Will add licencing information on behalf of original uploader. Subject of the file is of legitimate importance to the article in question. ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 16:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is the licensing information you have to add? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a photo of a plaque. The uploader didn't specify a license, or the license got removed. I was planning on adding CC-by-SA 3.0 to it, as it would save a lot of time over taking a new and presumably identical photograph of the plaque myself. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲτ¢ 03:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
restore and tag with {{attribution}}. The uploader used the {{PD-link}} template when they uploaded the file, linking to ontarioplaques.com. That site doesn't explicitly say the photos are public domain but does say "All photographs on this site were taken by me unless otherwise acknowledged. My photos are freely available to whomever wishes to download them as long as the source is acknowledged with the words "Photo used with permission from the website www.ontarioplaques.com." underneath the photo." which to my non-expert eye looks more like a case for {{attribution}} than {{PD-link}} but both are acceptable for upload both here and at Commons. The file was initially tagged for WP:CSD#F9 (unambiguous copyright infringement) but this was reverted by the same user a couple of hours later, and the words "Photo used with permission from the website www.ontarioplaques.com." added. 13 hours later a different user tagged it for deletion under WP:CSD#F11 (no evidence of permission). While it is true that there is no evidence of permission, such permission is not required. Thryduulf (talk) 10:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation or restoration automatically with new licensing information following "(Deleted because "F4: Lack of licensing information"." does not require a DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Jason Upton – Speedy userfication to User:Cgadbois/Jason Upton (as closing administrator, lacking prior discussion before deletion review) - new draft of article can be brought back here to be re-reviewed – Arbitrarily0(talk) 22:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
I don't understand why this article was deleted. Jason Upton is a Christian artist known worldwide and considered influential by many as the links below testify.
Based on Wikipedia's criteria, an artist is recognized as being notable when he:
Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.
Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable).
I suggest that this article be rewritten as soon as possible.Cgadbois (talk) 05:32, 9 March 2010 (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) 11:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, honestly, I didn't know about that, but the administrator has been informed of the deletion review. Cgadbois (talk) 13:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no indication there was any problem with the debate or its closure. If the nominator feels new information has come up I suggest writing a draft in userspace and then bringing that here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy for User:Cgadbois to work on and improve. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
