page, he was referenced in the other material. His site is a veritable treasure trove of information on alternative rock artists of the 80s/90s, what with his many interviews of artists. He's cited in reputable online Music review sites like Pitchfrok Media. I'm not trying to foist some unknown blogger on Wikipedia, Prindle has been around since 1996. In internet terms, he's ancient. I really see no reason why he shouldn't be listed, as he was before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • yeah, basically notability is the standard for wikipedia articles and being on TV doesnt make you notable. You need people to write about you in detail in several reliable publications like books or broadsheet newspapers so what we write can be verifiable. Basically blogs or personal web-sites dont cut it. If you want to understand more you need to read WP:V; WP:RS, WP:N & WP:BIO. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • • So, Mark Prindle doesn't make it, but people like Andrew_Levy or Bill_Schulz do? Makes no sense, especially as we move further away from print media, who the heck is gonna be writing books/print articles on not so famous people. Something is flawed when a man who reguarly on TV, a valuable source of information about a ton of bands, and mentioned/namedropped/referenced by bands in print and legit websites is not allowed to be on this site. I'm not sure what it accomplishes. If someone turns on their TV, and wishes to look up a regular contributor, they aren't gonna be able to find him on here, it's absurd. Here look [[1]]Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 06:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I direct you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, a small blurb on this topic. If you feel that the above articles do not meet notability guidelines, then feel free to list them for deletion - while trying not to run afoul of WP:POINT, which can cause all types of trouble. :-) I notice both those articles are flagged with sourcing warnings, hardly a good sign given requirements in WP:BLP. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 22:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion; nothing here shows how the deletion process was not properly followed. Nominator is welcome to nominate other articles at AFD if they do not meet notability criteria. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there bias existing against this article since it was swamped by 4channers at one time? I fail to see any other reason why disallowing a man who has made many appearances on a national TV show, amongst other things, is being deleted. If someone were to see him, and then google his name, they would have to piece together information about him instead of coming to this site. It makes no sense at all. He's not some random blogger, he's a solid source of information himself, cited on a few other articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rather than repeatedly asserting that people are wrong, that Wikipedia should have an article about every person that was ever on TV, or other arguments that should rightly have been made at the AFD discussion, how about you prove your claims by citations to reliable sources? Saying they exist and listing them are two distinct things. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, I feel that a regular contributor to a TV show deserves a spot on this site, not "everyone who has ever been on TV." A fine point. Second, the original page (pages?) got deleted completely so I can't pull its sources and work from it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) 18:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original article, deleted via AfD, didn't have sources at all. The more recent deletion, by WP:CSD#G4, had six references which I summarized above (and which in my opinion don't go far in proving notability, either, and I'm happy to post them here if anyone feels it necessary). Do you have others, preferably something from a major news agency or peer-reviewed journal? Fox, perhaps? lifebaka++ 18:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have Greg Gutfeld announcing him as a guest (with platitudes), but he doesn't give DOB or anything like that. FoxNews.com doesn't list him on their site in a biographical sense. I have not been able to dig up a news story on the man in a peer reviewed journal. Won't this happen more and more and print media lessens in their scope and internet fame increases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk • contribs) 18:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. In my view the above discussion was irretrievably sock-tainted, and it is therefore perfectly reasonable to question the outcome.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But on the other hand, sock spamming an AfD shouldn't be a way of disrupting the deletion process unless it can be reasonably held to have affected the outcome. As Umbralcorax pointed out above, with the SPAs removed, this discussion would be a nobrainer. What we have here is an objection to a deletion because the result wasn't affected by (admittedly quite amateurish) sockpuppetry. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 22:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason why the outcome was unsafe in this case is because it's entirely possible that users inclined to raise valid "keep" arguments might not have bothered because of the length of the debate and its apparent one-sided nature.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist per S Marshall. I suspect the result will be the same, but there is enough doubt and enough issues here to justify a relist at this point. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist The result was unfortunately negatively influenced by the SPAs saying to keep (this is a variation on what S Marshall said--it does not mean it was any fault of the closer) DGG ( talk ) 04:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Relisting is pointless as we will still have the socking and spas and pointless if noone has come up with decent sources in the meantime. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete. Sources have been provided by Godgaverockandrolltoyou. This might be a case where Wikipedia:Notability_(media) would come in handy. Wiwaxia (talk) 14:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Fox News is clearly notable. Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Could anything be gained from a relist? All someone needs to do is put it on 4chan once again and the debate will be the same. Also, the statement to overturn seems to go against WP:NOT#NEWS. ThemFromSpace 02:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get this fear of 4chan. Just because they stood behind or against something should not affect the debate. I would hope we could see through that, and not spitefully keep this article down. By the way, I never claimed Prindle was news.Godgaverockandrolltoyou (talk) 20:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]