Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 December 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2012 December 19
2012 December 21 >

20 December 2012[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:CVM Dedication Plaque 1.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

All the photos that I took and placed on this page were deleted. Several have been restored in a request for undeletion. A couple of photos, File:CVM Dedication Plaque 1.JPG and File:CVM Dedication Plaque 2.JPG have not because supposedly the text on the plaques is copyrighted. In the request for undeletion I have made the point that the text in the plaques would not qualify for copyright based on Template:PD-text and commons:Template:PD-text. However, my point fell on deaf ears, so I'm trying to raise it here.
Just to make sure that I'm clear, I am requesting a review for both File:CVM Dedication Plaque 1.JPG and File:CVM Dedication Plaque 2.JPG The Hills of Cerritos (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion OP has been advised of policy, and requested to provide policy-based proof of non-copyright status on WP:REFUND and refused to do so. Requesting DRV is an attempt to bypass what he refuses to do elsewhere. This is copyright we're talking about, so extra care must be taken (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I understand the policy on copyright status, I just think that text on a dedication plaque saying that the monument is dedicated to the veterans of the City of Cerritos qualifies under Template:PD-text. I brought up that point in WP:REFUND, but nobody responded to that point. I apologize for appearing to be "attempting to bypass" something. I am really not trying to bypass anything. The Hills of Cerritos (talk) 18:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The answer to this depends on the nature and length of the text and any decorative element associated with it. It's impossible to assess without seeing the image and DRV's rules prevent us from restoring a file deleted for copyright violation. On the face of it, only administrators can participate in this discussion, which is a problem because that's not how DRV's supposed to be.—S Marshall T/C 08:58, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt we need to see the actual image to understand the text in question. Unless the text is particularly lengthy there would be no reason to not quote it here so we can see the nature of the text (and if it is particularly lengthy it's unlikely to fit pd-text). However PD-TEXT is "This image only consists of typefaces, individual words, slogans, or simple geometric shapes". I think the description so far tells us that the inscription is none of those things, it isn't individual letters, it isn't an individual word, nor a geometric shape, and I some how doubt anyone would claim the wording of a dedication to veterans as a "slogan". So unless there is a compelling argument to say that it does fit one of those, then I'd see little point in quoting it. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    We might avoid the need to type out the text by a simple comparison. Is the text and font more comprehensive and elaborate than, say, File:Dorset_Obelisk.jpg?—S Marshall T/C 13:30, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as deleting administrator. The exact same photos of the plaques can be found here, the last two pictures. Clearly impossible for this to fall under {{PD-text}}, and there's no way these images are justifiable under fair use. 62.254.139.60's comment pretty much hit the nail on the head. The comparison S Marshall is misguided, as the image he provided is a picture of a plaque in England; British FOP laws are significantly less restrictive than American FOP laws. — ξxplicit 01:54, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If the plaques contained a considerable length of text and the photograph (or any textual quotation in the article itself) was just a snippet, my feeling is that there would not be a copyright infringement. I do not think FoP or sculptor's copyright comes into it. However, since all the text is in effect quoted and the text is creative enough to attract copyright, I expect the images should go. So, unless someone persuades me otherwise, delete. My apologies for breaking DRV etiquette by not critiquing the earlier discussions or their closes but I mostly can't understand their logic. Thincat (talk) 22:10, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion the text contains 39 words and looks like the whole inscription. It even has a copyright notice attached. So I would agree that this is big enough for copyright to apply. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:56, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Cargolux Flight 7933 – There doesn't seem to be any consensus around the GNG for this article so we come to an editorial decision about whether the released report contains enough new information to justify a standalone article rather than a section in an airport page. I see that essentially as an editorial decision and as such I don't feel that DRV needs to take a position on that. A good faith user wants to work on it and its an editorial decision if someone wants to take this to another AFD. – Spartaz Humbug! 06:33, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cargolux Flight 7933 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Relist Final report released, recommendations to change practices at the airport where the accident happened. This is one of the outcomes listed at WP:AIRCRASH for a stand-alone article. I believe that WP:GNG is already met. Relisting would allow the opportunity to expand the (deleted) article. Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC) Mjroots (talk) 08:03, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment WP:AIRCRASH is a wikiproject essay, so carries less weight. I'd note you are mis-stating the recommendations to change practices part which has the additional "that had a wide effect on other airports or airlines or the aircraft industry" which affects the meaning somewhat.
    In this situation where the deletion debate doesn't seem that great, a reliance on a wikiproject essay, and an established editor believing it meets the GNG and willing to put effort into expansion, I'd tend to err on the side of letting that expansion happen - of course that wouldn't protect it from further deletion debates. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The changes will affect every international airport in Luxembourg. OK, there's only one of them, but if there were more, then it would have affected them too. I take it you've read the report in full? Mjroots (talk) 16:47, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly the argument that should more such international airports exist, then it would impact them, so warranting coverage beyond the airport directly impacted, seems a pretty weak argument to me. If I were interested in having it restored, then I'm sure I'd do the work and would take it on myself to explain my view point rather than pointing at a report and expecting every one else to read it and reach the same conclusions as me. (I did see, as you stated, that the report contains a section of recommendations, I'm not convinced even if more airports were impacted that the when, how and if of the implementation of those recommendations amounts to "a wide effect", but I'm no expert). I'm not sure what the point of this debate is however, as I didn't believe the wikiproject essay to be that compelling a deletion reason anyway if the subject meets the GNG as you believe, though if it pleases you feel free to try and talk me down from the position that you should be able to expand the article. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry, that obviously didn't come across as I intended. Your support for the chance to expand on the original with the new info is appreciated. No doubt that after expansion there will be another AfD debate, after which the issue will be settled one way or another. Mjroots (talk) 07:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:34, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation I think the original debate reached the wrong outcome (I count three RS'es in the restored article) with respect to the GNG, but the recently-released report is itself an additional reliable source, and, when added to the article will address the concerns of all the delete !votes in the original AfD. Thus, it really doesn't even have to come through DRV at all--a relisting isn't required, but any editor should be able to start a fresh AfD if they still feel it inappropriate for a standalone article. Jclemens (talk) 08:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion An accident report was done and recommendations were made. Same thing happens in the United States after trivial accidents. Nobody killed, plane put into service, cargo flight. Nothing notable....William 23:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am a little puzzled why this is at DRV. I believe the consensus in the AfD discussion was clearly in favour of deletion at the time. If new sources have emerged that would likely make the subject notable (I don't have an opinion on this) that doesn't make the AfD outcome incorrect. The article could have been restored to be worked on with the new source(s), but I didn't receive a request to undelete. I would have no objection to Mjroots restoring the article and making these changes, and if anyone then feels that another AfD is warranted, so be it. --Michig (talk) 08:43, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I accepted the AfD result at the time. Having created the original article, I don't want to be perceived to be abusing my admin privileges by undeleting the original article and then expanding upon it. Thus I've asked for opinions as to the consensus in respect of this course of action. If the article is restored and expanded, there is nothing to stop any editor bringing it back at AfD in good faith. Should the article then fail a second AfD, I will accept that and won't come back a second time. Mjroots (talk) 19:45, 25 December 2012 (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 page above. Please do not modify it.
Christian Weston Chandler (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Relist Subject of article has increased in notability since the deletion of the article. Subject has been written about in more places over the past three years. Subject was represented in a criminal case by a lawyer with a Wikipedia article about him. 68.50.128.91 (talk) 09:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability is not inherited being represented by a notable individual does not "rub off". If there is more non-trivial coverage about the subject in third party reliable sources so it might meet the WP:GNG, and not all foul of WP:BLP1E then you should point a few out. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 10:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A vulnerable living person who's the butt of long joke pages on the ED... what could possibly go wrong with that?

    Sarcasm aside, let's not do this. If we do, it should be fully-protected indefinitely, as a pre-emptive measure, but I'd be much happier if we didn't.—S Marshall T/C 18:06, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've looked at the article, and I am not going to restore for discussion: this is a BLP of a non-newsworthy individual. I would suggest create-protection, because I think we should look at the asserted sources before anyone re-creates this. DGG ( talk ) 01:40, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for your comment, but the decision of whether or not to relist will be established by consensus. 70.241.73.164 (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No sign of reputable sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per S Marshall. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Chandler has grown in notoriety since this article was deleted. There are many references to him on the Web as well as print, television, radio, and video games. Let's at least relist for discussion given his criminal trial.70.241.73.164 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • My search found nothing really worthwhile, but the subject doesn't seem to meet WP:WIALPI, nor was the previous content particularly malicious, so I don't know that create protection is really required for an article on him, even if one doesn't seem to be warranted at this time. Jclemens (talk) 08:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to point out, Jclemens limited his search to Google News. 70.241.73.164 (talk) 04:18, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Definately relist. Not even sure why there is even debate given Chandler's notoriety. 2600:100D:B00B:735C:0:1F:627E:1B01 (talk) 21:44, 27 December 2012 (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/2012_December_20&oldid=1078422521"