Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 May 4

Twenty Two Points of Ulema (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.voice.pk/?p=1939 Through speedy deletion, the article Twenty Two Points of Ulema, was deleted. The allegation made is that it was “Unambiguous copyright infringement" of “http://www.voice.pk/?p=1939”. I strongly feel that the material I placed in the article is not “ copyright infringement” of any sort (including G12) and thus it does not become a valid candidate for deletion. I explain my viewpoint here:

The “22 points” is not copyrighted material. It is not even an intellectual property of the website “http://www.voice.pk”. The website has reproduced it only beacause it is an importat document of the political history of Pakistan. As explained in the introduction of the article, 22 points were actually a demand made from the representative Ulema of all the Muslim sects of Pakistan. This demand was presented to the first constituent assembly of Pakistan, regarding drafting and adopting the constitution for Pakistan. As far as my understanding is concerned such demands, by their very nature, are public properties and never considered as copyrighted material. 22 points demand was presented to constituent assembly in 1950, and is a historical document. Its importance regarding the evolution of the constitutional process in Pakistan makes it a proper choice to be part of Wikipedia. Wikipedia already rightly contains such historical documents, for example Fourteen Points of Jinnah. It is a 14 point demand made by Jinnah from the then British government of India. Like this document, my document is also not copyrighted, on the rational I explained above. I hope my arguments will be cinsidered and I will be allowed to reconstruct the page. Bhaur (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Copyrighted or not, this appears to be appropriate for Wikisource, not Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (from speedy deleter) I think for the purposes of this undeletion question, all we need is whether this is a copyrighted translation (or was the original in English?). A good article on the topic would discuss what reliable sources have said about the document and I think link to the original source (on wikisource if appropriate), but that can be resolved editorially. The text outside of the points and the endorsement list I believe is within the requirements of respecting copyright. If anyone can answer the question of translation, I think we can go ahead and undelete. Bhaur, if you would like I can restore that portion now while the rest is discussed. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:19, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• The solution is to write an article explaining them in their historical context, in which they can be appropriately quoted, not just reprinting them. DGG ( talk ) 16:25, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "such demands, by their very nature, are public properties and never considered as copyrighted material" is, actually, never true. Works are copyrighted by the act of creation, and publishing them (however widely) does not extinguish copyright. Now, it's possible that the copyright has since expired, or that the document was explicitly released to the public domain, but evidence of that needs to be presented. — Coren ^(talk) 23:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you all for your valuable feedbacks. Yes, the original was in Urdu, and the translation is an intellectual property, thus copyrighted. So, I arrange to get the original Urdu draft, translate it in English myself, and put it on Wikisource. I am going to collect data, in order to discuss the topic on Wikipedia, supported by reliable secondary sources. This will also contain the explanation of the topic in historical context. 2/0, after doing all this, I’ll put it on your talk page, so that you could retore it. 2/0, please let me furnish you with at leat my translation of the points, before you restore the page. Thanks and regards, Bhaur (talk) 05:04, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Jarrell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• First of all speedy deletion was declined to begin with, and a user re-nominated soon after, again. No one even took the time to reply to the talk page or consider it. Even after this, the article met WP:MUSICBIO #'s 1 - Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. #10 and #11 Has been placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network. Candyo32 (talk) 18:32, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Can you please provide external reliable sourcing that either invalidated or postdates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Jarrell? The deletion reasoning in question was G4, that it was recreated content which had been deleted through AfD, and those can sometimes be a bit rash - something I cannot comment on without being able to see the deleted content. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 11:57, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Oops, I'm kind of confused at what you mean. Candyo32 (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I suspect there is a little confusion here since there was a second more recent AFD than Usrnme h8er has listed, the initial DRV listing missed an _ which caused the link to be wrong... Fixed now --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well observed, missed the progression a bit and didn't notice the 2nd AfD. Notice that speedy deletion and AfD are on very different grounds, and the latter is generally the consequence when the former is denclined. The article was listed for deletion on the 25th, deleted on the 2nd as a result of a low attendance but fair AfD, recreated immediately after the deletion and then deleted G4 moments later. I really don't see a way to take issue with the G4 CSD (hangon is seldom motivated with G4s and it's discresion of the Admin whether to discuss before deleting) and I see no issue in the process of the AfD. I am relying on Stifle (below) to have confirmed that the G4 was valid (no previously unavailable sources or anything else that invalidates the AfD). Endorse as not AfD round 2. If MUSICBIO 1 and 11 have indeed been met, please provide links to reliable sources demonstrating that. Usrnme h8er (talk · contribs) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The speedy criteria are supposed to represent community agreed cases whereby a full discussion is unwarranted and so maybe deleted immediately. The rule of thumb being, if in doubt don't delete take through a deletion discussion. Hence the initial decline of the speedy deletion in no way stops someone nomintating it for articles for deletion. This is what happened. In order to have DRV do anything, you need to show either that the deletion process was incorrectly followed (it doesn't appear to be, as said it went through a community discussion as is perfectly valid despite the declined speedy), or if there is new information which renders the discussion no longer valid i.e. the third party reliable sourcing etc. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle (talk) 08:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Well new information has come up as I found out the article met WP:MUSICBIO's #1 & #11. Candyo32 (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources, please. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow userfication at User:Candyo32/Jessica Jarrell where User:Candyo32 will add the sources alluded to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]