Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 January 3

Elisa Jordana – Overturn to NC. It's essentially unanimous that NC was the correct result; the only real debate here is whether it's worth overturning to get there, with the edge to doing so. There was some discussion about whether to turn this into a redirect or not, but so few people addressed that question, I'll call it NC on that particular point. The advice Hut 8.5 gave about renominating seems reasonable. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The AfD reached 5 in favor of delete, 3 for keep, and 1 for redirect, and yet someone did a non-admin closure and said it was a consensus for keep even though it was not. The 5/3/1 vote was among two different AfD pages, the one listed above and [this one].TBMNY (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your count on deletes/keeps/redirects. Could you explain where you got your numbers? By my reading keep or NC were both reasonable outcomes of that discussion, though I'd have preferred NC given the sourcing isn't a slam dunk. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SwisterTwister, Sir Joseph, Thechased, The Banner, and TBMNY (me) voted delete. Alansohn, LeafK1, and KaisaL voted keep. BusterD voted redirect. That's 5/3/1, a clear consensus for delete. TBMNY (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's counting 2 AfDs over time. Sorry I missed that. Since there were additional sources after the first one, it isn't all that reasonable to consider the old !votes in that way. Also, I updated the AfD link to point to the newest AfD earlier (as it's the one that you are appealing). Feel free to point it back to the original or (better yet) change your comment to point to the AfD1 rather than AfD2. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a clear consensus for delete. In fact it's not a clear consensus for anything, and I don't really agree with the "keep" outcome in this case either. I would suggest that we overturn to no consensus and restore the redirect.—S Marshall T/C 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
weakly endorse close though no objection to overturning to NC which I think would have been a better close. That said, I _do_ object to changing to a redirect. The AfD2 didn't reach any such conclusion. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No it didn't, that's certainly true. I was advocating a return to what I thought was the stable status quo?—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Humm, I see where you are coming from, but I'm not sure I favor having an old AfD result control in the case of NC when a new-from-scratch article would have been kept in the case of NC. Hobit (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. NC would probably have been better, but the distinction isn't enough to overturn. Just wait a couple of months and if there's no significant new sources or new notability, re-nominate it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Numerically this was pretty evenly split and I don't see that the arguments in favour of keeping were particularly stronger. The distinction does make a difference - if someone renominates this in a month or two there will probably be complaints, whereas renominating No Consensus closures is considered more acceptable. Hut 8.5 07:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (to "no consensus"). Defaults to keep. I don't read that as a consensus. Articulated deletion reasons were not rebutted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So how do I proceed now? TBMNY (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If the result is overturned to No Consensus then I'd suggest renominating it in a few months, making sure to address the comments of people who wanted it kept in the last AfD. If it stays as Keep then I'd suggest waiting a bit longer. Hut 8.5 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to no consensus. Relist followed by a weak keep is not evidence of consensus for keep. No consensus existed here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. There is no clear consensus either way. This is one of several closures by a non-admin that are less than optimal. There is another on January 4 and one on January 7. Let it be renominated in a few months. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note there is a discussion about the closure by the non-admin who closed this AfD at ANI.--Bduke (Discussion) 07:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. A clear consensus for a keep result is not evident in the discussion, whereas a no consensus result is much more evident. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:Prov bank.jpg – Deletion endorsed, if a PD version can be procured then it can be uploaded to Commons – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:03, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Lack of consensus; no discussion since 17 June 2016. The site referred to in the last comment has only been active since 2011, so the image is unlikely to have come from there and I don't think File:001 National Prov Bank Holyhead 18.08.13 edited-2.jpg is suitable for the infobox at National Provincial Bank. 2.27.81.240 (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closer/self-endorse: This wasn't discussed with me prior to bringing it here, but no worries. FfD is quite different than other XfD processes in that there are significant legal concerns involved with what images we may retain. Strength of arguments is everything here. While the FfD in question had one editor supporting deletion and one IP editor favoring keep, the arguments of the editor supporting deletion were substantially stronger both in the sense of policy and copyright legalities. Per WP:NFCCP#10a, we must provide a source for a non-free image in order to both attribute it appropriately and assess our respect for commercial opportunities, which is necessary to claim fair use. After being at FfD for six months, there was still no specific source listed, so the argument of the editor supporting deletion held substantially more weight based on our non-free content criteria. Separately, the point was raised that this may not satisfy WP:NFCCP#4, as the only mention of this coat of arms available online is a picture of a privately-sent letter, which is another concern well-founded in policy. The arguments of the IP editor were not based in policy or copyright law. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 18:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is making me go, "What?" I must be missing something. I can't see this (it's been deleted) but if it's a logo from 1833, then it's clearly in the public domain and a decision to delete it makes no sense to me whatsoever. If it's a photograph of a logo that was first devised in 1833, then I thought the Wikimedia foundation's position was that faithful reproductions of out-of-copyright works were themselves out of copyright. Shouldn't it be restored and sent to Commons?—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @S Marshall: The bank originated in 1833, but we have no indication that the logo originated at that time. Indeed, we have no publication date at all or really any information about where this came from. There's no reliable source even indicating this was the actual logo of the bank. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I can understand that. I'm hampered in this discussion because I don't know what was deleted. What we need, and should retain, is an image of the bank's coat of arms, so it would look something like an embellished shield. The coat of arms would have been printed on its bank notes. (The National Provincial was formed in 1833 and would have issued its own bank notes between 1833 and 1844 when the Bank Charter Act came into force.) We can evidence the coat of arms' existence, origination date and association with the National Provincial by finding a photo of a National Provincial bank note, as these only existed in a relatively narrow time window. Bank notes are auctioned from time to time so an auction catalogue would be a likely source. If it's not the coat of arms then that's a different matter and I'd be less interested in it.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hi S Marshall. I nominated the file for discussion and if I remember correctly I believe it is similar to what is shown at the top here, but perhaps BU Rob13 can clarify that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oh, thanks, that's helpful. Yes, that's the coat of arms of the National Provincial Bank (see page 12 of this source). We need to find a photo of one of their bank notes to be sure but I think that's very likely to date to 1833 or thereabouts. But that doesn't mean we need to restore that particular image to en.wiki; if I can find the evidence then it's public domain, so I can redraw it in .svg format as a better quality image and upload to Commons. Which boils down to no need to disturb the close.—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        @S Marshall and Marchjuly: FWIW, the deleted image is almost certainly a cropped version (showing just the shield) of the file linked to above - the creases are in the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        I did mention that as a possibility in the relevant FFD discussion, but I did not upload the file so I couldn't say for sure. FWIW, Chrisieboy who uploaded the file was notified of the FFD and was also pinged regarding the source of the logo, so I'm assuming Chrisieboy was at least aware of the FFD discussion and decided not to comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that, if new information comes to light about the public domain status of this image, I'd have no objection to undeletion/would be willing to overturn myself. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 09:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- I've just had a look at the image and I agree that it plausibly/probably comes from the 19th century, but there's no room for such ambiguity on this. Perhaps if we could find the logo on some archived documents from that era? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse. Due to ambiguity and possible confusion with making a file eligible for WP:NFCC or proving it released with a free license, the closer performed the default action to prevent legal action against the project: deletion. If there can be evidence provided that the file is eligible for free licensing, I recommend uploading the file directly to Wikimedia Commons. In cases like this, it's best to err on the side of deletion over retention (which is usually the exact opposite for articles.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or moot. It's more than plausibly public domain. Develop the argument that it is public domain and upload to commons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've discovered that you can re-create a coat of arms in .svg and upload it to Wikimedia Commons at will. The emblazon (actual image of the shield) can be copyrighted but in US law, the blazon (specification for the shield) can't, under 17 USC 102(b). So apparently the correct procedure for all of these will be to create them on Commons as a fresh emblazon in .svg format, add this tag, and then delete them from en.wiki. I'll do this in due course.—S Marshall T/C 00:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @S Marshall: Be careful doing that. {{Insignia}} doesn't say anything about copyright; it just states that additional restrictions beyond copyright may exist on insignias in some countries. It's true that a blazon isn't copyrightable, but the emblazon is, so producing another emblazon directly based on the first would be a derivative work. In order to be safe here, you'd need to be drawing an entirely original emblazon based on the blazon. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 13:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Commons does contains quite a lot of emblazons that do seem to have been produced in this way. There's even a collection of standardised .svg elements for the purpose. You could start a discussion with them about reverse-engineering blazons if you feel it's a problem? Personally I think it's so likely that the source image is public domain, and so morally and ethically harmless to reverse-engineer the coat of arms of a bank that stopped trading before I was born, that I'm comfortable with it.—S Marshall T/C 14:03, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Draft:NUUP – Keep deleted as moot, now at Draft:NUUP Services – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:00, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Administrator failed to see Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion I believe RHaworth was well within his rights to speedy delete this per WP:CSD#G11. Multiple draft reviewers had told you it was an inappropriate piece of writing, but you ignored their advice and continually hit "submit". For the benefit of non-admins, the talk page text is as follows : "This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is an initiative from government initiative NUUP (National unified USSD payment) service. Do not delete, I can update the page further only after successful review, since i don't waste time on content which is not reviewed properly." Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answering "Multiple draft reviewers had told you it was an inappropriate piece of writing" - Multiple draft reviewers told me how to enhance the page not about G11, see the review comments properly speedy deleters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I might have just let this sit in draft space pending its inevitable G13 deletion, but this is a justifiable deletion under G11. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 14:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how to prove it is not promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is an Initiative or Service by Government of India. It is about the features and how it works. Do Not have any promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trout all around. On the one hand, yeah, this doesn't sound like an article we need, but it's not (IHMO) so blatantly promotional that WP:G11 applied. And, especially to a draft. The whole point of draft space is to incubate articles which aren't ready for mainspace yet. It's got to be really bad to warrant speedying something in draftspace. On the other hand, just continuing to hit the submit button in the hopes the next person to review it sees things differently isn't useful. Read the reviews and try to understand what people are objecting to. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion it reads like text from a brochure, with bulleted lists of things like "Round the clock availability (functional even on holidays)." No attempt was made to make it even slightly resemble an encyclopedia article. In addition, the service in question doesn't appear encyclopedically notable, so trying to fix it would just be a waste of time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a temp undelete please? In this case, the actual text is relevant (and I don't think cached by Google). Hobit (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have temporarily undeleted the draft for review. Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks! Hobit (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think this isn't an ideal speedy case. A) It's certainly overly promotional but also fixable. B) It's a draft C) the topic is likely notable. C doesn't really matter for a G11 and technically B) doesn't either, but realisitially we expect draft articles to have problems and don't generally speedy them if they are recoverable. This topic certainly is and the current draft can be easily fixed to deal with the promotionalism. overturn speedy and allow as a draft. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore to draft. I agree with Hobit's reasoning here. It is a fixable advertising case, and it was in draft space. None of the reviewers had mentioned promotional content, so I'm less sympathetic to the argument that its been reviewed multiple times. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just promotionalism, it's copyvio promotionalism pasted together from various bits of the company's marketing material. All of the first revision is from [1], for example. —Cryptic 02:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted but allow recreation and move of new page Draft:NUUP Services to mainspace. Because Draft:NUUP is a copyright violation (as Cryptic has shown above), it should remain deleted.
But I agree with the "Overturn" editors commenting here that it did not meet the speedy deletion criterion "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion", which says:
This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.
I do not believe the article would need to be "fundamentally rewritten".
Furthermore, I agree with RoySmith that "It's got to be really bad to warrant speedying something in draftspace" and with Hobit that "realisitially we expect draft articles to have problems and don't generally speedy them if they are recoverable".
The opening poster, Manivannan184 (talk · contribs), has created a new draft at Draft:NUUP Services. It contains reliable sources like http://www.financialexpress.com/money/nuup-dial-99-and-make-easy-payments-without-using-internet-by-any-featured-phone-through-a-new-ussd-based-technology/469515/ and http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/bhim-heres-your-guide-to-cashless-transactions-using-nuup-on-ios-and-feature-phones-355798.html. The new draft is less promotional and does not contain any copyright violations, so I recommend moving that page to mainspace.
Cunard (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion and No Move the new Draft to mainspace yet, because the Draft still has no signs of convincing acceptance, not only because the URls are not neatly formatted, but because it still needs additional work thus not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update from Author

I have created new draft Draft:NUUP_Services, with live advice from Wiki experts. So i request keep Draft:NUUP deleted and help in moving Draft:NUUP_Services to main article.

Few points to add - if you think it is promotional on seeing citation of SBI and ICICI, I can give you explanantion. SBI and ICICI are public and private banks in India. They are showing how their customers can use NUUP_Services. NUUP is something like NEFT, IMPS, RTGS (different types of transaction mechanisms). So bank websites shows how the services work, as it is new to India.

- in mentioned NEFT, IMPS pages. are you seeing any convincing citations? because these are mode of transaction, which does not have articles in news paper, as much you expected.

- Could I request for immediate intervention in Draft:NUUP_Services, as this technology is national wide implementation and has no wiki main article for users to look into. Manivannan184 (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn G11, delete G7 - in article space, the speedy would already be fairly disputable. So in Draft:, hell no. While I never really understood why draft space is necessary when there are user subpages, the threshold for WP:G11 is certainly higher there. (And G7 per the above comment.) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Manivannan184: None seems to have told that to you, but if you read carefully WP:PROMO, it says Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. "It is a government-backed initiative, thus the article is non-promotional" is therefore an incorrect reasoning. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.