File:John Coltrane 1960.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

It was the best photo of him; it was closed and deleted by an author with the reason, that another file already existing (a mugshot), which hasn't any encylopedia value, as it shows Coltrane at the age of 19 and doesn't depict his music career. There was a keep vote with the reason, that it was a fair use image. And thus it needs a deletion review. Thank you. ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:27, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment Fut.Perf's argument for deletion seems pretty reasonable, I'm less sure of the closers argument (which ideally would have been in the actual discussion). Is their no free image you can find of Mr. Coltrane performing? Hobit ( talk) 18:25, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore. "First, do no harm". John Coltrane is a historical figure of the first order whose claim to fame has little to do with being arrested at age nineteen. Unfortunately, he lived in that limbo between 1923 and the appearance of portable digital cameras. The notion that a mug shot is an adequate free portrait strikes me as not only false, but could be read as racially insensitive. In this case, it is also rules lawyering that's getting in the way of making an encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:06, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  As below, the picture isn't regarding an arrest, so I'm not sure where you get "little to do with being arrested at age nineteen" from. People not actually looking to the material in question but "guessing" getting in the way of making an encyclopedia again?-- 82.7.44.178 ( talk) 09:13, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Whether the picture is or isn't an actual mugshot, it looks like one; and with pictures, what they look like is the main issue. I generally don't think it's a good idea to remove encyclopedic content on the grounds that something better may someday be found. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• You quote "first, do no harm". Can you please tell us where you've quoted that from? Stifle ( talk) 18:12, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  It's from startrek, I think. -- Damiens.rf 19:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  The Hippocratic Oath, if I remember correctly. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  Okay. And a rule that doctors swear to follow has what relevance exactly to a Wikipedia deletion review discussion? Stifle ( talk) 07:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

  All I see here is zeal for purity doing harm to the encyclopedia. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, at least procedurally. The closing admin wrote that, in this case, a mugshot of the subject is an acceptable substitute for a picture of the subject playing the saxophone. This was essentially an endorsement of Damiens.rf's nomination, indicating that WP:NFCC#1 is not met. However, NFCC#1 says, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." John Coltrane is famous for his prowess as a jazz saxophonist and not for being a criminal. It is therefore unreasonable to suggest that a mugshot "serves the same encyclopedic purpose" as a picture of Coltrane playing the saxophone. Victor Falk, arguing that the now-deleted image should be kept, successfully refuted Damiens' point. As such, I cannot see how SchuminWeb's close was proper. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 20:46, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• My rationale still applies, even after more recent comments in this dicussion. Coltrane was famous as a jazz saxophonist, not for his service in the Navy; therefore, it is unreasonable to suggest that the Navy shot "serves the same encyclopedic purpose" as a picture of Coltrane playing the saxophone. My call for overturning this deletion on procedural grounds stands. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 05:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• I fully agree with you.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per WP:MUG. If he was alive, then we'd have a good reason to use a NF picture that wasn't a mugshot that has nothing to do with his notability. While some parts of WP:BLP do change upon death, I just can't see this being a common-sense approach. No picture would be better than a mugshot in this case. Jclemens ( talk) 21:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment the alternate picture in question is labelled "United States Naval Reserve portrait of John Coltrane. While this may look like a mug shot, it is an actual official service photograph." rather than a criminal mugshot. If it makes a different or not, it seems the clear the intent is not to depict him as a criminal which doesn't entirely tie up with some of the comments above. Additionally it is PD so could be cleaned up to look less like a criminal mugshot it so desired. -- 82.7.44.178 ( talk) 22:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• I have removed the numbers from the US Navy image and inserted it into John Coltrane (not my most elegant edit ever but it does the job). Even before, however, this was in no sense a mugshot and the notion that it portrayed Coltrane as a "criminal" didn't really make sense. Chick Bowen 00:25, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Endorse. I have looked into this further, and the more I do so the more I am convinced that not only might there be a free photograph of Coltrane available at some point, there is likely to be so. I don't have a Flickr account, but I'd recommend that someone who does might contact Roberto Polillo and ask (very nicely!) if he might donate one of his many photos of Coltrane under a free license. He links to our articles from his Flickr page, so he is aware of us. Chick Bowen 02:59, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for the link you gave me! I asked him if he can give one of his pictures under free license. Regards.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 11:04, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, at least based on what's been raised so far. The article needs a better image, but as was maintained in the FFD discussion, there's no reason to believe that an expired-copyright image can't be found. Since the current image isn't actually a mugshot, the line of argument should carry little weight. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 01:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• overturn produce the free alternative, before deletion. first do no harm. Slowking4 ( talk) 21:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per A Stop at Willoughby. I do suspect a good free image can be found. But we don't have one and reasonable searches (by myself and others) haven't turned one up. With luck asking owners of those images to release them as free images might buy us something, but unless (or until) then, I think it's reasonable to continue using this image. I'd probably not believe that for someone less important then this guy, but even I, someone who dislikes jazz, know who this is. And the current image is really unacceptable (even with the very nice work by Chick Bowen) as it still looks like a mug shot *and* doesn't illustrate him doing what he's known for. Hobit ( talk) 03:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, replaceable. "Do no harm" does not mean "do no harm to articles", it means "do no harm to living people". The photo was used for identifying him, for which the available free photograph suffices. Even if it did not, the potential existence of a free photograph is enough to delete. The image we have isn't great, but we don't accept non-free images just because they're "better". Stifle ( talk) 10:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• What do you mean? There was a keep vote with the argument, that it was a fair use image.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 14:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• But the point isn't merely that this image is better; the point is that the free alternative does not "serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Coltrane is famous for being a jazz saxophonist. The encyclopedic purpose of the image use in this article should not be merely identifying Coltrane's race and physical appearance; the purpose should be identifying him as a jazz saxophonist – which is why he's notable. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 19:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

And the audio samples do that so much better than any image ever could. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but not a thousand notes. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 01:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia does not require all images in bio articles to depict the person doing what made them famous. Bios for professor don't need a picture of them teaching or researching, bios for actors do not require an image of them on stage, and bios for pornstars don't... you get the point. As Hullaballo put above, it's not the picture that will establish him as an musician. But everything else. -- Damiens.rf 05:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

That's true, of course. Even so, there's something fundamentally absurd about using this image over the deleted one in an article about one of the most famous jazz saxophonists of all time. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 18:02, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

I fail to grasp the fundamental absurdity. But this is just me. -- Damiens.rf 19:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Is there also something fundamentally absurd about a free content encyclopaedia using non-free content? -- 82.7.44.178 ( talk) 06:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply

That's an interesting question that's unfortunately out of DRV's scope, but I'll gladly respond on your talk page. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 22:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - We don't use a non-free image if a free alternative exists or could be created. Arguments above are asking us to ignore this policy, like Slowking4 asking us to produce a free image before deleting, and Hobit adminting a free image can be found but nevertheless defending the use of the non-free one. -- Damiens.rf 15:14, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I suspect a free image can be found. I spent about 45 minutes and could find nothing close. Is there one out there? Perhaps. But I've no idea where else to go other than writing owners and asking them to release their image under a free license. The only one chance I see of that happening (not owned by a corp.) someone else is pursuing. Hobit ( talk) 16:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Coltrane died in 1967; no new free images are going to be created. About all you can do is hope that some day you find a photo taken by someone willing to release it under a free licence. Any policy that purports to require the deletion of encyclopedia material on such a slender hope is no policy at all. Once its actual operation gets noticed by a wider community of editors and it affects an important article, support for it evaporates. Let's not be afraid to say so. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:16, 24 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Monika Star ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

After discussion the result was delete. But the votes were 6 for keep and only 3 for delete. I'm not an expert in Wikipedia system, but how is it possible?-- Cavarrone ( talk) 12:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment: This count is inaccurate. There were 4 delete !votes, not 3, when the nominator is counted, and only 4 keep !voters (one SPA !voted from two accounts and an IP before Floquenbeam blocked [1]. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 12:22, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Did you contact the closing admin as directed at the top of this page? If not, could you please do so? To answer your question, AfD is not a vote. The closer evaluates the arguments about how the article meets, or doesn't meet, our inclusion guidelines. I've briefly looked things over and it does look like the article may meet the (very low) bar of WP:PORNBIO with the two nominations. It also might meet WP:N given the articles on AVN that discuss her (I don't recall if that source is broadly considered reliable). I'd like to hear the closer's reasoning before commenting further however. Hobit ( talk) 18:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment A close without giving any reasoning against apparent consensus does not offer encouragement to contact the administrator. It might have helped if Cavarrone had, but I can perfect well understand why he might have felt the admin would be unresponsive. ) It's time that a full explanation should be required if there's a close against apparent consensus. or otherwise the AfD should be automatically reopened for someone to close who is prepared to offer some guidance to the users. The admin is not free to ignore consensus unless he thinks the arguments for the consensus side are against policy, and a finding like that requires an explanation. A close against apparent consensus without a reason deserves even less respect that a !vote without a reason. A !vote without a reason can mean "it's obvious," but a close against consensus without a reason cannot mean "it's obvious", and can not unfairly be taken to mean "the majority is wrong, and I have so much contempt for them I need not explain why. " I have no opinion on the article: it seems to be a question of the reliability of sources, but the sources are outside my area. DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn not only is it not obvious why the closer chose to close it in that manner, it's also arguable that the GNG is met, even if PORNBIO is not. Closing against numerical consensus should require a much higher bar than that, per DGG. Jclemens ( talk) 21:26, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• I can't seem to find the reliable sources that would make it appropriate to have a BLP with this title.— S Marshall T/ C 22:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Three of those six keep !votes came from the same SPA editor, whose comments had nothing to do with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and who did things like post links to a "Pornstar Escort" site where you could book an "appointment" to "spend time" with the article subject, plus tons of cutting and-pasting from porn studio PR. It looks like the closer gave these exactly zero weight, and that was perfectly appropriate. That leaves four (not three) delete !votes, from nominator Dismas, from Edison, from Carrite, and from Sandstein. Each of these was well-reasoned and based in deletion policy; each stressed the lack of reliable, nonpromotional sourcing. It looks like the close gave each of these !votes significant weight. There were three keep !votes, one a "weak keep," from Morbidthoughts, JohnSmith877, and Cavarrone. Morbidthoughts's vote is solid and well-reasoned, but it rests on WP:PORNBIO, an SNG which is often disputed, which Jimbo Wales has criticized, which in practice has been shown to be a bad fit with the GNG. Cavarrone's vote was a "weak keep," and therefore presumably given less weight. Johnsmith877's !vote was simply "per Radio29," without any reasoning, and "Radio29" was one of the socks used by the SPA. The closer presumably gave it little or no weight. Therefore we have: by pure headcount, a 4-4 !vote, and certainly nothing resembling a "keep" consensus; weighting by the strength of expressed argument, something between 4-1.5 and 4-2, certainly within the range where the closing admin could reasonably elect to delete; and when other relevant factors are taken into account (like the ongoing dispute over WP:PORNBIO and the fact that Johnsmith877 is an extremely inexperienced editor with negligible substantive editing (125 edits over 6 months), even in the porn field he concentrates on), it's hard to argue that this close doesn't fall well within the discretion granted to the closing admin. I certainly agree that the closer should have provided an explanation here, but the outcome was clearly appropriate. If by any chance it's found inappropriate, though, it should be clear that relist rather than keep should be the next step; after only a single week, with unweighted !votes evenly divided after the socks are discounted, and strong policy arguments supporting deletion, a simple keep would clearly be unjustified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 00:46, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • HW, I know that there are often very spammy issues with porn bios, but could you address the following sources [2], [3] and [4]? Are they reliable and independent? If so, I think at least the letter of WP:N is met (though S Marshall's point is still there...). If not, this is a clear delete. Hobit ( talk) 01:49, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I don't but the idea that everything posted at avn.com meets our RS standards. The third source you list is a perfect example of the problems in using it. The AVN page [5]is a barely-retouched copy of a corporate press release, which can be found here [6]. Sample comparison: Press release -- "KarinaOnline.com will feature a Chat Room (wherein Karina will engage in weekly "chats"), an extensive Photo Gallery (with never-before-seen images), a Diary, Exclusive Video Offers and a few promised "surprises!" AVN -- "The site will feature a chat room where the Finnish-born actress will do weekly chats, a wide-ranging photo gallery with several never-before-seen images, a diary, exclusive video offers, and what Sin City calls "a few promised surprises."
      

And that, in a nutshell, is the problem with treating AVN as generally meeting RS requirements. We just can't tell when they're posting press releases and presskit pieces, which certain;y aren't independent of the subject and generally haven't been fact-checked in the slightest, and when they're actually posting journalism (industry-serving as it may be). The AVN article here is bylined and identified as "Video News", but it turns out to be a publicity release from one of AVN's advertisers, almost word-for-word written by the advertiser's PR department.

The other two pieces don't look any better -- they're not even bylined, and all the information in them seems to come directly from either the advertiser's or PETA's PR departments (and, of course, they concern the same event). And I can't find any other coverage of the "event" -- no mention on PETA's own site, no news stories, nothing. I just searched for PETA and the name of the boutique involved -- zilch. I didn't expect much, didn't even require than any of the porn performer's names be mentioned, but nothing. There's no wire service or newspaper coverage supporting these stories. The information comes directly, unfiltered from the participants; it's certainly not independent, and there's no indication of factchecking.

I'm not saying AVN can never be a reliable source. But it's fundamentally a promotional magazine serving the interests of its advertisers, and its website isn't limited by the physical or fiscal factors that limit the hardcopy magazine, so it can host virtually anything its advertisers want. So just finding a story on avn.com doesn't mean that the story meets our RS requirements, and we can't, and shouldn't assume that it does. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:20, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. Thanks for taking the time to respond in such detail! I'm going to stay neutral on this until the closer swings by. Hobit ( talk) 03:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC) reply

• Add closing statement. Please Spartaz, provide a brief closing statement so that participants who are not as familiar with the process as you can more easily understand. This is a matter of accessibility of the project to newcomers. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:23, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Just in case it wasn't clear, I haven't been ignoring this, I simply haven't been here. I'll add a closing statement to the AFD this evening if I can get time and explain the close in more detail but, for the moment, I should comment that spa votes are traditionally given much less weight then established users in AFDs and that sources not assertions win prizes. AVN isn't a reliable source - there is no evidence of fact checking and the "articles" are spammy and promotional, so this was an unsourced BLP where extensive efforts to find sources had failed. Deletion arguments by experienced established users around the total absence of RS were far more compelling then the keep arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorsing own close per the detailed rational I just posted to the AFD.
  • I was asked at DRV to provide a closing rationale. I apologise for not doing this sooner but I have been away for a few days and wasn't approached about the close or notified about the DRV until later. In essence this is a classic case of where WP:CONSENSUS isn't the same as counting snouts on each side. There is widespread acceptance that spa voters and non-policy based arguments get very little weight in closes compared to opinions from established users who cite policy based arguments and unlike many recent AFD discussions this one was graced with contributions from a number of experienced editors who expressed concern about the lack of reliable sourcing and the view that the subject hadn't passed V or RS or BIO. Looking through the keep arguments there is an assertion that AVN is a reliable source but this contention isn't widely accepted by participants - which I can understand given issues with fact checking and regurgitation of press releases being frequently cited in the past to argue that AVN is neither peer/fact checked nor independant. Otherwise arguments about the number of films, contarcts signed, appearances on Howard Stern or who she married are not arguments grounded in any policy and were discarded. This leaves one opinion that this meets PORNBIO by multiple AVN award nominations but the actual nominations are group rather then individual catagories and it is not clear that this counts in the same way that a headline nomination would do so. Certainly the arguments about awards cut no ice at all with the majority of experienced editors and in closing I found their arguments to be well grounded in core site policy around the requirement to source articles of living persons. There clearly had been an extensive search for sources including *ahem* some off-line examination of magazines so I believe it is a reasonable assumption that there are no suitable sources for this article. Since sub-guidelines are supposed to be an indication of the liklihood of sources existing as the clear indication is that they do not I believe that it is right to discount the PORNBIO argument and go with the BIO/V/RS arguments. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I believe a NC close would have been a better my reading of the discussion, but I think the closer came to a conclusion within the bounds of admin discretion given the SPAs and nature of the sources. Hobit ( talk) 05:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The keep votes were given less weight because they were 1) from spas and 2) weakly argued. Spartaz's summary above is well-thought out. Them From Space 06:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC) reply