Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 July 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 15 Deletion review archives: 2008 July July 17 >

16 July 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Fail Whale (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Dispute lack of notability. I'd appreciate a clarification of whether a source is a person, or a particular forum in which that person expresses themselves. We've had two people delete Fail Whale because the sources – notable people with Wikipedia entries of their own — happened to use Twitter or their blog to mention the Fail Whale rather than, say, a printed local newspaper. If George Bush had a Twitter account, and typed his own tweets, would we be able to point to his “tweets” to certify he said something? I'm trying to distinguish between the source and the medium. If a reliable source — a person — chooses to use a blog, Twitter, or any other web site with permanent URLs to say something, I hope we'd be able to cite them directly without having to wait for someone to re-print them in a different medium. Garthrk (talk) 23:31, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. I deleted a very early form of this article because it had no reliable sources and asserted no notability; my examination of the latest versions reveals that, although more verbiage has been added, little has changed. I believe the nominator has squarely put his/her finger on what caused the deletion; the sources cited don't qualify as reliable. However, this is not the correct forum to advocate a change in the governing policy about reliable sources. Perhaps in five, ten or twenty years this meme will have attained the widespread awareness and recognition that it does not currently contain; if so, we can revisit it then. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn there are enough assertions of significance/importance in the cached version, for it to be an invalid A7. RMHED (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Someone brought up an NPR source on my talk page. I wouldn't mind sending this to AfD at this point, though personally I think a merge or redirect would work better.-Wafulz (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. not like it will make it out of there, but if it had some sources then it had some mere shred of assertion of notability. Protonk (talk) 05:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a start - Another issue resulting from its growing user base has been how often Twitter goes down. Twitter crashes frequently from an overload of traffic due to its popularity.[1] When Twitter crashes, users see "fail whale."[1] Beluga whales are known as 'canaries of the sea' due to their high-pitched twitter[2] and fail whale is a whimsical illustration of red birds hoisting a whale from the ocean with nets.[3] "Too many tweets!" it reads. "Please wait a moment and try again."[3] Fail whale has appeared often enough to be featured on NPR,[1] a national syndicator to public radio stations in the United States.
  1. ^ a b c The Bryant Park Project (July 3, 2008) NPR Twitter, What Are You Doing? Co-Founder Tells All.
  2. ^ Harris, Patricia; Lyon, David; (April 8, 2007) Boston Globe Enter close quarters: colonial to nuclear subs. Section: Travel; Page 8M.
  3. ^ a b Whyte, Murray. (June 1, 2008) Toronto Star Tweet, tweet there's been an earthquake; How an online social network chirpily called Twitter is becoming anything but trivial. Section: Ideas; Page 1.
-- GregManninLB (talk) 07:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I adore Twitter, but it's a micro-blog. Citing Twitter directly is no different than citing a blog directly. We should only do it on rare occasions, and always prefer a secondary source for such news. Addendum: GregManninLB's bit above would be great for inclusion in Twitter. But I don't see enough to be worth a separate article. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 12:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. From WP:CSD#A7: "to avoid speedy deletion an article does not have to prove that its subject is notable, just give a reasonable indication of why it might be notable". This article passes that test so should be restored. The article may not survive an AfD but it should at least be discussed there rather than be speedily deleted. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn. Eh, I suppose there was enough of an assertion of notability to pass A7, although I am reluctant to overturn if only because this looks likely to meet the same fate at AfD. Shereth 15:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Twitter. This clearly has no independent significance and we really don't need separate articles on the whisical fault pages of every web service, but a short para in the Twitter article is perfectly acceptable. Guy (Help!) 07:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg (edit | [[Talk:Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Images have precedent for existing. As seen by Image:2008OpenLogo.gif or Image:2000USOpenLogo.jpg. I now realize that my images also need the fair use rationale which I'm prepared to get working on but they take time. When I initially uploaded them I didn't realize they needed that. I was informed by another user that they needed them after he tagged them for deletion but I was out of town this last week and couldn't get to them. He hence tagged the images retroactively and they were deleted. But we're dealing with apples and apples here. If the two image examples I provided should exist, then all my images have precedent for existing. I ask that they be reinstated and if you want place a deletion tag for today that will give me 7 days to get the work done or they'll be re-deleted due to lack of proper paper work. Thanks! See the chart below for a full list of deleted articles. Also see Image:1994OpenLogo.jpg or Image:1997OpenLogo.jpg. Those are one that did not get deleted and I just now properly tagged them, so I know what to do. BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:04, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These below are the images in question
  • Image:1986OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:1987OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:1988OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:1989OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:1990OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:1991OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:1992OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:1993OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:1995OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:1996OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:1998OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:1999OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:2001OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:2002OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:2003OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:2005OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:2006OpenLogo.jpg
  • Image:2005PGALogo.gif
  • Image:2004PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:2003PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:2002PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:2001PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:2000PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:1999PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:1998PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:1997PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:1996PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:1995PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:1994PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:1993PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:1991PGALogo.jpg
  • Image:1989PGALogo.jpg
  • Is there a reason they can't just be uploaded again with the proper attribution? --UsaSatsui (talk) 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't have them on my hard drive. It really would be much easier this way. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 21:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now found out that the images I deleted were from this site, cropped down to just the logo from photographs of the tour flags. While an argument could be made for fair use of the logo itself, these copyrighted photographs cannot be used as fair use. Kevin (talk) 22:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm using the logo. They cannot be found anywhere else. And it isn't the photographs which the owner of the flags is selling. He's selling the flags themselves. The photos have absolutely no value to the owner. But in any event, I have E-mailed the owner of the pictures to see if I can crop out the logos. I didn't think this was an issue, however, as the owner of the pictures does not own the logos themselves. And selling them would be illegal. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 22:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The photographs have an obvious value to the owner, they are using them to sell a product. And it is the copyright that is at issue here, not the value. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Outside of the logo, there doesn't seem to be too much creativity in the cropped portion of the photos. Creative works have in common a degree of arbitrariness, such that it is improbable that two people would independently create the same work. Without the logo, I don't think there would be anything to copyright in the portion cropped out by Burp. GregManninLB (talk) 06:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting question comes to mind: Isn't a small piece cut out of a bigger picture no different that quoting a small piece of text out of a larger copyrighted work of text? If the latter is clearly fair use, why not the former? ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can only use verbatim sections of text to discuss that text, ie quoting a section of a book to discuss writing style etc. In this case there is no discussion of the photograph, and so it is clearly not fair use. See Wikipedia:Non-free content - the relevant part is "A rose, cropped from a record album, to illustrate an article on roses" which is listed as an example of unnacceptable use. In this case we have a logo, cropped from a copyrighted photograph, used to illustrate that logo. Kevin (talk) 23:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Kevin, he does not own the logos themselves. That's what I'm using. I sent him an E-mail though to get permission so we don't have to go through a prolonged fight. I do find this similar to if I were to try and sell a taped copy of a Monday Night Football broadcast. That's illegal and if his intent was to sell the logos that would be illegal too. But in any event its the flags he's trying to sell, not the pictures. Pictures of these flags are also on ebay, what's the policy on ebay photos to the open public? --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Both these arguments are not relevant here. The photographs are copyrighted, regardless of their content, and so we cannot use them as fair use. See WP:COPYREQ for info on what he needs to provide in the way of permission. Kevin (talk) 03:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The photos seem more like derivative works. It seems unlikely that the person pushing the camera button also owns the copyright in the logo or even in the items shown in the photos. The photographs more likely are fair use. Anyway, if burp uploads a solid matter logo into Wikipedia rather than a photograph of a logo, I'll serve him lunch for a week! GregManninLB (talk) 07:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Being visible on ebay to the general public doesn't change any copyright status. As an example say a poster is being used to advertise something, it's been put up on every street corner. A competitor couldn't decide because of the broad public transmission that they'd given up any of their rights under copyright law, and then use the same artwork within their own advertising campaign. We can't tell if the original image is a copyright violation, the author may have permission or may have a claim under fair use (which doesn't necessarily transmit a fair use claim to us), or he may not have permission. In all cases (short of having had a very broad copyright license enabling onward permission to be granted, I think we can safely assume that doesn't exist) multiple copyright claims would be held on the image we'd need appropriate permissioning from all "interested" parties. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 06:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Haha, Greg, gonna take you up on that. I wish I could find better images. Frankly, the ones on the flag stink for the most part. Some of the images from my list aren't from tourflags. Just about everything in this decade. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. After seeing the discussion above, I recommend restoring the deleted images, provided that BB gains permission to use them and publishes that permission on the talk pages of each image (I have seen precedent for this on other images). A photograph of a logo is owned by the photographer, not the logo owner, therefore the photographer needs to give permission. The best solution would be for the photographer to post a notice on his web site that he places the photos in public domain. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is incorrect. The photographer may have a copyright interest in the work if it is greater than just a photo of just the logo, however there is still a copyright ownership for the logo itself. As above this would form a derivative and both the photographer and the copyright holder of the log would have an interest, not just the photographer. No more than I can photograph the text of a book and claim that as it's a photo that I can now redistribute that. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And yet, a sufficiently low-resolution image, with the appropriate copyright / fair use notices, is still permissible here. This deletion discussion would have never arisen if BB had tagged his images properly. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kevin, I forwarded you the email via whatever email you have linked up to your wiki page. Can you send it? You seem to know what needs to be done. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 16:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For info, the emailed permission stated Feel free to use the photos., and was from the website owner. I have replied asking for a more specific copyright release. Kevin (talk) 21:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the mean time can you bring back a couple of the images Baby did not get from TourFlags? Articles from 2001 or 2002-Present or there abouts should be just straight up logos. I re-added a couple that I could find on my own like the 2005 U.S. Open for example. But I'm having difficulty finding others. I'll add the fair use rationale tags immediately after you reinstate them. --FourteenClowns (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored:
These will need source info plus a fair use rationale. The remainder look like cropped photos, so I have left them deleted. Kevin (talk) 06:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, in the process of tracking down where he found these. Found 2003 and 2004 PGA already. Also, you can probably delete the 2006OpenLogo, as its a duplicate. That was one I re-added yesterday, but it was a .gif image. --FourteenClowns (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, nice. Thanks Clowns. Let me know if you have trouble finding any. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 17:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have them all tracked down and placed with a fair rationale tag except for the last two. Any key words you used in your google/yahoo/whatever search engine would help. If you find them put the links here or my talk page, unless you feel ambitious and want to fill out the fair use templates. --FourteenClowns (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should we close this and discuss among ourselves if required? I think we all understand where we are trying to go now. Kevin (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a bad idea. Are you going to talk to Ryan? Also, Clowns, I honestly don't remember, but I'll try relocating the last two as well. --BurpTheBaby (Talk) 01:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Los Alamitos Curve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

There has to be enough references in order to prevent it from getting AFD deletion notices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.47.129.198 (talk) [1]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Korean war crimes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Admin enacted speedy delete on the basis of their claim copyvio that the article was "ripped out of the same three or four documents on the web" referring to specific quotations.

  • The AfD had 11 keeps and only 2 deletes, yet the article was heavily referenced and still being developed, the AfD still being discussed.

I know this accusation not to be true, merely because my desktop is currently covered with the sources. I have read most of the main references and chose others according to specific quotes.

The subject topic is contention but the contents are well referenced in academia. If the only problem is the matter of inline citation, then I want to continue resolving that matter as I had flagged up before it was deleted. I also believe the discussion and history are valuable enough to restore.

  • Note from deleting admin: This was a speedy deletion for copyvio/plagiarism reasons, and as such entirely independent of the ongoing AfD. Some samples documenting the extent of plagiarism can be found on my talk page: User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise#Korean War Crimes. Based on samples I googled for, my estimate is that at least half of the article as originally written by Ex-oneatf, possibly a lot more, was near literally plagiarised in chunks of between one sentence and entire sections, from a variety of sources. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I voted "keep" at the AfD for very different reasons, however I have read the rationale provide by Fut.Perf. at his talk page, and am satisfied that there were sufficient copyvio issues to speedy delete the article. I see that Ex-oneatf now has a copy of the article in his user space; if he insists on persisting with the article I suggest he works on it there, rewriting it to use his own words and properly citing his sources, before any attempt to return it to the main space. PC78 (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The nominator plagiarised many contents according to the closing admin's investigation. That is not only a violation of Wikipedia policy but also violation of Law. Much of them are also web sources, so it is so weird that he did not link the website. The article actually are filled with unrelated topics and heavy POV and many participants pointed out on the problems as well. AFD weights in good arguments, not voting count. It is also very unfortunate that the nominator is acting beyond what other Wikipedians do. Besides, some of them are proved to be bogus citations and come from unreliable personal websites. Unlike his claim as a newbie, he is clearly gaming the system as making this request here.-- 15:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caspian blue (talk • contribs) [2]
  • Comment - This article is interesting--is it all true? However, so many of the instances represent Koreans impressed into service by an outside force that absorbed it as part of its "empire." Thus, should we create a "War crimes of European Jewry" article showing the sadism of the Kapos, who were themselves Jewish, in the Nazi concentration camps? I'm not sure it makes sense and would like to see comments from parties who are not constantly trying to make each other look bad (i.e., Korean and Japanese nationalist editors), but from uninvolved editors with expertise in East Asian history. Badagnani (talk) 16:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure (keep deleted as copyvio). Compliance with copyright law trumps the concerns that were being raised in the AfD discusion. Any new version should be created from a clean slate to avoid future taint of copyvio. Kudos to the closer for researching and documenting the copyright violations. Rossami (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the original author has recreated the article Korean war crimes, but it still contains plagiarized material. From spot checks of a few sections, I find some sentences that are lifted outright from other sources, and some that are slightly rearranged or altered. That looks like an attempt to evade detection. Examples:
  1. [3] - "During his visit to Hanoi in 1998, President Kim Dae-jung expressed “regret,” but he did not acknowledge or apologize ..."
  2. [4] - "A Korean government commission cleared 83 of 148 Koreans convicted by the Allies of war crimes ..."
  3. same source - "High-ranking officers suspected of voluntarily collaborating with the Japanese were excluded." (altered from original)
  4. [5] - "...published the names of hundreds of groups and businesses it says collaborated with the Japanese..." (rearranged from original)
  5. [6] - "...200,000 men, women and children out of a population of 22 million..." (combines two phrases from different paragraphs of the original)
  6. [7] - "The commission last year excavated sites at four of an estimated 150 mass graves around the country"
The article remains tainted by plagiarism. --Amble (talk) 01:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article has been recreated during this deletion review. I speedied it to allow DRV to complete and because of copyvio concerns. I express no opinion as to whether the AfD closure was correct. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could someone point out to Amble above that facts in new arrangement ca therfore NOT be copyright violation precisely because they are NOT copies. One cannot make up new facts and remain factual!!!
I a sorry but I can see this already being used as an excuse for deleting or reverting my addition even when supported by citation. Thank you
I have accepted the deletion of the old article and made a new one. This review is therefore redundant and can be closed. --Ex-oneatf (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ex-oneatf, what you're doing here is not only a personal attack to Amble but also an implausible excuse for your repeated wrongdoings. He or she is not even a Korean (s/he seems to read Korean but can't write the language). Your repeated introduction of plagiarism to other articles is harmful to Wikipedia.[8]. Like the link, do not resort to racist attacks. Regards --Caspian blue (talk) 11:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I don't see any personal attack here. --Amble (talk) 15:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you think Ex-oneatf's comments do not meet personal attack, that is fine for you since you're the one getting the comment. However, this is a combined comment toward his edit summaries[9] pointing to you and Korean editors at Comfort women. However I do think his such comments are based on his assumption that you're Korean.--Caspian blue (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The_Young_Werewolves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Article was rewritten and then I checked with the deleting admin to review revised article and if I should resubmit and he agreed. Article was substantially overhauled with third party sources providing notability per criteria Psychobotox (talk) 12:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I reluctantly redeleted the thing as a repost. I saw no substantial difference between the deleted and the new versions, and I was really surprised the thing had been deleted in the first place. I did not want to unilaterally overturn that decision, but I wonder if we could do another AFD. I thought the thing looked adequately sourced to establish verifiability and notability. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 12:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if I saw an article tagged as a repost that looked fine to me, I probably would have removed the tag. The new version looked okay to me (and note I closed the initial AFD as "delete"); I don't see the point of going through AFD - I would say just restore it. Neıl ☄ 18:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Considered that, but I saw no real difference between the pre/post deletion versions. Dlohcierekim 21
37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Overturn, as I'm not sure enough if the page still has the same problems. "When in doubt, don't delete" sorta' thing. I'd favor another AfD, but I hate procedural noms so I won't be !voting for it. As a side note, I've taken Pledge Your Allegiance... To Satan! to AfD. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - The repost was a procedural error, so let's just imagine we are here for a request to review the original AfD. I don't perceive any flaws in the AfD, and the debate made clear how thin the sources are, albeit numerous. Looking at the article, the peak of the referencing seems to be some brief mentions in alternative weekly papers. The album "The Young Werewolves" seems to be self-published. This is well short of the requirements of WP:MUSIC for two or more albums on a major label. EdJohnston (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The deleting administrator, Neil, says the article is ok so overturning is just endorsing that admins new decision. Chergles (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Considering the difference between the versions which was nominated for deletion (and which most delete opinions were based on) and the newer versions which do seem to establish notability I think overturning and restoring the article with full history makes sense. Davewild (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
User:C.m.jones/Wikipedia:I bid you adieu (edit | [[Talk:User:C.m.jones/Wikipedia:I bid you adieu|talk]] | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Debate is about a personal essay/parable about our fair use policy located in user space. Interesting point is made on page, might be helpful for discussions, MFD discussion included reasonable discussion about this versus concerns that is was created by someone since banned as a sockpuppet. Closer made a bizarre close that he will delete article in one week (not yet up) unless it is "cleaned up" by supporters, based apparently on his personal opinion that it should have more structure, links, etc. In subsequent discussion on the MFD talk page, has reaffirmed he is looking for a cosmetic cleanup as a measure of whether people "care enough" and if that doesn't happen, he will delete it and figures he has a 50/50 chance of prevailing at DRV based on the DRV closer.

I feel this is a bad close that should be discussed, independent of whether the closer decides "cosmetic cleanup" has been performed to his satisfaction in a week's time. We want MFD closes to happen according to policy and interpretation of the MFD discussion, not by imposing a new point of view -- "cosmetic cleanup needed" -- and making a conditional close based on whether this personal point of view is addressed by "supporters". We also do not want closings where the response of the closer to discussion after the fact is "do as I say, I have a 50/50 chance of prevailing at DRV".

Basically, either the Keep or Delete arguments in the MFD discussion should prevail (or maybe there is no consensus). But let's decide and not have a red herring drawn into a conditional close.

Convenience link to the MFD. See also related talk page. Martinp (talk) 12:34, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, per arguments that I've already made on the MfD's talk page. When the closer offered that a "cosmetic facelift" might be enough for him not to delete the article, I decided to take him up on that, rather than continue a debate that might only lead us to harden our positions. I don't yet know whether he considers my changes adequate, but since this has ended up at DRV anyway, I will extend my rationale. If the closer would truly be satisfied with changes that are cosmetic, not substantive, the essay isn't defective enough to be deleted to begin with. Also, the closer's comment that unless the vaguely described changes he wants are made, he is "just going to assume that that they don't care that much," is illogical. People are willing to debate his close with him and take the issue to DRV, but unless they make changes that they don't think needed to be made in the first place, they will have proven that they "don't care that much?!" --Groggy Dice T | C 13:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No consensus to delete, so the right close includes keeping, even if no facelift is given. GRBerry 13:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete - preferably immediately - as a contribution from a banned editor, contributed while they were abusing an alternate account. Why are we giving a sockpuppet of a banned user a forum for bitching about something that may or may not have occurred as written? Yeah, there's a need to better explain the free vs. fair use content, but one would think that it might be better done by, say, someone who hasn't been indef-blocked repeatedly. Providing banned editors with a platform to bitch from is a bad idea. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it definitely didn't occur as written. I tracked down the original version on the Citizendium forum, where it is baldly posed as a hypothetical: "Let's say at some point that CZ attracts a retired sports reporter..." Apparently Ewen/Jones/CyberAnth has left us for Citizendium, so he's their problem now. --Groggy Dice T | C 18:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn closure to "no consensus". I might have given deference if the closer had simply chosen keep or delete and articulated the reasons for the decision. But complicated conditional closures like this one are not supported by Wikipedia policy or precedent. If the issue really is messy enough to require additional action, the right answer was to close as "no consensus" with a comment that a renomination would be appropriate if the problems are not repaired. Rossami (talk) 18:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At any event, I have already kept the page, and no, we don't go after subpages of banned users, unless there's an inherent problem with them. I guess some editors, such as Martinp, have abundant energy for longwinded process-talk, and very limited desire for personal, non-templatized discussion with actual human beings. That is to his discredit. I will not respond to his distorted, sophomoric attempt to speak for me. Xfd/drv culture is often rigid and Martinip's baiting will not deter me from continuing to close xfds as creatively as I feel the moment inspires. El_C 18:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Sean Ellis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

This article was speedy deleted on 12 August 2007 by User:Jaranda, now an inactive admin. The reason given was: "CSD A7 (Bio): Biographical article that does not assert significance". I asked another admin to copy the text of the article to my user page to see if I could improve it before putting it back in mainspace (see User:GDallimore/Sean Ellis). However, I believe that the article as deleted did assert significance by mentioning that he was named as a top photographer by the Independent on Sunday and as the director of an award-winning and Oscar-nominated short film. The article needs work to include third party refs for this (at the moment it relies heavily on Ellis' personal website) but I believe the reasons for the speedy deletion were clearly wrong. I think this page should be restored so that the history is not lost and I will then work on introducing refs and improving the article. GDallimore (Talk) 10:00, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:BobHeadshot.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|PUI)

Image was listed as a possibly unfree image using the rationale "Professional photograph, most likely non-free". No proof that the image was not free was ever presented but the image was deleted yesterday anyway. The license for this image seemed valid with the uploader claiming that he was the copyright holder. The image itself appears only twice on the internet[11][12] and both of those are smaller, lower quality versions than was uploaded here, lending weight to the uploader's claim. (Obviously, had the uploader stolen the image from another website it would not have been better quality than was available on those websites.) Out of curiosity I asked Bob Baldwin's staff last week about the image and they said they didn't know who the uploader was and there were no restrictions on its use. Given the lack of any proof that the image was not as the uploader claimed, there seems no justification in deleting this image. AussieLegend (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I didn't see this file before deletion, so I can only judge by the uploader's sole other upload Image:HMAS_SYD_Wiki.jpg, which also seems suspicious. The primary red flags are that the image is of web resolution and is missing any camera metadata, which frequently indicates an image stolen from the web somewhere. The uploader of these images (Peterpan15 (talk · contribs)) has not established any kind of a track record here, and frankly fits the profile of a casual copyvio uploader - anyone who frequents WP:PUI would recognize that. If Image:BobHeadshot.jpg had similar red flags to the uploader's other image, then I think the deleting admin made the right call. Kelly hi! 03:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I've seen it I think that it's even more likely to be unfree. It appears to be a government-produced portrait. In Australia, such images are not in the public domain, they are under Crown Copyright for 50 years after publication. Should be deleted unless some kind of evidence (other than a {{self}} template) can be produced that the uploader is the copyright holder. Kelly hi! 03:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • A good comparison point in this image is the lapel badge. Clearly it wasn't stolen from one of those two websites as the image is obviously of better quality. Lack of camera metadata is really no indication that the image has been stolen. I regularly crop images before uploading if there is irrelevant information in the image. That usually removes the EXIF data and I'm pretty sure that I've established a track record. Using lack of EXIF data as an argument is not assuming good faith. As for being a government portrait, that's not necessarily true. Many pollies supply their own images and the background is then photoshopped to provide some consistency although the consistency is usually somewhat lacking.[13][14][15] (just to pick 3 at random) --AussieLegend (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand where you're coming from. I typically extend good faith as far as I can, but the uploader's limited history here doesn't give much basis for judgment. I've done a lot of work on copyrights (not just here on Wikipedia) - just because the original doesn't turn up in a search engine doesn't mean it's not a copyvio. I've seen cases, for instance, where government employees or other staffers have released photos under free licenses when they had no legal right to do so. If the photo was a private one, and not a government photo, then Mr. Baldwin still is probably not the copyright holder - that copyright still lies with the photographer, unless it was explicitly a work for hire. I think the best path forward on this, if you're in touch with Mr. Baldwin's office, would be to request a photo under a free license and forward that permission to OTRS. Regards - Kelly hi! 04:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undeleted pending outcome. BJTalk 03:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion - The image was clearly created by "Auspic Government Photographic Service" and it is copyright per this govt statement. The other image is from this event and, while copyrighted, you could claim fair use iff it where used in an article on the ceremony. The claim on the image page that the uploader owns the copyright is not plausible - Peripitus (Talk) 04:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - The reason given for the deletion is listed on PUI for over two weeks (more than 14 days). However, on the front page of Possibly unfree images, it says PUI "is not specifically a vote to keep or delete but a forum for the exploration of the copyright status/source of an image." There was no discussion, so the PUI closer could not draw any PUI conclusion other than no consensus. If the consensus was that the tag "copyright holder of this work" was not valid, then more would be needed to delete the image. CSD I9 is only invoked for obvious situations. However, if there is a PUI discussion and it lasts 14 days, the copyright violation would not seem obvious. CSD I9 reads "Blatant copyright infringement - Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case." Absent, new editor uploads professional image with free license and makes only eleven edits, all to the same topic, over a span of only four hours.[16] Obviously, the free license is not valid for the image. While deletion review is to review the PUI discussion (the deletion outcome of which I would overturn due to lack of discussion), speedy delete applies at any time. Validly speedy deleted under CSD I9. GregManninLB (talk) 06:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are some flawed arguments here:
  1. The image was clearly created by "Auspic Government Photographic Service" - No, it isn't clear that it was created by the AGPS. There's nothing on the APH website that actually says where the image came from other than "Images courtesy of AUSPIC". That doesn't say whether the image was created by AUSPIC or whether AUSPIC sourced it from somewhere else. The image in question certainly wasn't stolen from the APH website. There are 3 main arguments supporting that:
    1. Quality - The uploaded image is obviously of far better quality than displayed on the APH website. Blowing it up results in a much degraded image, as you'd expect.[17]
    2. Shape - The image on the APH website is 170x130. Blowing that up to the same width as the image here (501px) results in a height of only 655px, vs 750px for the uploaded image. The reason for that is obvious. Image:BobHeadshot.jpg shows more above the head and more of the lapels and tie. While these two points clearly prove that the image wasn't copied from the APH website there's also:
    3. Background - The APH image has a green background while the uploaded image has a blue background. Yes, it's possible to change the colour of a background (I was the one who pointed that out) and I suppose that the uploader could have gone to that trouble after magically improving the image quality (despite what they show on TV soaps it just doesn't work) and synthesising the extra lapels and tie but would he have? The image on the APH website is obviously a lower resolution, cropped and edited version of what was uploaded here.
  2. The claim that the uploader owns the copyright is not plausible because the other image is from this event. - This was a very widely covered event in the printed media as well as on TV. There wasn't just one photographer and photography wasn't limited to military personnel. I searched the media archive from that event and couldn't find the other image. In fact there were no images other than what is on the page. While this doesn't prove that Peterpan15 did take the photo it also doesn't prove that he didn't.
  3. Validly speedy deleted under CSD I9 - As stated, "CSD I9 reads "Blatant copyright infringement - Images that are claimed by the uploader to be images with free licenses when this is obviously not the case."" I've already shown that the image obviously wasn't taken from the APH website but the image also appears on this page. This image is a lot closer to Image:BobHeadshot.jpg but it suffers the same critical issue as the image on the APH website. It's clearly of lower quality so it must be a copy of Image:BobHeadshot.jpg and not the other way round. The image is obviously not taken from either of the only two places on the internet that it seems to exist so it is not "obviously not the case" and therefore CSD I9 does NOT apply.
  4. "Absent, new editor uploads professional image with free license and makes only eleven edits, all to the same topic, over a span of only four hours." - This is still not assuming good faith and is bordering on biting the newcomer. The editor's actions in no way prove that the license isn't appropriate and it certainly isn't obvious. Lots of long-term editors appear, make a few edits to one or two articles, or even a single article, and then disappear for long periods. They are really no different to new editors but that doesn't matter. The length of time somebody has been here, the number of edits they've made and the number of articles they've edited is really irrelevant to the issue.
It may well be that the uploader doesn't own the copyright but so far nothing presented here has proven that he doesn't. Suspicions are just that, they're suspicions and nothing else. Except maybe original research or not maintaining a neutral point of view. --AussieLegend (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - Given the failure to provide any actual evidence (unsubstantiated suspicions don't constitute evidence) after 3 weeks (including the PUI listing) that the uploader's licence is invalid I find my opinion hasn't changed. There is evidence that he hasn't copied the image from other websites and there is no obvious copyvio. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess I didn't explicitly say this above, but endorse deletion as a likely copyvio. Kelly hi! 22:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion. Seems to me the recommendation to delete is based purely on speculation; and therefore isn't grounds for deletion. I'm disappointed by this "guilty until proven innocent" approach to making decisions here. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete from looking at the photograph, it is indeed an official photograph. However, on Wikipedia, we have to be certain about image copyright in order for images to be on here. The image page has no source, and even if we have the source, we have no permission to use the image under the creative commons license. My suggestion is someone in his district, or his country, should begin to play email tag with his office and figure out what can be done. Until then, remove the image from Wikipedia. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I've already explained, I've spoken to his staff, in person, and they claim there are no restrictions on it's use. His website, which uses a lower resolution copy of the image, asserts no copyright over the image. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:59, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand, but copyright has to be verifiable. As I asked above, can you get an e-mail from his staff and forward it to OTRS? That will solve the problem. Kelly hi! 12:36, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Christian Vincenz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

it was speedy delete with the db-bio tag, and I looked up this page again as I wanted to edit it again with a reference from November 2007 issue of Bicycling (page 79, convicted of extortion for attempts to blackmail Phonak). Bicycling is a highly reputable source, and this was certainly notable. Mathmo Talk 02:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively may somebody restore this page in my userspace? Thanks. Mathmo Talk 05:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The entire content was "Christian Vincenz was in a Swiss jail for attempting to extort money from the Phonak cycling team. [18]" That link is a 404 error, by the way. --Stormie (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_July_16&oldid=1136100539"