Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2022 February 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2022 February 14
2022 February 16 >

15 February 2022[edit]

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

Image shows a building from France. English Wikipedia should accept this via {{FoP-USonly}} tag. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the image and description. -FASTILY 22:24, 15 February 2022 (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.
File:Tour Majunga.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Image shows a building from France. English Wikipedia should accept this via {{FoP-USonly}} tag. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:18, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why the nominator jumped straight to DRV, this qualifies for WP:SOFTDELETE. Courtesy ping for @ShakespeareFan00. For reference, the image and description. -FASTILY 22:24, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fastily: my prior request for the restoration of another file of the same name at UNDEL forum was explicitly denied, on the ground that the file was deleted via a formal discussion process (like FFD). Thus deletion review is the best option. Also, unlike Commons, enwiki does not have a feature that will mark usernames with "(A)" if those users are admins. There will be some cases where the admins who deleted some files are no longer admins today. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. I was not aware you had already inquired at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion -FASTILY 04:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: to be clear that was about a different file (image of Villa Savoye), but my request was denied. If I requested again at UNDEL for these two files (of two different buildings in the same no commercial-FOP country, my requests may be denied again on the grounds that these were deleted via FFD/PUF and not PROD. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:16, 16 February 2022 (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.
Mayonnaise Clinic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was an invalid speedily deletion under WP:G3. My creation of the article was not WP:VANDALISM but in good faith with my reasoning in the following paragraph. Additionally, it was created in 2014 while the speedy deletion was in 2018, so neither would it have fallen under WP:R3 as it was not a recently created "implausible" misnomer. I was also not notified of the nomination or deletion.

It is not unreasonable to assume that a reader unfamiliar with the clinic or Irish geography would assume that "Mayo" is not an original full word, but a commonly encountered shortened form of Mayonnaise. They would then arrive by hypercorrection at the conclusion that "Mayonnaise Clinic" is the proper, long form of Mayo Clinic. 93 (talk) 10:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, it's a pretty silly redirect if you ask me but "one editor thinks that the redirect is silly" isn't a qualifier for WP:CSD#G3 and Google says that people sometimes use "Mayonnaise Clinic" as a whimsical reference to the clinic. Overturn deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion - roughly per Jo-Jo. It can always be taken to RfD for a proper discussion, but it certainly doesn't meet the G3 standards. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Bad deletion. This simply was not vandalism. ✗plicit 14:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with option to send to RFD. Not vandalism, though I would say it's not a very plausible redirect. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm not sure how I would !vote in an RfD, but it certainly does not meet any speedy deletion criteria. Thryduulf (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as not vandalism, and not any other obvious CSD. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 21 February 2022 (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.
File:10 Commandments in Ilocano.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closed as delete because no freedom of panorama here. However, the text is a text of the Ten Commandments (presumably in Ilocano language), which should automatically be public domain. Philippine language translations of the Biblical-era law were formulated in the past (likely Spanish-era), hence the original Filipino translators of the Ten Commandments in all Philippine languages are already dead for more than 50 years. Thus eligible for Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:34, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

JWilz12345, I'm guessing this file was more-or-less the same as File:10 commandments in Ilokano.JPG? (Perhaps a sysop can verify.) That file has now been on Commons for several years without incident, so you should be able to use it instead; as long as it's available, we probably don't need to work out the knotty copyright issues here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Extraordinary Writ nope, the image you gave was an image by a different uploader (Filipinayzd). The image I am requesting for restoration (via DelRev since it was deleted via a PUF/FFD) is a file by Jayzl-Nebre Villafania (a.k.a. Nasugbu batangas). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I figured the one would be a decent substitute for the other. As to this particular image: a temp-undelete might be useful. The copyright issue is tricky since even if the text is public-domain, the sculpture itself could arguably be subject to copyright (example). The best choice would probably be to relist at FfD, where these arguments can be aired in the first instance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Extraordinary Writ: the deleted image is of a different plaque and is zoomed in much more closely on the tablet itself, but it is otherwise similar. The text of the commandments is slightly different (there are lots of versions in English) and there is a tiny bit of text at the bottom which I don't think is part of the commandments. Hut 8.5 08:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have reviewed the deleted image; it is similar, though not word for word identical, to File:10 commandments in Ilokano.JPG, just on different colour tablets. I would undelete as I don't believe there is any original content that attracts copyright protection. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    If the nominator wants to withdraw, don't let my view stand in the way. Stifle (talk) 10:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suppose strictly speaking I endorse the close as delete which was the consensus at the time. I'd certainly approve an undeletion now. As so often before, I'm struck by how easily and frequently FFD will rubber-stamp the removal of an image that would help us build an encyclopaedia.—S Marshall T/C 09:11, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't decide whether they're supposed to represent cracks or lightning bolts, but the bits around the edges definitely look above the threshold of originality to me, not de minimis, and deliberately painted-on. The text's irrelevant. —Cryptic 09:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • These squiggles are below the threshold of originality in the US (evidence). I don't see what makes those squiggles any more original. I'm no artist, but give me a white paintbrush and ten minutes, and I could do that.—S Marshall T/C 11:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to that evidence a big part of the reason why these squiggles were denied registration is because they were part of an alphabetic system and that the squiggles were not "pictorial content not essential to the purpose of the character". Things would probably be different in the case of the image under discussion here, since it isn't an alphabet and the squiggles are not meant to work like one either. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Help me understand how that matters? To my eyes, the lightning bolts seem like incidental decoration not essential to the purpose of the Ten Commandments.—S Marshall T/C 13:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • That's exactly the problem - if the bolts/cracks were an integral part of the typography/scripture one could say that they are not copyrightable for the same reasons that typography isn't. Being decorative makes them copyrightable, in these terms. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, the image and description at the time of deletion. Like Cryptic, I see no issues with the text, but the statue's background texture and lightning accents could push it over the threshold of originality. -FASTILY 09:41, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the tablet art is substantial indeed. I'm not sure if the art is classed as a sculpture or a graphic work, though. In any case, Red X I withdraw my nomination for file restoration. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:52, 15 February 2022 (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/2022_February_15&oldid=1073764591"