Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 March 14

14 March 2010

File:Once Upon A Midnight publicity photo 2.jpg

File:Once Upon A Midnight publicity photo 2.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This image was deleted at FfD; the FfD closure was endorsed here at DRV last month. The verdict in both debates was that the image did not meet the nonfree content criteria, and that deletion was appropriate in the absence of evidence that the image was in the public domain. However, I've been discussing the issue with an anonymous user, and they have made their case for why the image is in the public domain. As such, this is not a review of the FfD closure but a procedural nomination given the presentation of new information, which can be found here. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the anon is confusing released to the public and released into the public domain - there aren't synonymous. PhilKnight (talk) 17:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Can't see that discussion adds much, it's all unsubstantiated assertion. Even if true it doesn't alter the copyright status, like many publicity shots it still isn't public domain. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• Hi 82.7.40.7, I agree with your comments. PhilKnight (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• List at FfD. This seems to come down to technicalities on "public domain", not of process. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. Evidence is not firm enough to demonstrate that the file is free. The image having been shown in a variety of news sources does not mean the image is free. Each of those sources might have held licences or sublicences to reproduce the image issued by the copyright holder or licencee. In my view the photographer telling the band it can use the photo (for what purposes we don't know), and the band then telling news sources they can print it, do not without more constitute release into the public domain or a disclaimer of copyright by its holder. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment It seems that the photograph actually was taken in Japan, not Australia. Per Japanese copyright law, photographs taken in Japan are copyrighted for their creators' lifetimes plus fifty years, and the author has the exclusive right of reproduction of his work. The author "may establish a right of publication in favor of a person who undertakes to publish the work in a document or picture," but the latter person "may not authorize a third person to reproduce the work." Also, Japanese law dictates that "whenever the holder of the right of publication intends to make a new reproduction of the work with respect to which his right of publication has been established, the holder of the right of publication shall notify the author, in advance, of such intention." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I was asked to come here. I actually worked on this show and I am in contact with the Japanese producer. I can verify that this is a free image. The photographer was hired under the understanding that this would be the case and would be happy to see the pics on this site. Is there a way to contact an admin user directly without posting e-mails in a public forum? (123.2.53.91 (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC))

Jewish Peoplehood

Jewish Peoplehood (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While I agree with Black Kite that the discussion did not show an overwhelming consensus I feel that a close reading of the arguments would close the discussion as delete. At the very least I would like the AFD re-listed for further comment. A NC close does not really help anyone. Joe407 (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

• You seem to be saying the close was within the range of admin discretion, so I'm not sure why this is listed. DRV isn't just for disagreeing with the result it's for fault in the process which you seem to acknowledge hasn't happened. As for NC not helping anyone, I'm not sure I'd say a delete or keep is intended to help anyone either. NC closes often set the reasonable message that the article is actually borderline and needs more work lest it simply be renonminated in a month or two. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Lest it simply be renominated later. I agree: it does need more work. Let's allow time for development to take place, instead of immediately pushing for a revised decision. Hertz1888 (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Renominate at AfD after two months, with a vary careful but succinct nomination that addresses the keep arguments posed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jewish peoplehood, and be sure that before doing this, you've eliminated the option of redirect to Mordecai Kaplan which you may try (once) at any time. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • WP:NOR, WP:SYN and WP:NPOV are rarely reasons for deletion, but for editing, often with with significant removal of content. They are usually editorial problems, and AfD is not a forum for resolving them in less than extreme cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse There is a point in NC instead of relist--when the article needs extensive rewriting, as here, its more likely to get it. A relist now would probably produce a longer, but equally inconclusive debate. DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse - well within the range of discretion. Agree this could be renominated for deletion in due course. PhilKnight (talk) 18:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse I can't imagine how it could get closed any other way (other than maybe keep, which would be a stretch). Hobit (talk) 19:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
• Closer's comment As Hobit said, I couldn't really - even at a stretch - see any other close than NC. That said, I wouldn't be opposed to a relist if it'll shed more light. Black Kite 00:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• endorse per DGG. No clear reason to relist other than not liking the result. I'd likely have favored deletion but that's not the relevant issue here. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. NC is a good close here - it leaves it more than open to be re-nominated in the not too distant future. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

• Comment. I may have misunderstood DRV. I saw the close and did not understand it. From the remarks made and the policies cites, I thought it was a sure delete. When Black Kite did not clearly explain his close, after requesting clarification at his talk page, I brought the issue here to see if people agreed with his analysis of the arguments and the close. Given the responses I'm seeing here I guess I'll wait a month or so and relist ir for AFD. Perhaps different people will weigh in at the next AFD. Joe407 (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse. WP:RELIST explicitly prohibits relisting of debates with more than two or three contributors. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse closure I cannnot discern a consensus either way in the discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse Good close. Bring this back up in a few months if you're so inclined. Ray^Talk 02:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)