Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 May 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2009 May 10
2009 May 12 >

11 May 2009[edit]

  • File:Kufic.JPG – Overturned and restored for listing at FFD. There seems sufficient doubt raised by the OTRS reader's of the copyright claim – Peripitus (Talk) 06:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Kufic.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

The image is of a page of Kufic calligraphy from a Koran from about the 9th century CE. A thumbnail can be seen at Google cache here. The image thus appears to me to be an entirely typical example of {{PD-Art}}. The Foundation has staked out a deliberate public position that it is important to defend that {{PD-Art}} images should be in the public domain, and that the Foundation will if necessary commit resources to actively preserve their freedom.

The image was peremptorily deleted by Bjweeks (talk · contribs) on 23 April with the edit summary "Unambiguous copyright violation". When I tried to engage him about this, he merely responded "I deleted the image along with all of the users others" [1], and has otherwise declined to engage on the subject [2]. With regret, I am therefore bringing the question here. Jheald (talk) 08:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, do you have an actual link that says it's from the 9th century? Neither the link nor the caption used ("Surah Al-Baqara written in Kufic form.") indicate its age. The google cache doesn't seem to indicate it either. It's possible that the image is pre-1923 (it's from the classics department, it's an old script, and it just looks old), but it's also possible for someone to write in that language today and post that. I'd rather be cautious than accept a possible concern for an image that's just another illustration for a gallery. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, this is a user with a history of a lot of deleted images because he just pulling them from websites, so I mean, it's possible that he got one right, but Bjweeks' action is not entirely unreasonable. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The style of calligraphy was dominant from the 7th century to the late 9th century CE. After that, it went out of use. I can't think why an academic site would put up an image of a modern ersatz attempt rather than the real thing. The google cache image is too small for me to be sure, but from what I remember the particular letter-forms and diacritical dots used in the calligraphy were very similar to this page in the Smithsonian, of a slightly different section of the same sura. The five-line page layout was a particularly characteristic one at this time, and should be illustrated. Expanding the article is something that has been on my "to do" list for a while, and I would like to keep this image. Jheald (talk) 09:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you clarify that? Who was the request from? Did it specifically identify this image? Jheald (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The request was from the person who originally hosted this image. BJTalk 17:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting. How did they describe the image? Did they claim that they had drawn it themselves? Or is it, as it appears to be, a faithful photograph of a ninth century piece of calligraphy, and therefore public domain ? Jheald (talk) 17:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also very curious about what the image-hoster said about the image. – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The objections to the image seem singularly unlikely. Museums and other institutions are notorious for claiming copyright on everything in their possession, whether of not they actually own it. DGG (talk) 22:17, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think we need to know what the OTRS ticket said at the very least. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:07, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per DGG, with liberty to list at FFD. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    And for the record, I'm an OTRS agent and am making this !vote having read the ticket. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment the contents of the otrs ticket are privileged but an unsourced image of unknown age is always going to be a copyvio concern. it would be better if someone tracked down a sourced imaged and we looked at that. please can an otrs admin close this debate as they can view the ticket as well as the discussion? Spartaz Humbug! 13:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and List per DDG, having read the OTRS ticket. There is enough doubt in my mind about the supposed "copyright holding" that I think a longer discussion is worthwhile. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:01, 18 May 2009 (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.
Oksana (pornographic actress) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Was speedy deleted because of previous deletion. The previous deletion review discussion was extremely short and quite old (2007) and deletion was on the basis of lack of notability. This seems to me traditional bias against non US porn actress. The actress has established notability in France (appearance in mainstream media, etc). I therefore kindly asked another deletion review where arguments can be exposed. Hektor (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Stifle (talk) 08:05, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No reason in particular. We are not here to judge my behaviour, just the validity of the delete. Hektor (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, but many deletion issues can be resolved quickly by a friendly note to the admin who deleted the page, and it's courteous too. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I apologize for not following the due process, but this must not interfere with the decision. Hektor (talk) 14:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If they appeared in mainstream media, don't just state it. Provide the evidence for other people to evaluate. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can remember these evidence were in the article which has been deleted, but since I have no access to it I can't provide them. Typical evidence I can provide is that if you cross her name with TF1 (the most popular domestic network in France, afaik), you will find on google that she has been featured in shows broadcast by this channel. The French wikipedia article about her also indicates that she played in a mainstream movie by notable French director Frédéric Schoendoerffer. My point is that if a North American actress appeared on a main network show and in a mainstream movie she would probably be considered as notable. I am not saying that she should be kept, but that I think that this matter deserves more than a speedy. Hektor (talk) 09:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Well, technically, it was based on the prior AFD but I get your point. Look at the prior deleted history at Oksana d'Harcourt, it mentions "TF1's La Méthode Cauet show" and "Frédéric Schoendoerffer's Truands" and includes a full filmography. So it seems like you have the same evidence as discussed over two years. Do you have more sources to help us out? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • From my review, the article is sufficiently different from the article that was deleted at AFD to warrant a relist. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just (temporarily) restored both articles so that people can compare. Whenever an article is tagged as G4 (delete per prior AfD), I don't automatically hit the "delete" button, I look at the prior article. When the reason for deletion was non-notability, as in this case, I look to see if the new sources (if any) overcome the strength of the arguments in the AfD. It's up to you guys whether I made the right call. - Dank (push to talk) 13:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, too much to do today ... okay, they're now both in my userspace, noindex'd, at User:Dank/Oksana (pornographic actress) and User:Dank/Oksana d'Harcourt. I reverted the second one to the last version before it was converted to a redirect. - Dank (push to talk) 15:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, note that Hektor has been adding references this morning since I restored the page, which is great, but look at the earlier version if you want to know what I was looking at when I deleted. - Dank (push to talk) 15:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - no procedural errors in the original AFD and no new reliable sources in the article that indicates she passes either WP:PORNBIO or WP:N. Suggest that if someone wants an article on her that they write it in user space then come here for a review of the draft. Otto4711 (talk) 14:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see both sides of this, and I think both sides deserve the benefit of the doubt.

    List at AfD to give the benefit of the doubt to the nominator, no reflection on Dank to give the benefit of the doubt to him.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse without more sources, the problems that led to afd haven't been overcome, and now we have a tougher BLP standard to meet, this falls far short. And I contend, that all bios of "porn actors/actresses" are inherently contentious and negative per BLP (imagine seeing your mom's name there and someone saying, but they like this negative publicity). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse please provide reliable sources. Spartaz Humbug! 13:10, 17 May 2009 (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.
2006 WPA Men's World Nine-ball Championship (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I dunno how a world championship tournament could be deleted, speedily, at that. –Howard the Duck 02:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC) –Howard the Duck 02:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • As the instructions on the deletion review page indicate, many issues can be resolved by asking the deleting/closing administrator for an explanation and/or to reconsider his/her decision. While not strictly mandatory, this should normally be done first. Did you try, and if not, was there some special reason? Also, this article was deleted over five months ago. Can you please explain why such a delay until this review request? Stifle (talk) 08:06, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason for the tardiness was due to the stealthiness of the deletion. This wasn't on my watchlist so I didn't know it was deleted until I noticed its link was red when I was cleaning up the 2007 tournament article. As for asking the admin, it's already here so lets just do it here, I'm sorry for the harm it may have caused. –Howard the Duck 10:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Please consider asking the admin next time, as it is more courteous and generally gets issues resolved more quickly. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The opening sentence says that it is an international sports tournament sanctioned by an official organization of that particular sport. A7 does not apply to articles about competitions especially not when said article is referenced and its deletion would be controversial - which it is. If the tournament can be used to establish notability for a person, then the tournament itself is notable enough to avoid speedy deletion too. I suspect the deletion was the result of a dispute on whether it should be merged as admins can see in the deleted history. Since the opening sentence asserts notability, this should be left for discussion by a wider group of editors. - Mgm|(talk) 08:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Per Mgm. I'm unclear how this could be speedyable. Hobit (talk) 13:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse per an overturn !vote? Stifle (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn on strictly procedural grounds as A7 doesn't apply to competitions at this time. Stifle (talk) 13:48, 11 May 2009 (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/2009_May_11&oldid=1086354976"