Brahma Chellaney – No consensus, speedy deletion overturned. People disagree about whether and how much of this article is copyvio. This means that the speedy deletion for copyvio is overturned, and a normal deletion process can be initiated if desired. Sandstein 19:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Absence of a reasoned and consensual decision among the editors Alpinespace (talk) 17:38, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse that's no reason to overturn a discussion regarding a speedy delete on copyvio grounds. SportingFlyerT·C 04:18, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy and relist. I'm certainly willing to entertain that this could have been WP:G11, but looking at "Deleted revision of Brahma Chellaney (as of 22 December 2019, at 17:47)", I'm not seeing any copyvios. The reason given for the 28 December deletion was, Deleted as requested in User talk:Usernamekiran/Archive 8#Deleted article re-appears, but that's not a valid WP:CSD. Neither is asserting that it's a copyvio without saying what it's a copyvio of. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:21, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend considering the deletion as WP:TNT. Encourage re-creation in draftspace given the lack of editing experience by the proponents. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: the problem is, the AfD never really happened. It was closed down after six hours by Anthony Appleyard's speedy deletion. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Requesting temp undeletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:59, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, as I look through the history more closely, I do see some assertions of specific copyvios, which appear to have been cleaned. So, I've re-deleted all the revisions prior to the last one; that should be good enough for this review. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:13, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer See my comments immediately above. I messed up with my copyvio cleanup. I thought I was revdel-ing everything prior to the final revision, but apparently I only got one history page's worth of revisions. If this does end up being restored/kept, somebody will need to go through and do a better audit of which revisions are copyvio-tarnished and which are clean. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Not a valid G11. Not a G12. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn The AfD alleged that this was copyvio content, but did not even suggest a source, and none of the deletion logs so much as mention any copyright issue. A quick google did not find a source -- earwig's tool will not run on a deleted article. I just reviewed (well, scanned, not a true review) the version just before deletion, and while it seems to contain some puffery, it didn't look to me anywhere close to G11 territory (nor TNT either, which is not policy after all, merely an essay). As RoySmith says just above, the Afd in effect never happened -- certainly not as a substantial discussion, so we are left with speedy deletion. G11, in my view does not apply, and G12 never applies without a named source. None of the reason in the user talk page discussion linked above and in one deletion log entry seem to me to justify deletion. Anyone who wants this deletes should either provide documentation of copyright issues, if there are any, or start a new AfD, and let it run full length. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:55, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that the com metn in the linked talk-page discussion by The Gnome that after a decision to delete has been taken, we are in no position to ask whether or not an article "contain[s] any queryable matter". The text may have been improved but the process of posting up the text immediately after the AfD is against all due-process etiquette; such action effectively renders the AfD process null and void. is in my view seriously mistaken. A new version that deals with the issues for which the deletion was done is pretty much always acceptable, and unless the name was salted, going through draft is not required, although it is often advisable. That is doubly true when the original reasons for deletion are invalid, and there has been no general deletion discussion, as was the case here. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 04:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DES, you appear to be suggesting that every article being deleted through an AfD process can re-appear immediately after its deletion with an ostensibly "changed" text and the editor who recreated it justifying their action by claiming that the text now "addresses all the issues for which it was deleted". (I'm not referring to this specific article or its AfD.) I sincerely hope I'm reading you wrongly since such a loop hole would seriously undermine the whole clean up process. -The Gnome (talk) 09:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, The Gnome I am not only suggesting that I am saying exactly that. However, whether the changed article does in fact address the issues is not left solely to the judgement of the re-creating editor. If any other editor thinks the issues are not addressed it can be tagged for speed deletion under WP:CSD#G4. The reviewing admin must then evaluate whether the recreated version is "sufficiently similar" wording that is explicitly present in WP:CSD#G4. I do this every time I handle a G4 tag, and I hope and trust that other admins do so also. If an editor blatantly or repeatedly recreates deleted articles without making significant changes, when the editor should have known better, that might well be considered disruptive editing and be worthy of a block. If it happens multiple times on a single article, that title might be salted. But a single recreation that is a good faith effort to deal with the issues in the AfD, particularly added sourcing not considered by the AfD, is indeed permitted. We often advise going through a draft stage, but no policy requires this. See the current discussion on WT:DRV# Clarify purpose for more on this. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 14:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This history identifies [1], [2], and [3] as sources of material copied into the article. I didn't check the first two, but the last one was from the very first edit (and it looks like after a little back and forth, that content did remain in the article). WilyD 09:48, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, allow re-creation. It's copyright infringement from edit one. If someone wants to write a new version that's licence compliant, they're free to. But, "Hey, can we violate the licence?" is not a discussion we should have, and the overturn !votes arguing we should restore infringing content must be ignored. WilyD 09:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wily, the recreated article was posted by me on 21 December 2019. No one has pointed to any copyvio content in it. Alpinespace (talk) 11:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The second edit marked the first as a copy-vio, and after a bit of edit warring, the copy-vio content was retained. It's never a good idea to keep something built on copyvio, and at least the paragraphs starting "He was one of the authors..." and "Professor Chellaney has held appointments..." appear to derive from that first version. WilyD 14:51, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wily, I'm afraid no documentation of specific copyright issues has ever been provided. I've been through the history of the deleted article that had been on Wikipedia for almost 11 years and checked for any copyvio content in it, but I couldn't find any. I checked the three URLs you identified but didn't find any copyvio material from them. (The first URL is of a page that has a short conference description and pictures of conference participants, including a picture of the subject of the deleted article. The second URL is of a blog that reproduces that subject's Wall Street Journal article. And the third URL appears to be a dead link.) The more-recent recreation of the deleted article was a good-faith attempt to offer a much shorter version in which virtually every sentence was backed by sourcing. Alpinespace (talk) 19:06, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The third url is a dead link now, but it's where copyright violating content came from, back in 2006, that remains in the article to this day. There's no way to restore the existing content, it'd have to be G12'd immediately. The only way to write an article would be to start over from scratch, not re-using copyright infringing content. WilyD 06:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wily, it will be really helpful if you could specify what copyright-infringing material was taken from the third URL. It appears that the third URL was just a source (in other words, a citation/endnote) to support a biographical reference in the article. You have presumed that the deleted page contained copyright-infringing content but you have not offered any proof in support. The history of the article does not contain any allegation of copyright violation, unless we mistake the undeletion of the deleted article by Anthony Appleyard (who later again deleted the page) as amounting to copyvios of the first version. As RoySmith points out, he has not seen any copyvios. And as DES correctly states, none of the deletion logs mentions any copyvio issue. Alpinespace (talk) 06:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you're being deliberately obtuse here. Look at the history - when the article was created, it was entirely a copyvio. Back in naive ol' 2006, people tried just blanking it out, but the copyright violator won the day, and the copyvio was restored and has been in the article (with bits of modification) ever since. There's no way the article can be restored. If there's to be an article, it needs to be started from scratch. It's no different than if you realise a used diaper was dropped in the meat grinder after everything is in casings. You don't try to pick out the problem bits, you throw them out and start over. WilyD 14:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn but send to WP:CP OK, the copyright violation we are talking about is that the first revision was copied from this (archived) source. And that this copyvio content partially remained within the article even as it was expanded. It it not grounds for speedy deletion though as some of the material now in the article isn't a copyright violation and thus the G12 criteria are not met, but certainly grounds to send the article to WP:CP in order to have the carried-over copyvio and the corresponding page revisions cleaned/hidden. Not all of the new content is spammy either so G11 does not apply either, although I am agnostic on whether the topic is notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant copyright infringement is a grounds for speedy deletion - one of the two important ones (along with G10). Some of the copyright infringing material remains in the current version of the article, and purging it trying to work out how to do attribution for the rest will be a complete mess. And in general, making some alterations to copyright infringing material can be legally okay, but is a huge problem for the licence. I haven't completely checked, but probably every version in the history is copyright infringing. There's just nothing to do with cases where every version in the history is a copyright problem but to delete it and start over. WilyD 14:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant copyright infringement is not always grounds for speedy deletion; from the policy emphasis mine This applies to text pages that contain copyrighted material with no credible assertion of public domain, fair use, or a compatible free license, where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving. Only if the history is unsalvageably corrupted should it be deleted in its entirety; earlier versions without infringement should be retained. For equivocal cases that do not meet speedy deletion criteria (such as where there is a dubious assertion of permission, where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing), the article or the appropriate section should be blanked with {{subst:Copyvio|url=insert URL here}}, and the page should be listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. and not all of the content of the revisions past or present is a copyright violation. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
SSC Yugal – Administrative close.@Maestrale: I think you're talking about File:1956-57 Dalmatinac players.jpg, which was deleted back in July 2018. If your father wishes to donate the photo to Wikpiedia, you should read Wikipedia:Contact_us/Licensing for the correct process. Looking at the record of the deleted file, the problem looks like the author was listed as "Unknown", which isn't compatible with our licensing requirements. My suggestion is to email [email protected] and they can help you with the technical details. I know this seems like a lot of bureaucratic hassle, but we need to make sure we're not infringing on anybody's copyright, so there's a bit of administrative process that needs to be done correctly. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:01, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The file 1956-57 Dalmatinac players.jpg was a photograph taken by my father George Posa on his camera in circa 1957. His copyright interest is remaining in the photo and he consents to use of it on this website. He is happy to send an email to Wiki if it is required. Please reverse Fastily's (20 July 2108 UTC) and innotata's (12 July 2018 UTC) deletion of this historical photograph. Thanks.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
