Battle of Chenab – Deletion unanimously endorsed. This closure does not preclude admin action against the appellant if an admin considers their conduct actionably disruptive. Sandstein 21:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
<The Nominator "Noorullah" has a strong personal bias and had placed my legitimate Wikipedia page for Articles for deletion in which this user "Noorullah" was the only person in discussion. He had mentioned the reasoning for the removal was that the article relied upon only Hari Ram Gupta source and had some copy past to it, however the account of this event is undeniable and is recorded in Sikh History from Persian Sources page 31 which is a contemporary source-https://archive.org/details/SikhHistoryFromPersianSources/page/n43/mode/1up?q=1764&view=theater> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Festivalfalcon873 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly involved Endorse - The statement that the nominator was the only person in the discussion is incorrect. There were two other Delete statements, so that Delete was the correct closure, and the only possible closure. The appellant is entitled to submit a draft for review with additional sources, or to create a new article with additional sources subject to AFD.
Slight Involvement - In December 2022, I reviewed Draft:Battle of Chenab, declined it as duplicated by Battle of Chenab, and redirected the draft to the article. Both the draft and the article were by the appellant. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you are correct. It seems like there were two other individuals, Southasianhistorian and ImperialAficionado, who seem to be from the same background as “Noorullah” who attempted to dismiss the article as being GNG or having no historical background as simply pushing the delete procedure to help the nominator. Having already citied a contemporary source , there are other contemporary sources such as Nur Mohammad on folios 186-90 and Jang Namah 190-210 which have verified this event. This event is historically accurate without doubt, however the nominator does not seem neutral in his approach for pushing articles for deletion. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 04:54, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there was no other way to close that discussion, and Festivalfalcon873's assertion that the AfD nom was the only participant is factually incorrect. Please AGF, Falcon. StarMississippi 01:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also notified the closer which you neglected to do (mandatory), nor did you discuss it with them (suggested) StarMississippi 01:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had emailed the closer but have not receive any response back just yet. Regardless thank you for letting him know. Festivalfalcon873 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Everything about this appeal smells fishy. From the now-retracted claim of there being only one delete !vote, and the dismissal of the other two as being from the same background, to the claimed email notification and the scare quotes around “Noorullah”. One problem with DRV is that it costs an unscrupulous appellant nothing to give their pet page another shot here at DRV, at which point multiple editors end up wasting time for a week responding to a meritless appeal that has zero chance of overturning the original result. In most legal systems, a court may refuse to hear an appeal if it is prima facie without merit. We need a similar mechanism to short-circuit or speedy such requests. "I'm not happy with the AfD result and am not above twisting the truth to get my way" should be met with a TROUTing, not a weeklong debate. Owen×☎ 12:32, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:OwenX appears to be expressing a concern about how DRV should deal with vexatious litigation. The boomerang principle applies to vexatious or frivolous filings at WP:ANI and WP:AN, where some form of "OP blocked" is not an uncommon closure. I have observed that stupid or disruptive Requests for Arbitration result in nothing more than dismissal of the request. One possibility would be to have Speedy Endorses, possibly when the DRV appeal is factually wrong (as this one is). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Deleting administrator did not consider threshold of originality argument posed by me. There were two relicense votes and one delete vote, I do not think that's a consensus to delete.
For the benefit of this discussion, I will paste the argument here:
"The only part that could be above TOO is the flags on either side of the Seychelles flag (I can't tell which one it is), but there isn't much sufficient artistic detail to differentiate it from other drawings of flags. Addition of mere shading does not constitute copyright protection (see File:Arkansas map by Sean Pecor.png)." —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 11:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It's hard to assess this without actually seeing the file, but it's not clear why you think that the deleting administrator didn't consider your argument. The one "delete" !vote specifically addressed the TOO issue, stating that they believed some elements of the image too complex to be ineligible for copyright protection. The other "relicense" !vote seems have been basically a WP:MEETOO !vote, but file discussions aren't necessary decided by simply counting !votes even if it wasn't. If the file that was deleted is the same one shown on this website, then the two bird elements on each side of the flag do seem (at least in my opinion) to maybe be too close to call, and borderline local files sometimes end up being deleted for reasons similar to c:COM:PCP in order to err on the side of caution if policy-compliant non-free isn't considered possible. Anyway, if you're really quite sure that the file is too simple per c:COM:TOO United States and c:COM:Seychelles to need to be licensed as non-free, then one option would be to simply upload a higher resolution version of the file to Commons under an appropriate PD license because that's really where the file should be hosted if it's really PD. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: This probably isn't below Seychelles TOO since Seychelles was a British colony, so their copyright law is probably modeled under c:COM:TOO UK, which is low. I'm proposing a {{PD-ineligible-USOnly}} relicense if it's not clear. If you want to see the logo to assess yourself, it's similar to this. I think that this design is similar in creativity to File:JeetKuneDo.svg, which was declared by the US copyright office to be below TOO. The birds don't seem to be that creative of a design, and addition of mere shading does not constitute copyright protection. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of what you posted above was posted in the FFD; so, I don't think you can really claim the deleting administrator didn't consider any of that; therefore, I also don't think you can claim the close was improper based on the comments that were posted or based on what you've posted above. In addition, I don't think you can really compare the complexity of the two birds shown in the file linked to below by Extraordinary Writ to the Chinese characters used in the Jeet Kune Do file; letters (even some basic kanji scripts/fonts), in general, are typically considered ineligible for copyright protection and the birds are not letters per se even minus the shading. So, once again, I personally don't think they're clearly too simple and therefore PD elements, absent a specific court case stating as much. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:59, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get my point across well; I was mainly stating that the mere arrangement of the designs itself does not grant copyright protection. As for the bird, it does not appear to be creative. I hate to link to more cases, but I think it is necessary. This fleur-de-lis contains a similar amount of curves, yet it was deemed to be ineligible for copyright protection. Yes, the symbol has existed for a while, but that doesn't mean a derivative work could have gotten copyright protection as it's own rendition. This, combined with the previous argument that addition of shading doesn't provide copyright protection, makes me think this is below TOO.
Your idea that "non of what you posted above was posted in the FFD" is incorrect, as I posted a summary of my argument here - if someone questioned it I would have been more than happy to elaborate. I think the close lacked a rationale, as the deleting admin should have considered both arguments and provided a justified rationale, or even better relist and see what other editors think, rather that "The result of this discussion was: delete". Hence I would advocate for a relist (since an overturn looks unlikely). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:53, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My None of what you posted above was posted in the FFD was in reference to what you posted in the post right above mine (i.e. "None of that you posted [in the post right] above [mine] was posted in the FFD"). My apologies if that was unclear. Anyway, someone did question your argument in the FFD: the "delete" !vote was posted a day after your comment and the other "keep" !vote were added. The FFD remained opened for three more days after the last comment in the discussion, yet you chose not to elaborate. Trying to do so here seems to be more of an attempt to re-argue the FFD, than argue the close was improper per WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. As for examples of court cases, I'm sure you can provide examples of court cases of other logos/images; unless, however, you can provide one specifically related to these particular "birds" or really similar "bird" imagery, then it's going to be hard (at least in my opinion) to try and directly apply them to this case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I argued the close was improper (the second paragraph above starting from "I think the close lacked a rationale") but I doubt there are any court cases relating to birds. Guess I'll just let it go looking at the !votes below. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You participated in a few other FFD discussions listed on that same day as this one, and two of them were closed the same way as this one was closed; moreover, they were closed two days prior to this one being closed. Do you think those two closes should also be reviewed? If not, why? In those two discussions you !voted "delete" and the closes reflected your !votes, whereas in this one you !voted "keep" and the close didn't reflect your !vote. Could that possibly why you felt this close needed to be reviewed? In one of those two discussions your "delete" !vote was It is unclear whether this rendition of the NZ leaf is below TOO, but I think per the PCP this should be deleted, and in the other your "delete" !vote was Delete per nom...Tree is definitely above TOO. How are your delete !votes any different and any less subjective than the one given in this particular FFD discussion that you describe below as being more or less meaningless? Should your !votes have been given less weight because you didn't include any links to other images or to case studies? If not, why? -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think all this proves is TOO has valid yet different interpretations. In this case at least, I considered that all the elements individually and thought "they're all below TOO", but I underestimated the potential of arrangement by itself to surpass the hurdle, which has been pointed out by a lot of people here. In the other two FFDs, the individual elements by themselves had extremely clear creativity put into them plus the unique arrangement, so I !voted delete. When something has a high creativity or a low creativity, it is pretty obvious (and you can just say it). It is only where there is a middle creativity like this image where it gets a bit murky and it may not be obvious. Cheers, —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 17:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Endorse based on my not being familiar with the details of non-free copy rules, but knowing that Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, so any deletion is probably at least a valid exercise of closer discretion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak relist. I don't think the flags/birds/planes/Supermans/whatevers on each side are simple, but I don't see a consensus to delete here and it should be relisted for more opinions. Queen of ♡ | Speak 04:15, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from closer - FFDs involving the licensing status of an image is a little different from other types of deletion discussions. Instead of the application of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it is the application of copyright rules to the image that determine the outcome. The claim that this image falls below the threshold of originality is based on all elements being too simple for copyright including " the flags on either side of the Seychelles flag" which was rebutted with "the birds in the logo are sufficiently complex to warrant the creation of copyright". The drawing of birds is not a simple shape so the rebuttal is in line with the guidance of what constitutes threshold of originality for the US. As such, the argument that this is copyrightable was stronger, and with no agument that there was a valid non-free usage, I closed accordingly. -- Whpq (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this was a particularly good close. First of all, TOO is extremely subjective if you don't link to any case studies/other images, so saying "the birds are sufficiently complex to warrant the creation of copyright" is more or less meaningless. As stated above, as the deleting admin I think you should have considered both arguments and provided a justified rationale, or even better relist and see what other editors think, rather than just a boilerplate "The result of this discussion was: delete". —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:57, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're a Commons administrator, you're obviously experienced in file licensing related stuff and other administrator stuff. Did you try to informally discuss your concerns with the closing admin prior to starting a deletion review? You're not required to do per se, but it's generally considered courteous and sometimes can save time/effort as explained in WP:CLOSECHALLENGE. Wikipedia administrators can change the wording of their closes or even "revert" their closes if they deem it necessary to do so after the fact without requiring a DR. Perhaps it's a moot point now, but perhaps doing so might've ended up resolving things without needing to come here. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My bad; I didn't know you're supposed to discuss concerns with the closing admin - I'll do so next time. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse FFD is one of the areas of Wikipedia where consensus matters the least and factfinding matters the most. I haven't seen it so there's a chance I'm incorrect, but I'm convinced by the argument that it violates NFCC #8, especially given Whpq's analysis above. SportingFlyerT·C 22:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And given the image was linked above, I absolutely agree with the delete arguments. SportingFlyerT·C 22:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Surprised to see we're rehashing this FfD. This is a cut-and-dry case of an obvious non-free image being non-free. Also worth noting that isn't the first time I've observed Matrix taking a dangerously lax approach to TOO. -Fastily 00:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Failed WP:NFCC#8 as a non-free file and was too complex to qualify for {{PD-ineligible}}. ✗plicit 04:39, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't even a close call. The image is possibly above the TOO even without the birds to either side of the Seychelles flag - there's at least three elements of creativity, maybe four, depending on whether the gradient is counted separately from the coloring of the triangles, and that's been ruled enough to be copyrightable in some cases - so we'd still have to treat it conservatively. The argument that this must be PD because the NFL stopped sending baseless cease-and-desists for the use of another symbol of lesser complexity which has been in use for millennia shouldn't need answering. —Cryptic 06:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the direction that this is headed, but for the record I would still like to address the last sentence. I was stating that even though the symbol was used for a long time, a derivative rendition of it could have still theoretically created its own copyright, were it not for TOO. I argued that because of this, the birds/flags (idk which one) were below TOO. Whether all these elements together is above TOO is the dispute in question, but there seems to be consensus that it is (opposed to my view that it's not). —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 16:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC failure is very clear – it fails 10c as well as 8, as the rationale was a generic template which is not specific – so the only question the FFD needed to answer was whether TOO was met, and it's pretty clear that it is. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
G4 speedied on 6 January 2020, ten years after the original AfD in 2010. I find it hard to believe that someone would have held onto a substantially identical copy of the page for a decade. No opinion on the merits of the topic or whether other criteria apply. Deleting admin is no longer active. Paul_012 (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article deleted in 2020 was actually significantly poorer than the one deleted in 2010. The 2020 article had two references (12), neither of which were much good, and a link to his Youtube channel. I've temporarily undeleted for review of all, but for me this is endorse deletion as G4 is accurate considering it is actually a reduced version of the 2010 deleted article. Daniel (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G4 per the McClenon Criterion. You shouldn't be able to evade a G4 by merely removing content from the version deleted at AfD. Of course, any editor is welcome to create a new, properly-sourced article for the subject. Owen×☎ 11:19, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You shouldn't be able to evade a G4 by merely removing content from the version deleted at AfD." Fair enough, but I don't see how that should apply here, to a different stub created by a different person, ten years later. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither the identity of the author nor the date are relevant here. G4 is about content, and only content. It isn't a sanction against an editor, but enforcement of consensus. If consensus determined that a given subject doesn't meet our notability standards, I don't see how the same subject covered by less content will magically meet those standards, regardless of who penned the new, stripped-down version, or how long they've waited to do so. Owen×☎ 12:49, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the G4 for either of two reasons. First, I have identical copies of a lot of things that are more than ten years old on my C: drive and my F: drive. That's what they're for. The idea that someone wouldn't have held onto a substantially identical copy is silly. Second, a substantially worse version of a deleted article should be deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first point is irrelevant, as it's a totally different person creating a totally unrelated version; I should have phrased it differently. And while I see where you're coming from, I still do not believe it to be within the spirit of G4 to overextend the criterion to newly created, entirely different stubs. Identifying such version as "substantially worse" will always be a judgment call, and CSD is for undisputable cases. And G4 should hardly remain appropriate after ten years, as it's most likely that the reason for the deletion no longer applies, which in this case, is the lack of third-party coverage, which now WP:NEXIST.[1][2][3] --Paul_012 (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4 as the re-created version is not sufficiently identical to the deleted version. There is at least one reference in the 2020 version that was not present in the 2010 version. That said, the version that was G4ed would stand zero chance at an AFD and I would strongly recommend a move to draft space if Paul_012 or another user has a genuine interest in developing an article. FrankAnchor 13:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, per Frank, and simply because there ought to be a statue of limitations on G4. I am not defending the content of the page in any way. Mach61 13:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted It depends on how you view "sufficiently identical." I'm not sure this was a copy and paste and significant removal of the old article, and it depends on how strict you want to be in that regard, but it's definitely not ready for mainspace and could easily have been PRODded or maybe even loosely A7'd. SportingFlyerT·C 22:38, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious why you'd think an A7 would be loose - A7 was my immediate reaction on seeing this mentioned on the help desk and looking at the version WilyD deleted. What's the claim of significance here? Appearing in a movie? Heck, I've done that. —Cryptic 06:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how A7 would apply, as it does not apply to any article that makes any credible claim of significance or importance even if the claim is not supported by a reliable source or does not qualify on Wikipedia's notability guidelines (emphasis copied from policy). A person's appearance in a movie and subsequent gain in publicity is a claim to significance (albeit a weak one). FrankAnchor 12:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - substantially the same, only worse. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Essentially same content, minus some content which still was present in the 2010 article. Discussions about limitations of G4 should be held on the appropriate page. Lectonar (talk) 14:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I'm very conservative on speedy deletions. I'd prefer an AfD here to a G4 given how long ago the AfD was and degree of similarity (or lack thereof). But yeah, no additional sources or information, just fewer words. Not an ideal G4, but close enough. Hobit (talk) 12:53, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Early in the discussion, four potential sources were identified (by me). Apart from the nominator, neither of the folowing two delete !votes made any comment on these sources' suitability or lack thereof. As such, I don't think it was accurate to conclude that "Consensus is sourcing is of insufficient depth." I understand that !votes by IP editors may be given less weight or none at all, and had the delete !voters addressed the potential sources directly, I would agree with the close. But as things stood after three relists I don't believe there was consensus on how to interpret the source coverage. Paul_012 (talk) 07:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. One is not entitled to a rebuttal of their !vote by every participant in the discussion. The appellant's Keep view was duly rebutted by the AfD nom. Subsequent participants not addressing it suggests they had nothing further to add, not that they failed to parry a decisive argument. The final Delete view did, in fact, address the sources, contrary to the appellant's claim, and agreed with the AfD nom's analysis of the depth of the sources presented by the appellant. The sole supporting Keep view, by an IP, added nothing to the discussion. Saying they are "confident in the sources" is not an analysis of sources, and was correctly discarded by the closing admin. Nothing to do with them being an anon IP. Owen×☎ 11:34, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last delete !voter making an offhand "merely passing mentions" remark when the four presented sources were entirely about the subject lead me to doubt that they actually looked at any analysis. I would have called it out, but the page had slipped from my watchlist by then. I'll concede, though, that one can hardly expect the closing admin to cross-examine every such argument, so it seems there's not much that can be done now. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The question is whether the closer had reason to find a Delete consensus when there were three !votes to Delete including the nominator, and two !votes to Keep, one of which was a nothing by an IP. The question is not even whether another closer might have had reason to find No Consensus, but only whether Star Mississippi had reason to Delete. Delete was a reasonable close. I think it was the right close, but that is not even the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Delete was a reasonable interpretation of consensus, largely per Robert McClenon. No consensus would have been a reasonable close as well. FrankAnchor 17:00, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Max Rowley – Consensus is that there is no point in undeleting the unreferenced article deleted at AfD, but recreation of a sourced version is allowed. * Pppery *it has begun... 17:11, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The subject was a well known Australian theatre, radio and television announcer, broadcaster and voiceover man.
I have found the following references showing WP:GNG:
"Events". The Age. Melbourne: John Fairfax Holdings. 20 April 2001. p. 2. ProQuest363467038. (confirming his birthday)
Cockington, James (8 August 1994). "Mad on Max". The Guide. The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: John Fairfax Holdings. p. 53. Retrieved 5 May 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
Ackland, Richard (4 October 1993). "Witching hour weirdies". The Guide. The Sydney Morning Herald. Sydney: John Fairfax Holdings. p. 43. Retrieved 5 May 2024 – via Newspapers.com.
You don't need DRV's permission to recreate a page in such a way that it decisively beats the reasons given for deletion in its afd. In this case, it was for being entirely unreferenced, and that appears accurate - the latest deleted revision, and spot checks of previous versions every couple years back to its creation in 2004, showed zero explicit citations and not even any external links except for https://www.maxrowley.com/.If you really, really want to write a new article backwards from the old version, I suppose we could userfy it for you. The usual advice is to do without. —Cryptic 06:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Start a draft using AfC. Provide the references from the deleted article. It could be recreated directly in mainspace, but only by someone who is confident. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:45, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe, I agree with you, but the draft could be created by me. Can you please provide me with the source from the last revision before it was deleted, so I and other users can hopefully improve it? Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 08:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I already gave the only source it ever had above. —Cryptic 06:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: I meant the source code from the last revision before the article was deleted. Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 10:20, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The original close was unanimous, but no reason to prohibit recreation. I don't support userfication. Draftspace is a better venue for structured collaborative work, with better visibility to other editors, and a definite timeline and mainspacing process. Owen×☎ 12:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse if the appellant is requesting that the original close be overturned. As is often the case, it isn't clear whether the appellant is asking to overturn the close, or is only asking for permission to create a new draft or new article, but permission isn't needed to create a new draft or new article. It also isn't clear why appellants want a deleted article restored if they have new sources. If they don't want to write a new draft or article from scratch, they can use the wizard. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Allow Recreation because permission isn't required for that. A new article is subject to AFD, and a new draft will be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
