Wikipedia:Deletion review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Administrator instructions

Deletion review (DRV) is a forum designed primarily to appeal disputed speedy deletions and disputed decisions made as a result of deletion discussions; this includes appeals to delete pages kept after a prior discussion.

If you are considering a request for a deletion review, please read the "Purpose" section below to make sure that is what you wish to do. Then, follow the instructions below.

Purpose[edit]

Deletion review may be used:

  1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;
  2. if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed;
  3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;
  4. if a page has been wrongly deleted with no way to tell what exactly was deleted; or
  5. if there were substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion or speedy deletion.

Deletion review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment (a page may be renominated after a reasonable timeframe);
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the user who closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;
  3. to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);
  4. to challenge an article's deletion via the proposed deletion process, or to have the history of a deleted page restored behind a new, improved version of the page, called a history-only undeletion (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these);
  5. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;
  6. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
  7. to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests); or
  8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).
  9. For uncontroversial undeletions, such as undeleting a very old article where substantial new sources have subsequently arisen. Use WP:REFUND instead.

Copyright violating, libelous, or otherwise prohibited content will not be restored.

Instructions[edit]

Before listing a review request, please:

  1. Consider attempting to discuss the matter with the closer as this could resolve the matter more quickly. There could have been a mistake, miscommunication, or misunderstanding, and a full review may not be needed. Such discussion also gives the closer the opportunity to clarify the reasoning behind a decision.
  2. Check that it is not on the list of perennial requests. Repeated requests every time some new, tiny snippet appears on the web have a tendency to be counter-productive. It is almost always best to play the waiting game unless you can decisively overcome the issues identified at deletion.

Steps to list a new deletion review[edit]

 
1.

Copy this template skeleton for most pages:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|reason=
}} ~~~~

Copy this template skeleton for files:

{{subst:drv2
|page=
|xfd_page=
|article=
|reason=
}} ~~~~
2.

Follow this link to today's log and paste the template skeleton at the top of the discussions (but not at the top of the page). Then fill in page with the name of the page, xfd_page with the name of the deletion discussion page (leave blank for speedy deletions), and reason with the reason why the discussion result should be changed. For media files, article is the name of the article where the file was used, and it shouldn't be used for any other page. For example:

{{subst:drv2
|page=File:Foo.png
|xfd_page=Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 February 19#Foo.png
|article=Foo
|reason=
}} ~~~~
3.

Inform the editor who closed the deletion discussion by adding the following on their user talk page:

{{subst:DRVNote|PAGE_NAME}} ~~~~
4.

For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2019 September 16}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion.

5.

Leave notice of the deletion review outside of and above the original deletion discussion:

  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is the same as the deletion review's section header, use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 September 16}}</noinclude>
  • If the deletion discussion's subpage name is different from the deletion review's section header, then use <noinclude>{{Delrevxfd|date=2019 September 16|page=SECTION HEADER AT THE DELETION REVIEW LOG}}</noinclude>
 

Commenting in a deletion review[edit]

Any editor may express his or her opinion about an article or file being considered for deletion review. In the deletion review discussion, please type one of the following opinions preceded by an asterisk (*) and surrounded by three apostrophes (''') on either side. If you have additional thoughts to share, you may type this after the opinion. Place four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your entry, which should be placed below the entries of any previous editors:

  • Endorse the original closing decision; or
  • Relist on the relevant deletion forum (usually Articles for deletion); or
  • List, if the page was speedy deleted outside of the established criteria and you believe it needs a full discussion at the appropriate forum to decide if it should be deleted; or
  • Overturn the original decision and optionally an (action) per the Guide to deletion. For a keep decision, the default action associated with overturning is delete and vice versa. If an editor desires some action other than the default, they should make this clear; or
  • Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation.
  • Some consider it a courtesy, to other DRV participants, to indicate your prior involvements with the deletion discussion or the topic.

Remember that deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate.

The presentation of new information about the content should be prefaced by Relist, rather than Overturn and (action). This information can then be more fully evaluated in its proper deletion discussion forum. Allow recreation is an alternative in such cases.

Temporary undeletion[edit]

Admins participating in deletion reviews are routinely requested to restore deleted pages under review and replace the content with the {{TempUndelete}} template, leaving the history for review by non-admins. However, copyright violations and violations of the policy on biographies of living persons should not be restored.

Closing reviews[edit]

A nominated page should remain on deletion review for at least seven days. After seven days, an administrator will determine whether a consensus exists. If that consensus is to undelete, the admin should follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Administrator instructions. If the consensus was to relist, the page should be relisted at the appropriate forum. If the consensus was that the deletion was endorsed, the discussion should be closed with the consensus documented. If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

If a speedy deletion is appealed, the closer should treat a lack of consensus as a direction to overturn the deletion, since it indicates that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement of almost all criteria for speedy deletion). Any editor may then nominate the page at the appropriate deletion discussion forum. But such nomination is in no way required, if no editor sees reason to nominate.

Ideally all closes should be made by an administrator to ensure that what is effectively the final appeal is applied consistently and fairly but in cases where the outcome is patently obvious or where a discussion has not been closed in good time it is permissible for a non-admin (ideally a DRV regular) to close discussions. Non-consensus closes should be avoided by non-admins unless they are absolutely unavoidable and the closer is sufficiently experienced at DRV to make that call. (Hint - if you are not sure that you have enough DRV experience then you don't).



Active discussions[edit]

16 September 2019[edit]

15 September 2019[edit]

File:TheSuicideSquadLogo.png[edit]

File:TheSuicideSquadLogo.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This was deleted as a copyright violation (WP:F9) but I'm challenging it because it does not meet the threshold of originality to be considered a non-free work. It's just words with a few holes in them, which is not original or unique enough to render it a non-free image. Per Wikipedia:Public_domain#Fonts_and_typefaces, "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." JOEBRO64 15:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

For interested editors, see the original discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#File:TheSuicideSquadLogo.png, where the request was originally denied.
Now, click on the link for typeface; a typeface is a font family, not an entire logo with formatting. -- /Alex/21 15:39, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse Seems to be a pretty clear WP:F9. There's more to the logo than mere characters, and the logo seems to be an original or unique work. (Note: I can't see the image, but I believe I have found it elsewhere on the internet, and of the three potential logos I looked at, did not see any which would be ineligible for copyright protection.) SportingFlyer T·C 23:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
It looks like what was uploaded was a rectangular crop from http://pbs.twimg.com/media/EEXoL5OXYAITCs3?format=jpg&name=large containing just the "The Suicide Squad" logo, from the bottom line of the full image, between the WB and DC logos. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
Yep, that's the one I found. Thank you for confirming. I stand by the WP:F9. SportingFlyer T·C 00:27, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • If it were just circles cut out of the lettering, that might not be over the TOO, but it's ambiguous enough that I'd still prefer to write up a NFCC rationale than slap a public domain tag on it - it doesn't take a lot of creativity when combining typefaces and geometric shapes and 3-D elements to become copyrightable; compare File:Disney Junior.svg. This doesn't even come that close, though: the holes aren't circular, and the cracks around them are plainly copyrightable. Downscaling the image so that they're a bit blurry doesn't change that. Endorse. —Cryptic 02:21, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse this isn't just letters in a typeface, the artist has added holes and cracks to them in a way that's not part of the typeface. I strongly suspect this is over the threshold at which it qualifies for copyright protection. I also don't think this is an acceptable way to treat a volunteer who's just doing their job. Hut 8.5 06:51, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Maybe that was a little harsh, but can't you see that this frustrates me? JOEBRO64 10:43, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

14 September 2019[edit]

Bardhyl Selimi[edit]

Bardhyl Selimi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

improvement Hyrdlak (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak

presumably this was intended for User:Tone's talk page

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bardhyl Selimi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hyrdlak (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak

Originally, this article was deleted on Sept 2-4, 2019, though due to my summer holiday I requested a delay on any final decision until Sept 7, 2019.

The main argument for deletion was that some of the 20 odd provided references led to the article's subject as an author or co-author. I improved on that adding 50 more references by other authors from Albania / Kosovo (in Albanian) and from all around the world (including China, France and Poland) in Esperanto, as a proof of the global-wide notability of Bardhyl Selimi in the spheres of Albanian- and Esperanto-language cultures.

I relisted the improved article on Sept 9, 2019.

The relisted article was removed with no explanation, let alone any discussion.

I request the relisting of the deleted improved draft of this article.

Hyrdlak (talk) 09:04, 14 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak

  • Endorse WP:G4. The re-created article looks vitually identical to the one deleted by AfD. The only difference looks like a carpet-bomb of additional references, but there's no indication that any of them are significant in terms of addressing the issues raised in the AfD. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
The contention point that led to the deletion of this article on Sept 4, 2019 was the issue of notability as proved by sources not connected to Bardhyl Selimi. With the 'carpet-bomb' of 50 references I prove the subject's notability in the spheres of Albanian/Kosovan and Esperanto (global) culture.
I still have no clue why the relisted draft of this article was deleted without any discussion. Hyrdlak (talk) 08:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Hyrdlak
The reason why the re-created article was deleted "without any discussion" was that we had already had the discussion. We don't repeat a discussion, probably with exactly the same reasons as before, every time an individual editor disagrees with the outcome of that discussion. Personally, if there is even the slightest reasonable doubt about whether a recreated copy of a deleted page is changed enough to warrant a new discussion then I restore it on request, because there is considerable disagreement as to what changes are enough to invalidate speedy deletion as a recreation of a deleted page, and I regard it as better to give the benefit of any doubt. However, in this case I felt, and still feel, that there isn't any reasonable doubt to give the benefit of. So that editors who are not administrators can judge for themselves I have restored the history of the article, and moved it to Wikipedia:Bardhyl Selimi/Temporary copy for deletion review. The version deleted as a result of the discussion is here, and the version which Power~enwiki tagged for deletion and I deleted is here. The text is virtually identical. A number of wikilinks were added, but that is irrelevant to the issue of deletion. A large number of new "references" were cited, but unfortunately, contrary to what Hyrdlak says, they do not by any means "prove the subject's notability". Most if not all of the 52 new "references" that were added to the new version of the article either don't mention Bardhyl Selimi at all or merely mention his name briefly in passing. At least one is a page which is marketing a book of his, and merely gives his name as author. Some of the references are pages on Wikipedia or forums, as well as scarcely mentioning him. And so it goes on... Not only do the new references fail to "prove the subject's notability", they fail to even provide a small step in the direction of showing more notability than was already demonstrated when consensus at a discussion decided the subject did not satisfy Wikipedia's notability guidelines. This is, in fact, a good example of what is described at WP:BOMBARD: the mistaken belief that simply throwing large numbers of references at an article adds evidence of notability, even if none of those references contain anything relevant to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

13 September 2019[edit]

Matthew Driggs (lawyer)[edit]

Matthew Driggs (lawyer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Adjohnbrock (talk) 20:19, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

  • @Adjohnbrock: Please let us know why you think this article should be undeleted. You also need to consult with the deleting user on their talk page before coming here. SportingFlyer T·C 21:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • This looks like a proper G11 to me. The article consisted entirely of advertising, even the section describing the subject's failed suit against his state bar for threatening to discipline him for violating rules about advertising. —Cryptic 00:30, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

12 September 2019[edit]

Category:Anarchist writers[edit]

Category:Anarchist writers (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe consensus was interpreted incorrectly for this deletion. The category was deleted as part of a broader deletion of Category:Anarchists by occupation and its sub-categories. But aside from the nominator, everyone who supported deletion of the other categories said that Category:Anarchist writers was an exception and should be retained. In other words, the actual consensus was to retain Category:Anarchist writers and delete the others. Jd4v15 (talk) 18:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Restore. It looks like the closer, Good Olfactory, hasn't been editing for almost a year. In any case, I agree, this looks like a mistake in the close that should be corrected. Most of the delete comments did indeed explicitly include this as an exception. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Not just most - nobody commenting in that discussion supported deletion of this category except for the nominator. I'm surprised nobody brought this up, either here or with the closer, before now. —Cryptic 20:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that the XfD was attended by a bunch of Anarchist wikipedians. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore to delete something you need the support of at least one person other than the nominator, so there was no consensus for the deletion of that category. Hut 8.5 06:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore (this category alone); this was clearly an oversight. – Fayenatic London 07:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore this category alone. The closer User:Good Olfactory is usually a conscientious and reasonable admin, so I assume that this was just an oversight which he'd be happy to remedy if he was around. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore Consensus was clear to keep that specific category alone. SportingFlyer T·C 21:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore Seems like a pretty straightforward oversight. Levivich 04:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

10 September 2019[edit]

Portal:Nanotechnology[edit]

Portal:Nanotechnology (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This portal was deleted with only two !votes based on the mistaken assertion that the portal had been abandoned since 2012 and had no maintainer. No notification was given to me, the maintainer; apparently, a notification was misdirected to the portal's original creator, who has not been active since 2007, rather than myself.

Given that the basis for the deletion was factually incorrect, this falls under WP:DRVPURPOSE item 3: "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". In addition, given that the discussion received very few !votes, it possibly should have been closed as WP:NOQUORUM, which may also place it under item 1: "someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly".

Upon undeletion I will promptly fix the issues with outdated information raised in the deletion discussion, which are easily fixed. This request includes Portal:Nanotechnology and its subpages, and Template:Nanotech selected and its tracking categories. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 21:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 21:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
@Mark Schierbecker: also pinging original deletion nominator. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 21:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and undelete as lister. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 21:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    • To elaborate on my last point, the deletion discussion does fall under the letter of WP:NOQUORUM, "a nomination has received few or no comments from any editor with no one opposing deletion", in which case "the closing administrator should treat the XfD nomination as an expired PROD... [and] the article can be restored for any reason on request" (emphasis in original). Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 17:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist for additional discussion including the portal's declared maintainer. There was a {{Portal maintenance status}} template on the portal page identifying Antony-22 as the maintainer, so it was an oversight by the MfD nominator not to notify him. I don't think the closing admin did anything wrong here, but the earlier mistake justifies reopening the discussion so Antony-22 can defend his maintenance activities against the criticisms offered in the MfD discussion. Whether it makes any difference to the final result will depend on how that additional discussion goes. --RL0919 (talk) 21:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
    • Agree, failure to notify an active listed maintainer is a critical failure for consensus decision making. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:18, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
      • @SmokeyJoe. See my !vote below. A22 was indeed a listed maintainer, but describing him as an active maintainer is quite a stretch. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
        • Failure to notify an inactive listed maintainer is a lesser-than-critical issue. Still, all stakeholders should be notified, and watchlisting is not always sufficient. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:46, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
          • @SmokeyJoe, it seems to meet that you expressing a personal preference rather than a policy or guideline. WP:MFD#How_to_list_pages_for_deletion says little about notifications, and WP:AFD#After_nominating:_Notify_interested_projects_and_editors is explicit that no notifications are required other than tagging the nominated page: "While it is sufficient to list an article for discussion at AfD (see above), nominators and others sometimes want to attract more attention from and participation by informed editors".
            So I see no policy basis for treating the lack of notification to a maintainer as being in any way deficient, let alone critical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
            • True. We could add it to the rules, to notify maintainers of Portals, like how there are special rules when nomination WikiProject subpages, but it is possible that by the time we agreed to do that, and resolved the possibility of automating it, there will be no more portals anyway. In the meantime, for an very low participation XfD, we usually agree to relist to let a late person have their say. I think the closer should have been asked, and them immediately agreed. It’s very silly to have a megabyte review over a 3 person discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
              • We usually agree to relist to let a late person have their say only when they have some statement of fact to contribute that was overlooked - typically, sources that weren't considered, or changes outside of Wikipedia since deletion. I can't recall DRV ever overturning on something so flimsy as "I used to edit this page, and I didn't get a chance to vote", which is what this amounts to. Antony-22: if you've got something to say that would reasonably have changed the outcome at MFD, now's the time to say it. The threshold's pretty low, but I don't see that you've passed it. —Cryptic 04:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
                • We do for sure usually relist if someone comes in just a bit late with something important to say. Antony-22 has not yet said what it is that he might say that is important, but sometimes we like to be nice to people. I see that he did ask User:MER-C at User_talk:MER-C#Portal:Nanotechnology. I am not fully onboard with the quorum talk, but I would have done a quick relist, it would have wasted less electrons than this DRV. Strongly agree with "The threshold's pretty low, but I don't see that you've passed it." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:14, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
                  • I've put more detail in a comment below. But basically my point is that all the content issues raised are ones that could have been fixed very easily by asking nicely. The deletion itself was based on the incorrect statement that the portal had been abandoned since 2012, and that no one was around to take the ten minutes to add a few death dates and update a few employers. Also, the discussion really does fall under the letter of WP:NOQUORUM. I realize that the expectations for portals have been changing over the last year or so, and I can certainly commit myself to bringing on more maintainers and associating with one or multiple WikiProjects. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 16:41, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist, portal has a named maintainer who has related deleted edits from 2016. (Also seems issues could be fixed relatively easily). —Kusma (t·c) 21:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse, as a typical SNOW deletion, but not objection to a relist for more participation. The challenge for User:Antony-22 will be to persuade others why this Portal could help readers better than the article Nanotechnology, and address the many standard portal criticisms including: Never used, no sources, core content compliance problems, redundant to and negatively competing with the parent article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn and relist A fuller participation in the deletion discussion would be welcome. Also the oversight to notify the maintainer (prominently listed via the {{Portal maintenance status}} template) is most unfortunate. Perhaps the nominator was having too much "fun" in hastily churning out nominations, whilst engaging in their new hobby, to be bothered? --Cactus.man 00:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Overturn This is a case where a failure to notify has led to an unfortunate outcome. If the maintainer had !voted, this would have been at worst a no consensus. SportingFlyer T·C 02:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. The statements made in the MFD clearly showed that the portal had not been (sufficiently) maintained for years. The small number of !voters in an XfD isn't a good reason to overturn an outcome - especially as many editors (including myself) don't bother commenting in cases where the nom has made a good case and no-one has disagreed. DexDor (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist. Minimal participation and the maintainer wasn't even notified doesn't make for a valid discussion. Restore the portal and reopen the existing discussion for a week. I'm not optimistic the result will be any different, but at least let the maintainer have his say. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion per DexDor. Notification is optional (if the portal is not on editor's watchlist, how can we expect a talkpage notification to be seen?), and the consensus was clear. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist as having a named maintainer might change the discussion and it wasn't that well attended to start with. I can't really fault the close though and the rationale for deletion wasn't just based on having no named maintainer, it also noted that large portions of the portal were very out of date. It might be worth restoring to draft space instead if it does have that many factual inaccuracies. Hut 8.5 18:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist The close was proper as DexDor explains. However, there is no harm to the project if the portal is relisted for more participation WP:IAR. --Enos733 (talk) 19:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist I do not recall any significant edits by Antony-22. I am fine with relisting. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 21:59, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
    • After a portal is first set up, subsequent updates to content are made on the subpages, not the main portal page. It's possible you only looked at the main portal page and saw the edits made by the original creator, but weren't looking in the right place to see the more recent content updates by me. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 23:33, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse as one of the Delete !voters. The close was proper. It is not true that the MFD would have been No Consensus if the maintainer had been notified. There were three Delete !votes including the nominator and myself, and no Keep !votes, so that one Keep vote would have still be a Delete consensus, unless a strong policy argument was provided for Keep. I will note that the maintainer could have checked the portal within the week of the listing, or watchlisted the portal, which makes them appear to be a low-priority maintainer. I wouldn't have changed my !vote if I knew that the portal had a semi-active maintainer, because I was persuaded by the errors (which illustrate that content-forked subpages have a tendency to content rot). However, a Relist is a reasonable idea, especially based on Ignore All Rules. Robert McClenon (talk)
    • The portal was on my watchlist, but I suppose I missed it because I wasn't editing much that particular week and wasn't thoroughly perusing my watchlist, as happens sometimes when real life takes one's attention. A talk page notice would have generated an email, which I would have noticed and responded to very quickly. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 23:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse The MFD nominator was incorrect about the date of abandonment, but not about the fact of abandonment. Antony-22's deleted contribs shows that their last 3 edits to he portal were made on 1/ 29 March 2019, 2/ 23 June 2018, 3/ 12 July 2016. One tweak per year is not active maintenance, and the sheer number of factual errors adds to lack of credibility of A22's claim to be a maintainer. So this is not "significant new information", just a footnote.
Note that WP:POG has several other criteria which were clearly not met, such as the need for multiple maintainers and lots of readers and for an associated WikiProject.
So the error makes no material difference to the portal's status, and should not alter the outcome of the MFD. This woefully neglected portal has wasted the time of readers for years, and factually misled many of them. The fact that A-22 now seeks to assert himself as the architect of that neglect, after his culpability was mistakenly overlooked, does not justify wasting more of the community's time on the unpleasant exercise of demolishing A-22's claims. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse per BrownHairedGirl. I was one of the delete voters at the MfD and my vote would not have changed based on knowing that an editor, who for all intents and purposes long ago forsook this portal, had a bout of MfD induced nostalgia and wanted it kept. The portal was riddled with serious errors for years, which demonstrates Antony-22 was not a serious maintainer of this portal and even if they had been, did not require notification. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Failure to notify an individual isn't usually reversed by deletion review; we'll overturn if a page itself isn't tagged for deletion, and for images and templates sometimes if the tagging's not visible in article or article talkspace, but "I edit this page and didn't get a user talk notification" isn't the sort of significant new post-deletion information that WP:DRVPURPOSE is talking about.
    I'll extend some benefit of the doubt since this was a minimally-attended deletion discussion, and I don't get the overall impression that individual portals get well-scrutinized at MFD. On the other hand, I can't find any nontrivial maintenance to the portal's content by the nom here since his updates to subpages of Portal:Nanotechnology/Selected biography on 7 November 2015, unless you count adding "Welcome to the nanotechnology portal", changing links to reflect the split of Nano/Bio Interface Center out of University of Pennsylvania School of Engineering and Applied Science, or merely swapping which bio is on which subpage. (I don't.) So while I'll grant that the statement "no maintenance in six years" was incorrect, there's no reason to think that the correct "no meaningful maintenance in four years" would have changed the outcome, especially given the other issues raised at the MFD. Endorse. —Cryptic 04:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Relist A poorly attended discussion that had some factual errors and a notification issue that might have turned the tide. Seems like it's worth a relist. Hobit (talk) 06:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • As the closing admin, I defer to the outcome of this discussion. MER-C 13:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Several people have referred to "serious errors", but the issues pointed out were a couple of missing death dates and a couple of employers that needed to be updated. This would have been barely ten minutes of work if someone had just asked nicely, and certainly isn't reason to delete. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 16:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Antony-22: This tends to be mostly an issue with BLPs. I am not a huge fan of {{Transclude lead excerpt}}, but I recently decided to use it for pages as this one to avoid embarrassment related to long outdated info on BLPs (especially, to catch any deaths). —Kusma (t·c) 16:27, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) (Comment continued) I believe the last time I updated the content selections was in late 2016, so it's perhaps a valid criticism that that's a bit of a longer time than is ideal. For what it's worth, I had prepared updates to the selected biographies (mostly based on a few recent nanotechnology-related Nobel prizes), but hadn't gotten to implementing them yet. So again, this could have been fixed by nicely asking instead of jumping immediately to a deletion discussion.
Also, nanotechnology is a fairly broad subject, as it overlaps physics, chemistry, and even molecular biology, and any or all of those WikiProjects could adopt this portal. This would take a bit longer than the time allotted for a deletion discussion, but I can certainly commit myself to bringing on additional maintainers if this deletion review succeeds. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 16:17, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Members of topic wikiprojects generally take very little interest in portals. Nanotechnology may overlap those topics (and others), but it's smaller than any of those 3 topics. DexDor (talk) 21:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
To be fair, these are all topics better discussed at a relist. SportingFlyer T·C 21:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

9 September 2019[edit]


Recent discussions[edit]

8 September 2019[edit]

File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg[edit]

File:Veronica - Vatican2.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I would like to see if the deletion of File:Veronica_-_Vatican2.jpg can be reversed. I raised the issue with User:Fastily earlier this year, but didn't pursue it further at the time. (User talk:Fastily/Archive 6#FfD deletion of File:Veronica_-_Vatican2.jpg The deletion discussion is here. This image was in use at Veil of Veronica, and it does not look like there was any attempt to notify editors of that page that the image was being discussed.

One of the reasons given for deletion was that the image was "blurry to the point of illegible". My concern is that that image, bad as it is, was the article's only actual image of its subject. All of the other images in the article are drawings or paintings based on the actual artifact, or photographs of other similar artifacts. This image appeared in a gallery of four images of related artifacts, and the text discusses the similarities between them, particularly the gilded metal sheet with an aperture, which was visible in all four images. The actual face is not visible in the picture, but that is kind of the point. Almost nobody has had a good look at this thing in over a century, and the last person who did see it and write about it said that the face was no longer visible. It is still valuable to see the blurry image alongside the images of the other three artifacts, which may be ancient copies of it.

Besides saying that the image was "blurry to the point of illegible", User:Magog the Ogre wrote in the deletion discussion "it appears this is a copyright violation". I'm not sure on what his basis was for the statement that the image appeared to be a copyright violation. Photographs that simply reproduce two-dimensional works that are old enough to be public domain are themselves public domain under US copyright law and are allowed by Wikipedia's rules.

I ended up here as a result of a question from another user at Talk:Veil of Veronica#Rome Veronica image.--Srleffler (talk) 04:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC) Srleffler (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment: @Srleffler: Why was this not uploaded to Commons? Why not upload it there right now? – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 18:34, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I had assumed this would be covered by Template:PD-art. The veil and its frame are both old enough to be in the public domain. Photographs of two dimensional works of art are not copyrightable in the US. Even if the photo is copyrightable, this case may be fair use under Wikipedia:Non-free content. The image is a small, low-resolution snip from a larger picture. It can't be replicated since the veil is not on public display.--Srleffler (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
It's hard to be sure, but especially after looking at the uncropped image linked in the file description page, the frame looks three-dimensional enough that a photograph just of it would be copyrightable. The file wasn't cropped even just to the frame, either. A tighter crop would have a stronger chance of being public domain. Alternately, a colorable argument could be made to use the image under NFCC, and that hasn't been attempted. WP:NFCC#8 would be tenuous due to the image size and quality, but that's not an argument to be made at DRV. Restore and send it back to FFD, this time with a note at Talk:Veil of Veronica. —Cryptic 04:08, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
I would not want to crop the frame out, but the image could certainly be cropped tighter to the frame. I do think that NFCC#8 is relevant. This is the only available image of the article's subject. None of the other images in the article show the actual artifact. They are all either works of an artist's imagination or pictures of other similar artifacts.--Srleffler (talk) 00:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Endorse. Very low participation, but there is no reason to think more participants would say any different. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
A very low quality image of a dubious image of a lost dubious image. I don't believe this image can ever be used to improve Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
"Send to FFD" !votes should acknowledge that there was an FFD here. "Send back to FFD for more discussion" is reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Restore, send to FFD It would be good to know exactly what the copyright problem is with the image. I think restoring and sending to FFD would be the best bet, as there's a number of potential issues with this one, but it's not clear this should be deleted, either. SportingFlyer T·C 04:41, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Send to FFD. I can't find the exact place this is discussed, but I believe the problem is that the photo includes the frame around the painting. Paintings are 2D and frames are 3D, and apparently in the bizarre twisted world of copyright law, that's significant. But, yeah, sending this back to FFD seems the wisest thing to do, since that's where the experts on these issues hang out. Why anybody thinks this is a useful image is beyond me, but let's at least let the FFD folks give us a definitive read on the copyright issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:36, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Send to FFD. By no means a straightforward case that couldn't have valid arguments both sides. – Finnusertop (talkcontribs) 17:05, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

7 September 2019[edit]

5 September 2019[edit]

4 September 2019[edit]

2 September 2019[edit]

Archive[edit]

Archives, by year and month
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2019 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2018 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2017 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2016 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec