Jump to content

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Deletion review | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by SheepLinterBot (talk | contribs) at 18:52, 18 February 2023 ([t. 1] fix font tags linter errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< February 18 Deletion review archives: 2008 February February 20 >

19 February 2008

[edit]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Lakshmi Tatma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)
  • Endorse deletion; consensus was formed that WP:BLP issues meant that there shouldn't be an article here. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is not a valid argument, though I wonder why a girl who's notable only for a parasitic twin is more notable than people who worked to entertain an audience and succeeded.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion I would be inclined to have argued for keeping. Since her parents were fine with the attention and so we have no reason to think that the relevant people did not want an article or that it was creating any problems. In general, unless we get an actual request for deletion of an article deleting due to penumbra BLP issues is a bad idea (see User:JoshuaZ/Thoughts on BLP for more about the notion of a penumbra BLP). However, I am generally in favor of the community determining by consensus whether or not a penumbra BLP warrants deletion. Consensus was clear in this case. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I think BLP concerns were uncalled for. the publicity was desired, was widespread, and was not about anything shameful. Most articles of parasitic twins have in fact been deleted here, but I think these extremly rare anomalies do in fact reach public notability and belong here. The sources included BBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, CBC, and Times of India--how much more can possibly be needed to show worldwide interest? If the public thinks something notable as shown by coverage in multiple international world-famous unquestionably reliable sources, what more can possibly be needed? Or do we think we know better than the rest of the world? DGG (talk) 04:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Info: Using new information I have put a new version in User:Anthony Appleyard/Lakshmi Tatma. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant endorse deletion but permit recreation Even as I would have !voted "keep" at AfD (per, on the whole, DGG), I cannot conclude that the result of the AfD, which was closed consistent with the discussion, was plainly contrary to established policy, and so the closure as "delete" seems appropriate (my thoughts on BLP are, as ever, quite similar to those of JoshuaZ, and my thinking here tracks closely with his). Anthony's version, though, certainly seems to present clear assertions of significant notability, such that it is probably fair to say that this is no longer a case of a marginally notable subject for whose article discretion to delete per BLP might be had. Whether we should consider that new information here for the purposes of establishing notability, as often we do when recreation is sought, or whether we confine ourselves here to the threshold issue of marginal BLP notability and consider broader notability issues at a new AfD, is an open procedural question, but really one about which only we PIIers need worry; because WP:BLPUNDEL, notwithstanding its premise's resting on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Bdj RfAr or, more broadly, of the role of the ArbCom in policy creation, development, and understanding, is rather en vogue, we would probably do well to follow the former course and not to restore the article until it is relatively clear that it will not be deleted straightaway at AfD. Joe 08:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If overturn, should we histmerge from User:Anthony Appleyard/Lakshmi Tatma? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not keep. I don't agree with keeping this article.There was significant media attention to Manar Maged, who also had a parasitic twin; one much rarer than Lakshmi's.So why was that deleted? also, although the operation on Manar failed 13 months later and Laksmi's was a succses, who knows what might happen to little Lakshmi? she may also die from infection, and wouldn't that affect the BLP policy?I'm just a bit confused.I am sooooo cool! 22:05, 21 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamsocool! (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • She is much more worthy of notice than the thousands of routine pop music songs that each has its own article on Wikipedia; I have just waded through a list of about 20 song articles to make requested obstructed moves to correct minor letter case errors in their names. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, nobody is more worthy of notice merely by being born than the celebrated and enjoyed products of hard work and creativity. More importantly, I fail to see how the repeated complaints about pop music are helping anything; it's very hard to compare the two subjects for notability, and base assertions are unlikely to change anyone's mind.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change of opinion. Yes, i do agree to restore this.If Lakshmi is important enough to be on the Bodyshock series, she is of worthy of being in Wikipedia.I am sooooo cool! 19:49, 24 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
National board for professional teaching standards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

Although I suspect this page was deleted because it was a stub I plan to fully edit this entry and make it a useful contribution to the Wiki. It is a large organization, which represents more than 60,000 teachers and is credible enough for recognition on this site. Please note the administrator who deleted this post is no longer active. Obviously, it needs to be capitalized and edited. If capitalization will allow me to recreate the entry, I will just do that.Malonem2 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
Hema Sinha (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD)

I see absolutely no consensus and further, no reason for closure. Relist if necessary as there's no consensus for delete either, but to close based on one questionable keep that doesn't show that the subject passes WP:BIO. Yes, I was the original nominator, but I think this needs far more discussion before a close Travellingcari (talk) 18:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the close was imperfect in not closing it as "No Consensus", but the net result is the same. The close isn't binding, nor an endorsement of the article, so there seems little here to review. I also notice that you haven't discussed this with the closing admin, merely notified them of the review. This isn't part of dispute resolution and we aren't here to tell the closing admin off. I would suggest you discuss with the closing admin, maybe they will be willing to update their close to No Consensus. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to close, relist it like the other ones at AfD. Also it appears that the closing editor isn't even an admin. I brought it here because it appears to be an improper early closure and it needs another opinion. Travellingcari (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah ok, hadn't noticed they weren't an admin, it is still good form to discuss it with them first before brining it here. Still don't see it as a big issue, it ran for 8 days which is more than the prescribed 5 days, a no-consensus close which is effectively a keep is not an unreasonable result. How long do we wait, if we get one more opine one way or another? two? three? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The closer can discuss it with me if s/he wants, they haven't made any attempt. Normally when it's relisted it's brought back up to the top for attention and input. Saves re-nominating it immediately because it's still unsourced and there's no evidence she passes WP:BIO. Some are re-listed ad nauseum. See the recent Wikipdia:Articles for deletion/Great Falls Police Department, for one that was re-listed until something that passed as consensus. OTOH Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Agency 2.0 (2nd nomination) is an example of what shouldn't have to happen if closes are done according to what appears to be policy. Travellingcari (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to not have read point 1 in the box at the top of this page "Deletion Review is to be used where someone is unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator (or other editor) in question" - the onus is on you to start the discussion, not vice-versa. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I closed this discussion because it was posted, one person commented with a keep, and no other comments had been made for several days. Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 19:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

and as I said above, that's a cause for relisting, not automatic keep since the keep did not establish notability per WP:BIO Travellingcari (talk) 19:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will agree with that, because, true its a cause for relisting, however, have you noticed how may AFD convo's have been relisted but still not commented on? Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's reopen this and relist this so it can reach a consensus. Happy Editing, Dustitalk to me 19:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should have come here first. I just relisted the AFD in question and undid the closing as it was quite obvious to me that the article should have been relisted, not closed, especially a non-admin close (no offense meant Dustihowe, you made a good faith close, but not accurate according to policy for non-admin closures). Anywho, I went to Dustihowe's talkpage after undoing the close and relisting to inform him and saw this DRV notice, so here I am! In other words, Hema Sinha is now appropriately relisted instead of closed. Cheers, Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 19:45, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Keeper, and thanks Dusti for the discussion. As far as I'm concerned, *this* discussion can now be closed Travellingcari (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2008 (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 article above. Please do not modify it.
====
File:Waterboard3-small.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (restore|cache|IfD)

The closer of this debate said that "I believe this image is not replaceable with a free image. Any drawing would either be a derivative or original research" That is senseless: are all illustrations on Wikipedia original research, or derivative works of existing illustrations?. It seems like ordinary research synthesis to me, which is what encyclopedizing is. This image clearly fails the Non-free content criteria, and does so in such a convincing way that there is an example of unacceptable use on WP:NONFREE that applies: Images #4 "An image whose subject happens to be a war, to illustrate an article on the war, unless the image has achieved iconic status as a representation of the war or is historically important in the context of the war (e.g. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima)." Replace "war" with "waterboarding" and this use is verbatim prohibited by our guidelines. Overturn and delete. ➪HiDrNick! 18:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, seems likely to fail item 7 of the WP:FU image specific criteria - "Paintings and other works of visual art: For critical commentary, including images illustrative of a particular technique or school." (In this case technique or school of course means artistic technique rather than torture technique) it needs critical commentary on the image, not on the subject of the image. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 18:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong endorse keep - The arguments for keeping presented at the IFD discussion (which I do not see linked here, as it should have been) were compelling, and the close was correct, as nearly all editors maintained that the image is irreplaceable and of extremely high importance for our encyclopedia. The editor proposing the image be deleted from Wikipedia has apparently not actually read the detailed rationale and other background information at Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg. Badagnani (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong endorse, keep yet again. Previous Deletion attempt is here. At the absolute least this is fine for Tuol Sleng Genocide Museum and Vann Nath. It is a photograph of a painting, done by a waterboarding torture victim in a historic, world-famous prison setting. As Waterboarding's definition is strongly contested by American conservative partisans, this image is non-replaceable: it one of the few demonstrated images of a depiction of waterboarding by someone who underwent the horrible torture. Add in the fact of the extremely notable historic context of the painting, from one of the Khmer Rouge prisons, and this is not replaceable. Any hand drawing would be OR as the definition of waterboarding is disputed by partisan editors. Keep. Is this forum shopping? Not under copyright: Note from Image:Waterboard3-small.jpg#Copyright_Information:
"As far as I can tell, this painting would not qualify for international copyright protection. The Khmer Rouge were not signatories to the Berne convention or any international copyright treaties. No subsequent government signed up to the Berne convention or anything similar; In 1996 Cambodia signed an agreement with the U.S. to bring some element of IPR rights into it's law, but it was 2003 before the Law on Copyrights and Related Rights was actually passed. Hence this painting predates copyright law in Cambodia, and any copyright claims under international treaty or convention in other countries.[1][2][3][4] Chris Bainbridge (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)"[reply]
This is an important consideration. Lawrence § t/e 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the two you mention I can see a possibility it would be ok, however what I don't understand is that if this is such an important and significant image for either why the articles make no real mention of it, there is no discussion of it, nothing to indicate why the image is so important to either. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a historic representation by Vann Nath of the torture he suffered. That is significant; add in that 20,000+ went into that prison, but only 7 came out makes it moreso significant. Add in the fact that Chris Bainbridge's research shows this painting isn't copyrighted anyway... it's a slam dunk endorse/keep/close. Lawrence § t/e 19:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't ask why it was important, I asked why if it was so significant to those two articles they barely mention it? As above fairuse requires some level of critical commentary, outside that it's not difficult to see why it can be perceived as "decorative". The copyright issue I would say that Copyright law can be horrendously complex, two experienced lawyers can disagree as to the status, It's not really for Deletion review to determine and assume such a stance. I'd run this past the WMF legal rep to get their view. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is discussed in the caption, as well as now in the section about the Khmer Rouge in the Waterboarding article. Let's move on, please, now, to improving our encyclopedia, thanks. Badagnani (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A caption isn't discussion or critical commentary and certainly isn't any significant as the claims here are that it's really really important. The Waterboarding article probably has the weakest fair use claim of the lot, but regardless the dicussion needs to occur where it is used, not just on one of the places it is used. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know a thing about international copyright law, we'd have to ask a guru at the fair use desk about that one. As it stands, the image is tagged as covered by copyright; if it were marked PD, we wouldn't be having this discussion. If someone wants to attempt to change that tag to public domain and see if it sticks, I don't have any objection to that. My understanding is that a photograph of a 2-D artwork does not have any copyright of it's own, not being a creative work, so if (if) the painting is in fact PD then the image is free to use anywhere: Waterboarding, you can print it on a T-shirt, or make your own "Waterboarding = Torture" infoboxen. ➪HiDrNick! 19:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse keep, see no compelling argument to ignore what the community already decided.Nomen NescioGnothi seauton 19:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Based on new research, here, this image is now validly public domain. This DRV can be safely closed. Lawrence § t/e 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no convincing evidence that this is public domain. To determine that, we would have to prove this was PD in Cambodia in 1996, which would require knowing what the state of the laws were in Cambodia prior to Jan 1, 1996. So far, no one has shown any evidence relating to this. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Endorse Keep I would like to directly address the argument: 'Replace "war" with "waterboarding" and this use is verbatim prohibited by our guidelines.' One simply can't replace one word with another and assume the guideline would come to the same conclusion. Wars are widely photographed and there is a high likelihood that free images are available. If we allow non-iconic war photos then we ultimately are saying copyright on such images is meaningless, we can take any one we want. Waterboarding is very different. It is done in secret. Images of the actual procedure are rare. Exactly what it consists of is hotly debated. The U.S. Government considers it classified. The CIA recently destroyed all footage of its post-9/11 use. So an image by a victim is exceptionally important and irreplaceable.--agr (talk) 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Between this and the photo linked on the article page, we have two sources from which to draw an image, which is plenty. I don't think what it consists of is hotly debated, just what it constitutes (torture or not torture?). Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you read through the archives at Talk:Waterboarding you will find that what waterboarding consists of has indeed been debated. The "torture or not torture" issue is another reason for keeping this image. Any image we drew would be criticized as POV for showing the procedure too harshly or not harshly enough. The original visual testimony of a victim is unique in this case and therefore essential to the article.--agr (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have set a copyrequest to an appropriate email should hope to hear back soon. (Hypnosadist) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (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/2008_February_19&oldid=1140155817"