Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 January 25

File:Gagnongrave.jpg – Relist on FfD. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This image file was deleted in this 2 week discussion that I missed for failing to log in to notice prior to January 1 and January 24. I had no chance to respond to any concerns about the file. I cannot speak with the admin, User:Fastily, who deleted it as he/she is away from Wikipedia until sometime in February. This image file was created by myself from two photographs I personally took, front and back, of the headstone of Iwo Jima flag raiser, Rene Gagnon, at Arlington National Cemetery. I believe I had released its rights to CC. It was taken and then created in 2006. This image was determined, somehow, to be "3D Art," among other issues, which I could have addressed had I time and chance to respond. The Rene Gagnon article is now missing this illustrative photograph as a result of the deletion. Please undelete this image file. Thank you. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 15:45, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse there is no freedom of panorama in the US, so it's not exclusively yours; whoever holds the copyright of the headstone also holds an interest in this image. --N Y Kevin @808, i.e. 18:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The maker of the headstone was the United States government, ergo, shouldn't it be in the public domain? Nor would it be covered under fair use? That type of rationale, as applied to the headstone in a national cemetery would effectively wipe out every photograph of it's nature, which I'm sure, there are quite many on Wikipedia. This would mean that photographs of the tombstone rows in Arlingtion National Cemetery should not be allowed. ~ (The Rebel At) ~ 19:44, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's some images at http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/rgagnon.htm. I would be absolutely stunned if the front side of the headstone was eligible for copyright. Nothing original, just a cross, name, and dates. However, the back has an epitaph and a bronze relief of the flag-raising, so I suppose its possible it could be copyrighted. 169.231.102.6 (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No procedural error is apparent; it is editors' own responsibility to be available during the time of a discussion. The deletion is also materially correct; the bronze relief on the headstone is a copyrighted creative work of which the photograph is an unlicensed derivative work. Even if the relief is a PD-USGOV work, which we do not know, it is itself a derivative work of the copyrighted photograph Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. Sandstein 23:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, your comment misleadingly implies that the FfD "discussion" hinged at least partially on this being a derivative work of a copyrighted photograph. The single, brief nominator's statement which comprised the entire "discussion" did not raise that issue.
RebelAt, even though it looks like this picture might not be up to Wikipedia's standards for free images, this could still be used in the article as a fair-use image. Would you mind writing a proposed fair-use rationale for this image, so it can be discussed by participants in this DRV? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to offer up a fair use rationale for the image: First, there are no apparent free equivalents or alternatives to the photographs of Rene Gagnon's headstone to be used in Gagnon's article. Second, there's no infringement to commercial purposes for images of Rene Gagnon's headstone at Arlington. Third, the image has an important encyclopedic use in illustrating how Gagnon is memorialized in death by for his role in the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima. (A larger scale example would be Lincoln's tomb of which there are multiple photographs on Wikipedia). The photograph thus significantly adds to a reader's understanding and its current absence is detrimental. Fourth, this image has a home and a use. It will not exist merely to exist. Fifth, it's use will be minimal. Please let me know if I need to expand on this rationale, I'll be happy to.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't imply that the FfD discussion hinged on copyright status. I said that it was procedurally correct, and that it also happened to reach the correct result. Sandstein 18:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I'm not sure what I was thinking, as I misinterpreted your comment. I apologize.

RebelAt, I tend to be more on the lenient side when it comes to interpreting the NFCC, but in my opinion your proposed fair-use rationale is up to snuff. In particular, my opinion based on what I know so far is that the image would enhance reader understanding of how Gagnon is memorialized in death, thus complying with WP:NFCC#8. I vote to undelete and append a fair-use rationale like the one you've articulated in this discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn Where is the photo? It's hard to make a decision without being able to look at it. But, assuming that the quality of the photo is okay, let's get it back up where it can be providing a useful service. Dadge (talk) 11:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot see the photo because it is deleted. It is a composite of the front and back of a gravestone. The back of the otherwise unremarkable stone holds a bronze relief based on a photograph. The quality or usefulness of the picture are irrelevant; what's at stake is its copyright status. Sandstein 18:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, kind of The back is definitely copyrighted, and there is no need for readers to see the back of his gravestone in the article, so it fails WP:NFCC8. HOWEVER, the front is not copyrighted. Let's just crop the image and keep the front side only in the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding the nomination page, Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2012 January 1, the page has 24 nominations, and 24 deletions. Unscintillating (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are four technical issues that have been raised here that are outside the scope of this discussion. (1) Is the upload a picture of the derivative of a copyrighted photograph? (2) Is information from gravestones released to the public for perpetuity? (3) Are images of US government monuments protected by copyright? (4) Is a fair use rationale possible? Unscintillating (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to "delete without prejudice to undeleting/re-uploading with an appropriate licence" as per WP:Deletion process. The nominator of the deletion discussion notes that no date was given of the picture, and raises an FoP argument; each of which were remediable but unanswered. Unscintillating (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Georgia (U.S. state – Overturn and list on RfD. While this is numerically tied, the fact that the "endorse" side is using WP:IAR/WP:SNOW when the result is not at all obvious tips it in favor of "overturn." – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:45, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

User:RHaworth deleted this redirect with the summary "(R3: Recently-created, implausible redirect)", but I think he's mistaken. I created the redirect after I committed that very typo, while trying to go to Georgia (U.S. state). It seems like an easy error to make, and there's no risk of confusion, so a redirect definitely seems in order. He's indicated on his talk page that he disagrees, so I thought I'd raise the issue here. Relevant policy includes Wikipedia:Redirects, where likely misspellings are an explicit reason for the creation of a redirect. Moreover, under "reasons not to delete", that page lists "Someone finds them useful. Hint: If someone says they find a redirect useful, they probably do." I find this useful and think it should be recreated. Meelar (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse my deletion. We do not need redirects for every conceivable typo. Authors are expected to use preview - they should spot a red link and correct it. We should not be helping them to leave ugly typos in articles. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- To be clear, this wasn't meant to be used in article, but when typing in the search bar. Meelar (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The "some find them useful" principle has to have a line somewhere though, and I believe this is it. It is one thing to provide help for common mistakes, e.g. Michelle Bachmann, but extending this to typos of Wikipedia-specific naming styles is a bit absurd. What about the leading parenthesis, do we do Georgia U.S. state) ? A lot of people hit shift and do curly "{", how about those permutations? Tarc (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I suppose this could go either way at RFD but its not so clearly implausible to be speedied. 169.231.124.150 (talk) 19:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. RHaworth's explanation above doesn't make much sense to me. This isn't about red links in articles. It's about what people type into search bars. Tarc's explanation makes a lot more sense. I'd just be far more generous about where to draw "the line". I think Meelar's point is valid: if someone finds a redirect to be useful, it probably is. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:01, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- It is all about red links. As to what people type into search bars, we do not need a redirect for that purpose. A search for georgia (u.s. state works perfectly well without the need for a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:14, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - In almost any article, Georgia (U.S. state) would and should be pipelinked so it appears as Georgia. The typo would be invisible in the article anyway. This is much more relevant to the search bar, and makes life easier for users. Meelar (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn it's certainly possible that this could be kept at RfD and I don't think it was sufficiently blatant for speedy deletion. I should also point out that R3 applies only to recently created redirects and this one had existed since 2005. Hut 8.5 20:54, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List at RfD. I agree that it's an implausible redirect, but others apparently disagree; that discussion should be had at RfD and not at DRV. Sandstein 23:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion and do not automatically list at RfD. Redirects are cheap. It's ridiculous and a waste of time to delete redirects like this under CSD#R3 when they are (a) essentially harmless and (b) not wildly implausible. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - If nothing else, there's no way that 2005 can be considered "recent", so that by itself invalidates the R3 speedy. - TexasAndroid (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. If your Wikipedia literacy is high enough to commit this particular typo, you are a regular editor anyway. (I don't expect a non-editor to spontaneously use "Georgia (U.S. state)" as their exact search term; this combination of brackets and capitalisation is very niche to Wikipedia.) So, whether this redirect exists doesn't actually matter. Der yck C. 10:29, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Send to RfD' Using CSD in a case like this is to some extent a matter of judgment--but if one of my speedies like this were challenged in good faith, I cannot imagine why I would insist on it, instead of just reverting and sending to XfD. It's much easier than forcing someone to come here and waste time debating over whether we should debate something. DGG ( talk ) 19:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak overturn In my experience, missing parentheses is not uncommon as a typo. Canuck_{My page}^{89 (talk)}, 02:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Are you going to have similar redirects for every page with parentheses in its name??

And what about people who type in Georgia (U.S.), Georgia (U.S.A.), Georgia (America), Georgia (US state), Georgia (state) or Georgia U.S. State? They have a more reasonable right to expect a redirect than someone who's made a punctuation error. What would be more useful would be some consistency on what appears when people make such "errors", partly to prevent them starting new Wikipedia pages.

Isn't it quicker anyway (than typing in Georgia (U.S. State) to enter "Georgia" and then click on the correct option from the list provided? Dadge (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse – to err is human but to leave an unbalanced bracket is unconscionable. Oculi (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Don't mess with formality and send this to RfD, get your consensus right here. A reasonable deletion. If we wanted redirects like this, we'd end up with redirects for every article title with parenthetical errors and stuff like Georgia U.S. state) and George (U.S. state)) and Georgia (U.S. stat) and Georgia (US state and Georgia (the real one) and Georgia (we're responsible for Newt), etc. etc. Its too much, some level of error correction needs to fall on the user.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 17:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Nominator states, "I committed that very typo", which is evidence that this redirect exists due to WP:OR. Unlike Wikipedia:Redirect, which nominator incorrectly identifies as a policy; WP:NOR is a policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. Unscintillating (talk) 15:53, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:SNOW: Even if it isn't implausible enough for a speedy deletion, this kind of redirect is routinely deleted at RfD (unless it has history, which this does not since it's new); I see no evidence that this redirect is special. --N Y Kevin @779, i.e. 17:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn 2005 is not recent, and similar to what DGG says, nominator should not have had to come to DRV to get this restored. Best path here is that nominator agrees to drop the matter and leave the redirect deleted, so that this DRV can be WP:IAR closed. Unscintillating (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Wikipedia:NOTBURO. There is no reason to overturn for policy sake, I'd support deleting this at MfD too. Redirects are not needed for these kind of typos, the search functionality as well as google already compensate for this. An experienced editor, who would type this into the URL bar, would be needed to make this useful and such experienced editor will figure it out. Otherwise, we need to create redirects for every possible typo. Redirects should be used for other names, similar spellings, ect. Let this one rest.--v/r - T P 14:22, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 January 2012[edit]