On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 2:05 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Example 1:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/ObiWolf_Lesbian...)
Clear violation (no evidence of model consent, photographer made clear the models wanted them off Commons). Took six attempts over several years to delete, despite a board member personally voting Delete in one or two prior nominations.
Example 2:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Sexual...
Again, review the prior deletion discussions where these were kept. Models shown full-face, recognisable, no evidence whatsoever of model consent, geo-tagged to a precise street address.
So you've provided two examples where you agree that the correct decision was ultimately made, and where that decision has stood (in one case) for a year, and (in the other) for two years without being challenged or reversed. Your examples don't match what I was asking for (and there are plenty of examples like that out there, so I'm surprised you've brought these ones forward). Your point is like saying that the entire US court system is broken, on the basis that some decisions in trial courts have historically been overturned by the more careful analysis of the Supreme Court. You're underscoring the *healthy* (if maybe inefficient) functioning of Commons, not the opposite.
But, I appreciate the opportunity to talk about some good decisions, so I'll give your strange nominations the benefit of the doubt and come up with 10 examples of clearly good decisions. Unfortunately I don't have time to dig into it right now, but I should be able to get to it in the next 12-24 hours. I'll post to a page on Commons, and publish a link here.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]