Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 30: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 01:01, 1 December 2010

< 2010 November 29

Deletion review archives: 2010 November

2010 December 1 >

30 November 2010

Manuel Rosa

A Portuguese (amaterur?) historian, author of several books, one of which (with a controversial claim about Columbus) seems to have gained notoriety outside Portugal. His claim has been recently re-reported (and brought to my attention for the first time) in numerous media: English: [1] - CNBC, [2] - The Telegraph, - Daily Mail; Polish: [http://www.wprost.pl/ar/220206/Kolumb-byl-Polakiem-synem-krola/ - Wprost, [3] - Onet.pl, [4] - Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), [5] - Gazeta Wyborcza. I think this is sufficient to prove notability of his theory, and thus, his own. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 22:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability isn't inherited so it is quite possible that his theory is notable, without being notable himself. If the only coverage stems from writings about the theory, surely you'd just write an article about that theory and possibly redirect the author to that article? Or is there sufficient depth of coverage about the author to warrant a standalone article? (If it's the latter can't you just ask an admin to usefy it for you, work it up a bit to use that in depth coverage and move it back to mainspace?) --82.7.40.7 (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have temporarily restored the history of the article so that the discussion can be facilitated for the non-admins also. DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, I thought about stubbing the book, but it doesn't appear notable. That leaves, indeed, the theory or the author. The theory is what is getting the publicity, although it is strongly connected to the author; it is HIS theory, nobody else seems to be strongly supporting it. For the same token, he is not know for much else but this theory. I'd prefer to rereference the deleted bio to creating a new article on his theory, if for no other reason that at least his bio has an obvious name, but I am not sure what name we could use for his theory. Something in this mess is notable, and given that is is hard to separate the man from his theory, why not go with the man? Authoring a notable theory and getting substantial coverage in the media for it seems to satisfy the notability criteria for me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 00:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:M-Energy Drink.jpg

Based on the discussion we have archived about the image, it was a clear consensus that it should stay.

Furthermore, no clarity for the reasoning behind the decision was made following a declined appeal to the admin for reconsideration.

The user who put it up for deletion did not return to make an opposing statement.

The undisputed statement was:

"It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved, if it is still recognizable as a letter, than in the U.S. it may not be copyrighted."

Based on the previous statement:

"As described at Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts the "M" is therefore not subject to copyright claims. This leaves only Trademark issues with respect to the use of this image."

I have since applied the image with the following template:

This work contains material which may be subject to trademark laws in one or more jurisdictions. Before using this content, please ensure that it is used to identify the entity or organization that owns the trademark and that you have the right to use it under the laws which apply in the circumstances of your intended use. You are solely responsible for ensuring that you do not infringe someone else's trademark.
These restrictions are independent of the copyright status. See also the Wikipedia trademark disclaimer and Wikipedia:Logos.

The side of caution has already been taken. There's no reason at all to delete the image. This image is linked in two articles where it's a contribution. Editor182 (talk) 05:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have to go back to first principles, which is the relevant law: [6]. Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts may well be an inaccurate representation of the law. It seems to me there are two questions: whether the logo constitutes a "mere variation of typographic ornamentation, lettering or coloring", or "typeface as typeface". I don't think it falls into either category. It is much more than a mere variation of lettering. And it is not "typeface as typeface". Typeface is a form of representation of a set of letter of digits: this logo on the other hand is a creative variation of one letter of the alphabet only. That seems to be the distinction that paragraph (e) gets at by saying "typeface as typeface".--Mkativerata (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you endorse its retrieval based on the image not falling into either category? The trademark template is there for a reason, and I think it's applicable here, not a deletion. Editor182 (talk) 05:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't fall into either category, it is subject to copyright. Categories (a)-(e) list things that are not copyrightable.--Mkativerata (talk) 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the Wikipedia article concerning fonts is fallacious, then it needs to be corrected, but for now, I'm going to stick to agreeing with the statements made above based on Wikipedia:Public domain#Fonts, that it is not subject to copyright claims, and that leaves only Trademark issues which are covered with the template.

If there's doubt, then it should clearly side with being against deletion, and the article can be corrected first and foremost, but I really don't want to beat around the bush with this, an endorse or overturn decision would be good for now. Editor182 (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem to fall within WP:Public domain#fonts either. That says "typefaces and the characters they contain" are not copyrightable. This appears to be neither: it is a creative representation of a single character, not part of a set of characters constituting a typeface. If a publisher had created a typeface by which all letters of the alphabet could be represented like this "M", it would not be copyrightable. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Under U.S. law, typefaces and the characters they contain are considered to be utilitarian objects whose utility outweighs any merit that may exist in protecting their creative elements. As such, typefaces are exempt from copyright protection in the United States (Code of Federal Regulations)." If we're to draw a conclusion for now, then it should side with the "M" logo not being under copyright protection in the US, and the article speaks about having a soft-copy of the design which may then fall under copyright, but this is a photograph, of a can, it's a "hard-hard copy". It's not like the logo being used in the article under fair use, which is a soft-copy of the trademark, although it's still not under copyright protection even then. "Hence the computer file(s) associated with a scalable font will generally be protected even though the specific design of the characters is not. Furthermore, a rasterized representation (e.g. bitmap) of the characters in a scalable font is not protected by copyright in the United States." - Let alone my photograph of a can. Can we draw a conclusion based on what we have now? Editor182 (talk) 06:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the distinction is between "font" and "typeface" on the one hand, and a stand-alone creative representative of one character on the other. Of course, if I'm wrong in making that distinction then I'm more than happy to be corrected. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm going with what was stated above; "It does not matter how stylized it is, nor how much artistic effort was involved - if it is still recognizable as a letter - then in the US it may not be copyrighted." I think going into this topic any further will be perpetuating unreasonable doubt and pulling at straws. The admin offered no rationale for the deletion, except to be on the safe side and the user who put the image up for deletion withdrew themselves from the discussion in acceptance of the information presented on the contrary. Perhaps this is about not being so fast to reverse a firm decision made by an administrator, but it was a firm decision based on no research or justification, only a self-assured unwillingness to consider otherwise. If something solid comes up in the future to justify its deletion, then it may be removed, but at this point in time, it should certainly be restored, as there is nothing thats been presented to validate or justify deletion. Editor182 (talk) 08:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and restore: The Monster "M" is clearly just that, a letter "M" as such it is utilitarian (in so far as copyright is concerned). One does not need to see the rest of the alphabet to know that it is an M, and it clearly falls under the specific law on fonts in the U.S. Again, there may be reasonable trademark issues with how the image is used, but copyright and the resulting requirement for a fair use rational do not apply. —MJBurrage^(T•C) 18:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone gave a clear and unbiased response. There is no doubt that this image should rightfully be restored without needless further delay. An incorrect decision is an incorrect decision; whether it was made by an administrator, or a user, the response and subsequent course of action should not be dissimilar and dragged out needlessly, wasting time that could be spent improving articles or resolving other disputes which have cause and reason. Editor182 (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Harry Potter series

I don't feel that there was a clear consensus in this case either way. This should have only ended in a no consensus. Even when you eliminate the !votes there are only two arguments that have disagreement. Outback the koala (talk) 02:49, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that I did contact the closing admin regarding this, also I had requested to userfy the article after the Afd was completed, but did not receive a reply. Outback the koala (talk) 07:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Consensus for deletion, backed by appropriate arguments, was present. There is no reason that this material should not be added to the parent articles, but consensus that this should not stand alone as an article justifies the close. Alansohn (talk) 02:57, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
overturn But for AGF, I'd think this resembles repeatedly nominating an article until it has a consensus to get deleted due to the random fluctuation of who has shown up. If something has gone through multiple AfDs, it should take more than a borderline consensus to delete. Given that multiple of the delete arguments carried no substantial commentary (such as just claiming that it was "unencyclopedic" which is a synonym for IDONTLIKEIT), the consensus is even less strong. While there was also not many secondary sources in the article they do exist outside (for example, Duriez's "Field Guide to Harry Potter" among others) which could be easily incorporated into the article. (And yes, I know that this last argument is more appropriate at AfD but it wasn't brought up then and is relevant because it constitutes new information). JoshuaZ (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I agree with you that this is nonsense, it is repeated nomination until desired outcome is achieved. Spot on. However, the AfD itself is pretty clearly in favor of delete, and admin was within discretion to close as they did. Seems we are in need of a new policy? How about WP:REPEATED?Turqoise127 18:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately such a move is directly against the general principal that consensus can change. The deletion discussion prior to this one seems to be 18 months or so ago, so it's not like it's every week. It'd also have to go both ways, no keep recreating in the hope that you'll get a different outcome this time (I note the first discussion ended in delete). Realistically wikipedia has changed, articles which once were featured may no longer meet minimum standards etc. BLP jas come along, and the overall makeup of the community changes. There will always be articles on a borderline where some believe firmly they should exist, other believe otherwise. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:21, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - As the keep calls amounted to "keep I like it" and little more. While I am a fan myself and could likely rattle off some of these dates from memory (i.e. Dumbledore opens a can of whoop-ass on Grindelwald in 1945), this is just fancruft with no real-world applicability or notability. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Overturn as incorrect reading of consensus. Furthermore. a 5th nomination is almost always an attempt to rely on the randomness of results at AfD--If there's a 10% error, 5 or 6 nominations will result in a delete about half the time regardless of the merits of the article. This should not be permitted without some indication that consensus on the general issue has changed. (the same is of course true of 5 or 6 attempted recreations, but we would ordinarily salt an article after the 3rd time or so, specifically in order to prevent this, and require a prior deletion review before unsalting. The same should be required here--the AfD should have been speedy closed as an attempt to game the system. As for the merits, the complexity of the events,and the fact that the successive books describe many of the key events retrospectively, and not always reliably, makes the article necessary for understanding. It might not be worth bothering with an ordinarily important book, but this is way out of that class. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. First, your opinion on repeated XfDs is not relevant to this DRV. If you wish to change how repeated nominations are handled, then an RfC is probably the better venue to attract a broader discussion. You aren't going to change it within this DRV. Second, there is no such thing as an "incorrect reading of consensus". If you yourself would have read the consensus differently and arrived at a different conclusion, that is not a valid reason to overturn an other administrator's decision. That is, in principle, little different from wheel-warring. Tarc (talk) 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I humbly disagree, the opinion IS relevant, because it is AfD #5. Wow. How can you not see that? There without a doubt CAN be an "incorrect reading of consensus". If we have 10 policy based votes and 1 SPA vote for delete yet the admin closes as "delete" then that is incorrect reading of consensus. How can you not see that? Incidentaly, your comment to the above editor verges on rudeness in its tone, I would try to be a little nicer. (Pot calling the kettle black)Turqoise127 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) I don't think that's a fair reading of the repeated nominations. This is not an article that has had repeated consensus to be kept; it's one that's escaped by the skin of its teeth through "no consensus" twice in over two years. It has not had a keep consensus since 2007, when our requirements regarding sourcing and original research were much worse than they are now, and so I don't think it's fair to try to misrepresent a good faith application of WP:CCC as a bad-faith attempt at re-re-re-re-rolling the AfD dice. Reyk _YO! 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- In my opinion the delete !votes were well grounded in policy, and the closing administrator did right in not allowing WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL to trump necessary core policies such as the requirement for reliable sourcing and the ban on speculation. Reyk _YO! 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Regarding the previous AfDs, the recent ones seem to have been closed with little more than a "the result was no consensus" with no further explanation. These closes shouldn't prevent further AfDs: (a) consensus can change, especially "no consensus"; and (b) if the closing admins haven't taken the time to give reasons for the close the closes are not really worth much. The closing admin in this case, on the other hand, clearly found one side objectively more persuasive by reference to core policies (like OR). There's no reason why this close shouldn't be allowed to stand.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

< 2010 November 29

Deletion review archives: 2010 November

2010 December 1 >

@@ Line 68: / Line 68: @@
 *'''Overturn'' as incorrect reading of consensus. Furthermore. a 5th nomination is almost always an attempt to rely on the randomness of results at AfD--If there's a 10% error, 5 or 6 nominations will result in a delete about half the time regardless of the merits of the article.  This should not be permitted without some indication that consensus on the general issue has changed. (the same is of course true of 5 or 6 attempted recreations, but we would ordinarily salt an article after the 3rd time or so, specifically in order to prevent this, and require a prior deletion review before unsalting. The same should be required here--the AfD should have been speedy closed as an attempt to game the system.  As for the merits, the complexity of the events,and the fact that the successive books describe many of the key events retrospectively, and not always reliably, makes the article necessary for understanding.  It might not be worth bothering with an ordinarily important book, but this is way out of that class.  '''[[User:DGG| DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG| talk ]]) 00:15, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 :Wow.  First, your opinion on repeated XfDs is not relevant to this DRV.  If you wish to change how repeated nominations are handled, then an RfC is probably the better venue to attract a broader discussion.  You aren't going to change it within this DRV.  Second, there is no such thing as an ''"incorrect reading of consensus"''.  If you yourself would have read the consensus differently and arrived at a different conclusion, that is not a valid reason to overturn an other administrator's decision.  That is, in principle, little different from wheel-warring. [[User:Tarc|Tarc]] ([[User talk:Tarc|talk]]) 00:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
+:::I humbly disagree, the opinion IS relevant, because it is AfD #5. Wow. How can you not see that? There without a doubt CAN be an "incorrect reading of consensus". If we have 10 policy based votes and 1 SPA vote for delete yet the admin closes as "delete" then that is incorrect reading of consensus. How can you not see that? Incidentaly, your comment to the above editor verges on rudeness in its tone, I would try to be a little nicer. (Pot calling the kettle black)[[User:Turqoise127|<font color="Turqoise">'''Turqoise'''</font>]][[User Talk:Turqoise127|<font color="sky blue">'''127'''</font>]] 01:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 :(ec) I don't think that's a fair reading of the repeated nominations. This is not an article that has had repeated consensus to be kept; it's one that's escaped by the skin of its teeth through "no consensus" twice in over two years. It has not had a keep consensus since 2007, when our requirements regarding sourcing and original research were much worse than they are now, and so I don't think it's fair to try to misrepresent a good faith application of [[WP:CCC]] as a bad-faith attempt at re-re-re-re-rolling the AfD dice. [[User:Reyk|<font color="Maroon">'''Reyk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|'''<font color="Blue">YO!</font>''']]</sub> 00:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Endorse'''- In my opinion the delete !votes were well grounded in policy, and the closing administrator did right in not allowing [[WP:ILIKEIT]] and [[WP:ITSUSEFUL]] to trump necessary core policies such as the requirement for [[WP:V|reliable sourcing]] and the ban on [[WP:OR|speculation]]. [[User:Reyk|<font color="Maroon">'''Reyk'''</font>]] <sub>[[User talk:Reyk|'''<font color="Blue">YO!</font>''']]</sub> 00:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)