Talk:Nackt Radtour

This page was proposed for deletion by an editor in the past with the comment:
Article (a) lacks inline citations; and (b) has been tagged for its lack of references or sources since 2007.
It was contested by Kvng (talk · contribs) on 2019-07-02 with the comment:
Improve, don't delete, substandard articles on notable topics. WP:NODEADLINES.

Image removed

I have removed Image:NRT6 2001.jpg from the article under our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Its inclusion here is entirely gratuitous and not in furtherance of writing a good encyclopaedia article. As is demonstrated by the article as it now stands, it is quite possible for the article to tell readers that children attended the event without having to include pictures of the actual children themselves. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to have pictures that specifically and clearly identify the individual children. This is an encyclopaedia, and these children are real people. They are not public figures, and unlike adults are not capable of either defending their own rights or giving consent. It is unacceptable to personally identify them. Please note that any attempt to edit war or to re-include this image without making a strong and compelling case beforehand that these specific children need to be personally identified in an encyclopaedia article about a bicycle race will lead to loss of editing privileges. Uncle G 13:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the *3* IfDs [1] this image has underwent with incredible consensus to keep is enough compelling evidence. -N 17:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then you are highly confused about the decision being made here, which is whether this image is appropriate for this article. You have in fact presented no evidence at all, let alone the sort of compelling case that is necessary for the inclusion of a picture of an identifiable real naked child in an article on a bicycle race. Uncle G 18:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While I agree that, since we have five pictures for this article already, a sixth one isn't necessary in any way, I have a problem with the slightly leading way in which you present the problem. "a picture of an identifiable real naked child in an article on a bicycle race."? If you either remove the "naked" from the "child", or add it to the "bicycle race" as well, it gives a totally different perspective; a naked child to illustrate a bicycle race is ridiculous (if not outrageous): a naked child illustrating a naked bicycle race is quite natural. Fram 18:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict) The image was uploaded FOR this article, this is the only article its inclusion is even appropriate in. You are taking advantage of the fact that the original defenders of this image don't appear to be active on Wikipedia right now. The overwhelming previous keeps were based on its inclusion in this article. That's where you're confused. And another thing, naked pictures of kids with their parents are taken by parents all the time. The courts have continually ruled there is nothing wrong with these pictures. To fabricate some kind of argument based on morality goes against law and custom meaning you are engaging in original research. -N 18:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think the image inclusion in the article should be decided by someone who actually cares. None of us actually cares about this bike race, and are using it as a battleground. I'm not opposed to leaving it out of the article until people who care about the bike race chime in. -N 20:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There only needs to be one or two images to adequately cover this topic. the current 7 images are more than needed for the amount of material here and should be trimmed down significantly. The issue of children participating is not covered in the body text and the coverage in the caption is unsourced. ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion

Kvng, earlier this year, I proposed that this article be deleted. On July 2, you removed the proposed deletion. Your edit summary said, "WP:DEPROD see talk for details". However, I can't find any explanation on this talk page, on your talk page, or on my talk page. At your convenience, would you be kind enough to explain your reasoning? Thank you. SunCrow (talk) 21:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SunCrow: my comments are in the second box at the top of this page: "Improve, don't delete, substandard articles on notable topics. WP:NODEADLINES." ~Kvng (talk) 01:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kvng, thank you for pointing me to those comments. I am not certain that this topic is notable. Also, while I understand that Wikipedia has no deadlines, this article has no inline citations and has been tagged since 2007 due to the absence of sources. Nobody is working on it; there has been only one edit by anyone other than me since you removed the deletion nomination back in July. With respect, I don't think I was jumping the gun by nominating the article for deletion. Nevertheless, I will not push the issue. Instead, I have condensed the article, which had many more images than it needed and contained more information than was necessary. SunCrow (talk) 01:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SunCrow: What you did was propose the article for deletion. This deletion process is for uncontroversial cases. I did not evaluate whether the subject was notable. I just found that your proposed reason for deleting was not uncontroversial. If you want a more final rendering on the question of notability, you should use WP:AFD. ~Kvng (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, but I would prefer not to use the AfD process for this article. I have simply tagged the article for lacking footnotes and for notability concerns. SunCrow (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]