Ian Smith (minister) – A7 inappropriate, article restored. No need to wait a week, since any editor is free to take it to AfD, where it should have gone in the first place – Jclemens (talk) 06:56, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was speedily deleted under A7. This is a total misuse of the CSD. The subject is the Principal of the Presbyterian Theological Centre. This is certainly an assertion of notability, and probably passes Criterion 6 of WP:PROF - "has held a major highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution". The deleting admin referred to WP:NOTINHERITED, which clearly does not apply here. StAnselm (talk) 22:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn clear assertion of notability. Admin's comments on his talk page imply he might be well served to review WP:N and WP:CSD#A7. An article need only assert notability, it need not document it. And it something that may meet one of our SNGs is also generally not a good A7 candidate. Hobit (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Based on the credible explanation from the nom. Unscintillating (talk) 01:45, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Not appropriate for speedy deletion. Admin Phantomsteve supported speedy deletion because "The first two references appear to be press releases - so not independent. I can see nothing to indicate their significance..." Notability (if this what is meant) is a non-criterion for speedy deletion unless the article gives no "reasonable indication" of notability. In fact, the article -- which was newly created -- was supported by references to articles in two national journals, complete with link, date of publication and byline. Phantomsteve first claimed that the articles were "press releases". Since on examination this was unsupportable, Phantomsteve claimed they might be based on press releases: this is speculative OR and -- even if correct -- overlooks that use of press releases by journalists is standard practice; it's why press releases exist. Speedy deletion is for articles which are unambiguously inappropriate and have no chance of being made encyclopedic. In this case it was premature, and the reasons given are inoperative. WebHorizon (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
In the talk page discussion, Phantomsteve was out of line. Administrators are elected to delete material (a) where there's a community consensus for deletion, (b) where there's an expired prod, or (c) where certain narrowly-defined speedy deletion criteria are precisely and exactly met. If none of those criteria obtain, then the administrator should seek consensus, not just impose their personal opinion about what should happen. Administrators should not set their own judgment higher than that of other editors, and neither should they be intransigent or obstructive.
In my opinion, when it became clear that there was a discussion to be had about whether the article was really sourced to a press release or not, Phantomsteve should have deferred to the AfD process.—S MarshallT/C 16:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and send to AfDas a reasonable contest of an A7 by an editor in good standing. If the newcomer wants a discussion,let him have it. The purpose of speedy criteria is not to prevent discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 11:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and send to AfD, as above. It smells speediable, if not by letter of the law. I don't much fancy its chances in AfD, however. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Restore, and send to AfD In the discussion at [1], the admin said "Firstly, the "significance" I mentioned above was not referring to the amount of coverage in the individual references, but to the significance of the company itself." The discussion on the references can be seen as a side issue, which will of course be relevant at AfD. The article as I see it claims 3 industry awards which is an indication of notability if the prizes are even possibly significant in good faith (obviously claiming bogus awards or self-awards is not an indication of significance. I see no reason to think they're not genuine and on that rationale, I would not have deleted, However, I interpret the admins other discussion as giving advice of whether the page will stand at AfD, or discussing the fact that a decent reference for a 3rd party source sometimes is seen as an reason against speedy deletion, though there is no rule to that effect. In giving advice, I will usually in addition to explaining why i deleted or choose not to delete, give some reasons why the article would probably not pass AfD in any case, but it's necessary to very carefully separate this from discussing whether the speedy was justified. DGG ( talk ) 12:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If restored, more references can be added. It was a new article and there wasn't a chance between nomination for speedy deletion and deletion to add anything of substance.WebHorizon (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[reply]
I guess someone will close this eventually?WebHorizon (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)WebHorizon[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 page above. Please do not modify it.
This is an image taken by me from my book स्वाधीनता संग्राम के क्रान्तिकारी साहित्य का इतिहास Swadhinta Sangram Ke Krantikari Sahitya Ka Itihas(Part-III) ISBN 8177831224(Set) page no 863. I am the author of this book and also hold its copyright. This image is freely released by me in the public domain.
You can see this image in wikimedia commons. This is a historical document which should not be deleted.Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma(talk•Email)Krantmlverma (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because this image is on our sister project Wikimedia Commons, it's a waste of file space to have it on Wikipedia as well. If you want to link to the image on Wikipedia, you need only type [[File:Accused of Kakori Case 1925.jpg]] into the article, and your picture will appear.—S MarshallT/C 11:56, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot. The discussion this refers to is at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 October 9#File:Accused of Kakori Case1925.jpg. But as mentioned above the image is (also) available via Commons. The PD release resolves the copyright issue; given that the photos date to the 1920s it's probably not worth the bother examining whether their repoduction in the book violates any copyright. The image is of very poor quality and might be considered for deletion on these grounds, but that's for Commons to determine. Sandstein 20:08, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot, as above. S Marshall's restore was successful and, for what it's worth, I think it does improve the article and should be retained in the Commons, unless a clearer copy becomes available. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 12:25, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
File:Lala Hardayal 1294.GIF – Moot. There is no file here and the nominator has not return to address this. Suggest they upload to Commons if they are the rights holder and let them sort out any issues there – SpartazHumbug! 12:23, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This is an image taken by me from a book सरफरोशाने वतन Sarfaroshane Vatan published in 1999 by Swaraj Bhawan Bhopal (India). This book does not have any copyright. This image is freely released by me in the public domain.
You can see this image in wikimedia commons. This is also a historical document which should not be deleted.Dr.'Krant'M.L.Verma(talk•Email)Krantmlverma (talk) 04:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same reply as above. It's unnecessary to store this file on both Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons, one or the other will suffice.—S MarshallT/C 11:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This file hasn't ever existed. I assume you're instead referring to File:LalaHarDayal294.GIF. I'm only going to reply to one of these because the issue is the same on both. If a picture appears in a book, the assumption is that whoever wrote the book owns the copyright of the picture. If you take a photograph of the picture in the book, that is a derivative work, which you do not own exclusive copyright on. In order for you to publish those pictures under the license you did, the book would also have to be available under a compatible license, which we highly doubt (for some reason, publishers like to actually own their books). Now, copyright law might work massively differently in India, but this is how things work where most Western Wikipedians are, so we tend to assume this is also how things work elsewhere; if I'm wrong about the law, please do correct me. Oh, and endorse the deletion. Cheers. lifebaka++ 13:09, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lifebaka, are you under the impression that the copyright in a book normally belongs to the publisher? Because if so, I'm afraid you've been misinformed. The copyright in a book's text normally belongs to the author and in its images belongs to the photographer or illustrator. There are exceptions where the author is an employee or operates under a work-for-hire agreement of some kind, but these are not normal.—S MarshallT/C 13:36, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think either of you are exactly right. It's not a question of copyright law, but of contract, and depends on the individual case. At least for US , it is normal for the author of a trade book to own the copyright but assign the publisher an license, which may or may not be exclusive for a period of time. If exclusive, they cannot give it to us also. If the author asserts they hold the copyright, and asserts they are free to license it, and there is no information otherwise, we accept that statement. On the other hand, the publisher almost always obtains only a non-exclusive license from the photographer, who will normally hope to sell he photograph elsewhere also, in which case the photographer can indeed give us a free license as well. If a person asserts themselves to be the photographer as says he has the right to the photograph , and there is no information otherwise, we accept that statement. DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, DGG: the publisher typically licences, for example, First North American Serial Rights, or First Indian Print Rights.—S MarshallT/C 15:58, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, doesn't change the substance of the argument, but I will keep it in mind. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:12, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
