Patiphat Chalardchaleam – Overturn to no consensus. It is not the role of the closer or the DRV participants to evaluate the sources from first principles; that is the job of the AfD participants, but no attempt was made to challenge Stvbastian's sources at AfD. Therefore, consensus at this DRV is that the AfD failed to achieve consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Patiphat Chalardchaleam (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) How come this article be deleted? There were an article with SIGCOV that sufficient to satisfied GNG --> 1. I've provided that article in the discussion, but seems like no one read. Stvbastian (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] overturn to NC I agree with the closer's reasoning, but I don't see a consensus to delete. Passing the SNG in this point is probably not enough, but WP:IAR still exists and it seems, in this case, that people feel the individual is over the bar. I suspect if brought back to AfD (per WP:RENOM) it will get deleted with a wider audience participating. Hobit (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse own deletion. The ongoing sports deletion wars of the past year and some have made it clear that passing sports notability guidelines does not suffice to have an article, only GNG, which was not met. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to No Consensus It is the role of the closer to determine whether there is consensus that significant coverage exists or does not exist. Comments supporting keeping the article pointed to sources that they thought would meet SIGCOV. The two participants favoring delete thought otherwise. In this case, participants were evenly divided on that question about whether significant coverage exists (two keeps came after sources were added to the discussion). In nearly all AFD discussions, each discussion should stand alone and not rely on precedent (WP:OUTCOMES "previous outcomes do not bind future ones"). (Note, absent the sources provided in the discussion from Stvbastian, arguing "keep" for participation is not a sufficient policy reason for keeping an article). --Enos733 (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus. For a start there was not enough support for deletion to sustain a Delete closure, as only one person other than the nominator supported deletion. If the AfD had only attracted that one Delete !vote it would have been closed as soft delete or no consensus (probably the latter since a PROD was contested previously), so we're in the rather perverse position where a bunch of people who supported keeping the page in fact made it possible for the page to be deleted. The Delete !votes aren't exactly high quality as they didn't make any attempt to refute the sources provided as evidence of notability, and claims such as "The subject has absolutely zero coverage" should be assigned zero weight once some coverage was produced. Finally the idea that the arguments in the Delete !votes are some sort of binding precedent are incorrect, the GNG is a guideline and occasional exceptions can be made to it. Hut 8.5 18:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to no consensus. In almost a month of being listed, there was only a single delete vote other than the nominator. That is very clearly not consensus to delete. There is enough strength in the keep votes to show the possibility that GNG was met. Frank Anchor 20:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] That AfD turns on the sources that Stvbastian found, but it contains no detailed discussion of them at all. It's literally just one side saying "this is obviously significant coverage" and the other saying "this obviously isn't significant coverage" with no middle ground. So it's a very poor quality discussion. One sympathises with the closer. This is a biography of a living person, so by our rules we should not decide to restore the article without checking the sources for ourselves. It falls to DRV to do the job that AfD should have done. Are we meant to buy that this is significant coverage? Because, with the caveat that I don't speak Thai so I'm reduced to google translate, it certainly looks like a passing mention to me. On the other hand, I do buy that this is significant coverage: there are three paragraphs about him or her. But it contains no biographical information at all. It's a sports website's report about a sporting match. The biography that I could source from that article would read: Patiphat Chalardchaleam is a badminton player who, as part of a doubles team, qualified to take part in the Thai Super Series in 2011. If we stipulate that this is significant coverage, and I don't think it is but let's pretend for a moment -- all it adds to the previous article is that Chalardcheam is a mixed doubles player. I would conclude that there's so little reliably sourced information about Chalardcheam that we couldn't possibly produce a high quality biographical article, and therefore Wikipedia shouldn't host one. This reduces to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to No Consensus - The closer's statement reads like a supervote rather than a conclusion from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] That I will disagree with. The closer felt the main issue was SNG vs. GNG because he felt the discussion clearly showed the GNG wasn't met. My first reading of the discussion was the same (though I reached a different conclusion). But I do agree the GNG issue wasn't fully settled in the discussion and so it's fair for folks to feel the close should be overturned on that basis. But I don't see a supervote here. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to keep - there certainly doesn't seem to be any consensus to delete. The basis of the nomination was that it didn't pass GNG. And when sources were offered to meet GNG, the nominator didn't challenge them - though did continue to question other's who wanted to keep. Then about a month later, the first delete appeared, simply claiming that GNG fails, but not addressing any of the sources provided to demonstrate GNG. Nfitz (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Patiphat Chalardchaleam – Overturn to no consensus. It is not the role of the closer or the DRV participants to evaluate the sources from first principles; that is the job of the AfD participants, but no attempt was made to challenge Stvbastian's sources at AfD. Therefore, consensus at this DRV is that the AfD failed to achieve consensus to delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

How come this article be deleted? There were an article with SIGCOV that sufficient to satisfied GNG --> 1. I've provided that article in the discussion, but seems like no one read. Stvbastian (talk) 16:13, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

overturn to NC I agree with the closer's reasoning, but I don't see a consensus to delete. Passing the SNG in this point is probably not enough, but WP:IAR still exists and it seems, in this case, that people feel the individual is over the bar. I suspect if brought back to AfD (per WP:RENOM) it will get deleted with a wider audience participating. Hobit (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion. The ongoing sports deletion wars of the past year and some have made it clear that passing sports notability guidelines does not suffice to have an article, only GNG, which was not met. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus It is the role of the closer to determine whether there is consensus that significant coverage exists or does not exist. Comments supporting keeping the article pointed to sources that they thought would meet SIGCOV. The two participants favoring delete thought otherwise. In this case, participants were evenly divided on that question about whether significant coverage exists (two keeps came after sources were added to the discussion). In nearly all AFD discussions, each discussion should stand alone and not rely on precedent (WP:OUTCOMES "previous outcomes do not bind future ones"). (Note, absent the sources provided in the discussion from Stvbastian, arguing "keep" for participation is not a sufficient policy reason for keeping an article). --Enos733 (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. For a start there was not enough support for deletion to sustain a Delete closure, as only one person other than the nominator supported deletion. If the AfD had only attracted that one Delete !vote it would have been closed as soft delete or no consensus (probably the latter since a PROD was contested previously), so we're in the rather perverse position where a bunch of people who supported keeping the page in fact made it possible for the page to be deleted. The Delete !votes aren't exactly high quality as they didn't make any attempt to refute the sources provided as evidence of notability, and claims such as "The subject has absolutely zero coverage" should be assigned zero weight once some coverage was produced. Finally the idea that the arguments in the Delete !votes are some sort of binding precedent are incorrect, the GNG is a guideline and occasional exceptions can be made to it. Hut 8.5 18:54, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. In almost a month of being listed, there was only a single delete vote other than the nominator. That is very clearly not consensus to delete. There is enough strength in the keep votes to show the possibility that GNG was met. Frank Anchor 20:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That AfD turns on the sources that Stvbastian found, but it contains no detailed discussion of them at all. It's literally just one side saying "this is obviously significant coverage" and the other saying "this obviously isn't significant coverage" with no middle ground. So it's a very poor quality discussion. One sympathises with the closer. This is a biography of a living person, so by our rules we should not decide to restore the article without checking the sources for ourselves. It falls to DRV to do the job that AfD should have done.
Are we meant to buy that this is significant coverage? Because, with the caveat that I don't speak Thai so I'm reduced to google translate, it certainly looks like a passing mention to me.
On the other hand, I do buy that this is significant coverage: there are three paragraphs about him or her. But it contains no biographical information at all. It's a sports website's report about a sporting match. The biography that I could source from that article would read: Patiphat Chalardchaleam is a badminton player who, as part of a doubles team, qualified to take part in the Thai Super Series in 2011.
If we stipulate that this is significant coverage, and I don't think it is but let's pretend for a moment -- all it adds to the previous article is that Chalardcheam is a mixed doubles player.
I would conclude that there's so little reliably sourced information about Chalardcheam that we couldn't possibly produce a high quality biographical article, and therefore Wikipedia shouldn't host one. This reduces to endorse.—S Marshall T/C 09:13, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus - The closer's statement reads like a supervote rather than a conclusion from the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- That I will disagree with. The closer felt the main issue was SNG vs. GNG because he felt the discussion clearly showed the GNG wasn't met. My first reading of the discussion was the same (though I reached a different conclusion). But I do agree the GNG issue wasn't fully settled in the discussion and so it's fair for folks to feel the close should be overturned on that basis. But I don't see a supervote here. Hobit (talk) 17:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep - there certainly doesn't seem to be any consensus to delete. The basis of the nomination was that it didn't pass GNG. And when sources were offered to meet GNG, the nominator didn't challenge them - though did continue to question other's who wanted to keep. Then about a month later, the first delete appeared, simply claiming that GNG fails, but not addressing any of the sources provided to demonstrate GNG. Nfitz (talk) 06:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

New Hampshire Administration Division – Restore. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
New Hampshire Administration Division (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (restore) I had several articles deleted when account was blocked, I was reinstated after making the standard offer, and I am now requesting that all articles deleted during the process of my account being blocked be restored to continue editing and improving them. The deleting admin, Liz is not present and has not participated in any discussion relating to the undeletion process. Other admins are unwilling to participate without Liz's comment. I do not believe the deletions were allowed under the G5 criterion, as it specifically states that any articles deleted must have been created AFTER the user in question was blocked, and that any articles specifically created by a sockpuppet account, regardless of the time it was created, must be deleted. None of these points apply to any articles which were speedily deleted by Liz under the G5 criterion, as this account was the sockmaster rather than a sockpuppet, and the articles were created prior to my block. Not only am I requesting review of the Administration Division article, but all of my articles and templates which were deleted by Liz, which are listed here at the RfU discussion. WhichUser AmI 15:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Overturn pending any explanation from Liz. The article was deleted on they day of your ban, indicating that it existed prior to the ban, so it shouldn't have been deleted as G5. Requests for undeletion says it's the wrong place to request undeletion of speedy-deleted items, and should come here. Your ban was for sock-puppetry and I don't think connected to the creation of these articles (if you'd used sock-puppetry to get the articles created, I'd be unsympathetic). So their deletion looks like a mistake. Same logic applies to all other articles created prior to the ban. Elemimele (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] ~~overturn~~ per above. I don't think this was a valid G5, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn I'm missing something. Hobit (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Okay, I did have the timing wrong. I'm good with endorse but restore per Frank. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] WhichUserAmI was first blocked on September 27, 2022, under the username OvxzEkB7LEDOchm6tUzaMtqPOQVsYSYSPR9WGpC8IEReJ0Re6ZqJlZXC937VoqNRzrAqSuAWRvBo8w6kjmnTt (as he's admitted), so articles like this one, which was created on October 11, 2022, were indeed deleteable as block evasion. But since these articles seem to be completely unobjectionable, I don't have a problem with restoring them now that he's returned to the land of the living. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse G5 per Extrordinary Writ, but explicitly restore as this appears to be a good-faith attempt of recreation by an editor now in good standing, and the subject seems to be at least borderline-notable. Frank Anchor 13:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse but restore per Frank Anchor. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Restore Not considering this an overturn, but since Liz has not responded on the matter with any new considerations, I just consider what is there in deleted history and logs. The block had nothing to do with content of articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Restore. If there is good faith disagreement about whether a speedy deletion criterion does or should apply to a specific page then it does not, because speedy deletion is explicitly only for "the most obvious cases". Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

New Hampshire Administration Division – Restore. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:13, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

I had several articles deleted when account was blocked, I was reinstated after making the standard offer, and I am now requesting that all articles deleted during the process of my account being blocked be restored to continue editing and improving them. The deleting admin, Liz is not present and has not participated in any discussion relating to the undeletion process. Other admins are unwilling to participate without Liz's comment. I do not believe the deletions were allowed under the G5 criterion, as it specifically states that any articles deleted must have been created AFTER the user in question was blocked, and that any articles specifically created by a sockpuppet account, regardless of the time it was created, must be deleted. None of these points apply to any articles which were speedily deleted by Liz under the G5 criterion, as this account was the sockmaster rather than a sockpuppet, and the articles were created prior to my block. Not only am I requesting review of the Administration Division article, but all of my articles and templates which were deleted by Liz, which are listed here at the RfU discussion. WhichUser AmI 15:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn pending any explanation from Liz. The article was deleted on they day of your ban, indicating that it existed prior to the ban, so it shouldn't have been deleted as G5. Requests for undeletion says it's the wrong place to request undeletion of speedy-deleted items, and should come here. Your ban was for sock-puppetry and I don't think connected to the creation of these articles (if you'd used sock-puppetry to get the articles created, I'd be unsympathetic). So their deletion looks like a mistake. Same logic applies to all other articles created prior to the ban. Elemimele (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
~~overturn~~ per above. I don't think this was a valid G5, but I wouldn't be shocked to learn I'm missing something. Hobit (talk) 19:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I did have the timing wrong. I'm good with endorse but restore per Frank. Hobit (talk) 17:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WhichUserAmI was first blocked on September 27, 2022, under the username OvxzEkB7LEDOchm6tUzaMtqPOQVsYSYSPR9WGpC8IEReJ0Re6ZqJlZXC937VoqNRzrAqSuAWRvBo8w6kjmnTt (as he's admitted), so articles like this one, which was created on October 11, 2022, were indeed deleteable as block evasion. But since these articles seem to be completely unobjectionable, I don't have a problem with restoring them now that he's returned to the land of the living. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse G5 per Extrordinary Writ, but explicitly restore as this appears to be a good-faith attempt of recreation by an editor now in good standing, and the subject seems to be at least borderline-notable. Frank Anchor 13:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but restore per Frank Anchor. Stifle (talk) 08:05, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore Not considering this an overturn, but since Liz has not responded on the matter with any new considerations, I just consider what is there in deleted history and logs. The block had nothing to do with content of articles. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. If there is good faith disagreement about whether a speedy deletion criterion does or should apply to a specific page then it does not, because speedy deletion is explicitly only for "the most obvious cases". Thryduulf (talk) 11:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:NY excelsior plate.jpg and File:NY2007Plate.png – Closures endorsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:NY excelsior plate.jpg (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) File:NY2007Plate.png (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (article`\|`XfD`\|`restore) License plate image was uploaded with the wrong tag. Please restore this and I'll replace it with the proper copyright tag. Shim119 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion I don't think it's just the tag--you'd need a fair use justification (or show that the plate design is in the public domain). At the very least I'd want to see what your proposed tag said before this was undeleted. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] What tag are you planning to use? Stifle (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] See Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#File:NY_excelsior_plate.jpg. Given that every article has license plate images, @Red-tailed hawk: fails to establish a sources on how this is copyrighted in the first place and has no problem with the dozens of other images being on all the other license plate articles here. Shim119 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] I have posted a link to a relevant court case below. Please note that the court explicitly found that New York's state law does not render works of NY State or its subdivisions as being in the public domain. Additionally, I do not appreciate the the implication behind your allegation that I have no problem with the dozens of other images being on all the other license plate articles here. I have been dutifully going through the License plates of several U.S. states on Commons to try to have those that are copyrighted removed from Commons. Aside from c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of New York (state), I have filed or commented on deletion requests that include: c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Oregon c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Kansas c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Nebraska c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of New Mexico c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Illinois c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Arizona c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Oklahoma c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Montana c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Colorado c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Nevada c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of New Hampshire c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Idaho c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Indiana c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of North Dakota c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Iowa c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Alabama c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Ohio c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Michigan c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Mississippi c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Montana c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Vehicle registration plates of Maryland While I understand that the task of culling images of copyrighted license plates not available under a suitable free license is not yet finished on Commons, it is not because I have no problem with them being hosted. Rather, I am trying to keep these categories well-maintained, so that our Commons can remain truly free for re-users. Please strike the part of your comment which implies that I am not doing so. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Comment: These two files were originally listed separately with the same word for word listing comment, but I have combined them into a single listing as the results will inevitably be the same. This will avoid the need to write comments twice. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse - the FFD was closed according to consensus and the claim that the FFD nominator failed to establish copyright is nonsense as US copyright law is the source, and the nomination additionally considered and rejected conversion to non-free use. I also note the NFUR at the undeletion request made by Shim119 is woefully inadequate. -- Whpq (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] @Whpq: Uhh, there was only one person the said "delete" on each FFD. You can't seriously base consensus on one person alone. Shim119 (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] The nomination made a solid case that the license plate from the State of New York is not covered by a PD license for US Government Federal works, and another editor agreed; you yourself admit as much in your DRV appeal I'll replace it with the proper copyright tag -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Meanwhile, Shim119's gone ahead and uploaded both to Commons - c:File:2001NYEmpirePlate.jpg, c:File:2020NYExcelsiorPlate.jpg. Don't expect them to last long there. (Though I'm kind of surprised nobody's ever noticed and deleted c:File:New York license plate, 1986.png, given c:COM:Deletion requests/File:New York 1986 License Plate.jpg.) Anyway, if you're serious about improving the encyclopedia and not just being cute and edgy, you'll want to pick plates with different lettering. —Cryptic 19:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] They've been deleted and the uploader blocked for doing an end-run around copyright rules. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] I had no problem editing on commons this morning. Also there is this file File:New York State Excelsior License Plate.jpg. Let's get to the point here, was this deleted because the fair use rationale was wrong? Shim119 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] You are blocked on Commons, but not here on the English Wikipedia. As for the Commons image, that was nominated for deletion on May 18. -- Whpq (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] @Whpq:no, I just edited there no problem. Shim119 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] That's because the block duration was 1 day. -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] So, before this discussion has even finished, (a) User:Shim119 has now reuploaded both images to Wikipedia, followed by User:Whpq nominating NY excelsior plate.jpg for deletion yet again; I have tagged both with ((db-g4)). Now suitably caught up, I endorse the deletion because (i) I've been given no reason not to by the DRV-instigator, (ii) the thorough deletion-nominations seem accurate in all their points, and (iii) their current use is patently a violation of WP:NFCC#8. — Fourthords \| =Λ= \| 23:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse deletion. These were deleted on Commons as copyright violations—and for good reason. Both plates are over the threshold of originality in the United States. As works of a U.S. State first published after March 1, 1989, they are therefore eligible for copyright protection even without a copyright notice being printed or there being some formal registration. (New York is one of the states where a federal court has explicitly ruled that works created by the state government and its subdivisions are copyrighted per this 2nd circuit case, so arguing otherwise seems particularly ill-advised). There is also no reasonable NFCC argument here, as WP:NFG states that [t]he use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, and this doesn't seem to be a particularly special case. As such, the deletion rationale was correct, and the reason to undelete the files is not compelling. The files should stay deleted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Comment - The appellant filed a dispute resolution request at DRN. I closed the DRN request because DRN is not a forum to review an FFD closure, to review a DRV decision, or to discuss copyright policy. DRV is the forum to review an FFD closure. There isn't a forum to review a DRV decision because DRV is meant to be an appellate noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse per above. Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. Also not impressed by the poor behavior by the uploader; the blocks on enwp and Commons were much needed. -FASTILY 08:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

File:NY excelsior plate.jpg and File:NY2007Plate.png – Closures endorsed. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

License plate image was uploaded with the wrong tag. Please restore this and I'll replace it with the proper copyright tag. Shim119 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion I don't think it's just the tag--you'd need a fair use justification (or show that the plate design is in the public domain). At the very least I'd want to see what your proposed tag said before this was undeleted. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What tag are you planning to use? Stifle (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#File:NY_excelsior_plate.jpg. Given that every article has license plate images, @Red-tailed hawk: fails to establish a sources on how this is copyrighted in the first place and has no problem with the dozens of other images being on all the other license plate articles here. Shim119 (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have posted a link to a relevant court case below. Please note that the court explicitly found that New York's state law does not render works of NY State or its subdivisions as being in the public domain.
Additionally, I do not appreciate the the implication behind your allegation that I have no problem with the dozens of other images being on all the other license plate articles here. I have been dutifully going through the License plates of several U.S. states on Commons to try to have those that are copyrighted removed from Commons. Aside from c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of New York (state), I have filed or commented on deletion requests that include:
c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Oregon

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Kansas

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Nebraska

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of New Mexico

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Illinois

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Arizona

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Oklahoma

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Montana

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Colorado

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Nevada

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of New Hampshire

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Idaho

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Indiana

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of North Dakota

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Iowa

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Alabama

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Ohio

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Michigan

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Mississippi

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:License plates of Montana

c:Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Vehicle registration plates of Maryland
While I understand that the task of culling images of copyrighted license plates not available under a suitable free license is not yet finished on Commons, it is not because I have no problem with them being hosted. Rather, I am trying to keep these categories well-maintained, so that our Commons can remain truly free for re-users. Please strike the part of your comment which implies that I am not doing so. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:49, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These two files were originally listed separately with the same word for word listing comment, but I have combined them into a single listing as the results will inevitably be the same. This will avoid the need to write comments twice. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the FFD was closed according to consensus and the claim that the FFD nominator failed to establish copyright is nonsense as US copyright law is the source, and the nomination additionally considered and rejected conversion to non-free use. I also note the NFUR at the undeletion request made by Shim119 is woefully inadequate. -- Whpq (talk) 00:17, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Whpq: Uhh, there was only one person the said "delete" on each FFD. You can't seriously base consensus on one person alone. Shim119 (talk) 11:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination made a solid case that the license plate from the State of New York is not covered by a PD license for US Government Federal works, and another editor agreed; you yourself admit as much in your DRV appeal I'll replace it with the proper copyright tag -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile, Shim119's gone ahead and uploaded both to Commons - c:File:2001NYEmpirePlate.jpg, c:File:2020NYExcelsiorPlate.jpg. Don't expect them to last long there. (Though I'm kind of surprised nobody's ever noticed and deleted c:File:New York license plate, 1986.png, given c:COM:Deletion requests/File:New York 1986 License Plate.jpg.) Anyway, if you're serious about improving the encyclopedia and not just being cute and edgy, you'll want to pick plates with different lettering. —Cryptic 19:32, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
They've been deleted and the uploader blocked for doing an end-run around copyright rules. Stifle (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I had no problem editing on commons this morning. Also there is this file File:New York State Excelsior License Plate.jpg. Let's get to the point here, was this deleted because the fair use rationale was wrong? Shim119 (talk) 20:31, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You are blocked on Commons, but not here on the English Wikipedia. As for the Commons image, that was nominated for deletion on May 18. -- Whpq (talk) 12:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Whpq:no, I just edited there no problem. Shim119 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's because the block duration was 1 day. -- Whpq (talk) 21:20, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, before this discussion has even finished, (a) User:Shim119 has now reuploaded both images to Wikipedia, followed by User:Whpq nominating NY excelsior plate.jpg for deletion yet again; I have tagged both with ((db-g4)). Now suitably caught up, I endorse the deletion because (i) I've been given no reason not to by the DRV-instigator, (ii) the thorough deletion-nominations seem accurate in all their points, and (iii) their current use is patently a violation of WP:NFCC#8. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 23:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. These were deleted on Commons as copyright violations—and for good reason. Both plates are over the threshold of originality in the United States. As works of a U.S. State first published after March 1, 1989, they are therefore eligible for copyright protection even without a copyright notice being printed or there being some formal registration. (New York is one of the states where a federal court has explicitly ruled that works created by the state government and its subdivisions are copyrighted per this 2nd circuit case, so arguing otherwise seems particularly ill-advised). There is also no reasonable NFCC argument here, as WP:NFG states that [t]he use of non-free images arranged in a gallery or tabular format is usually unacceptable, and this doesn't seem to be a particularly special case. As such, the deletion rationale was correct, and the reason to undelete the files is not compelling. The files should stay deleted. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The appellant filed a dispute resolution request at DRN. I closed the DRN request because DRN is not a forum to review an FFD closure, to review a DRV decision, or to discuss copyright policy. DRV is the forum to review an FFD closure. There isn't a forum to review a DRV decision because DRV is meant to be an appellate noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. Textbook WP:NFCC#8 violation. Also not impressed by the poor behavior by the uploader; the blocks on enwp and Commons were much needed. -FASTILY 08:27, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Bose: The Untold Story of An Inconvenient Nationalist – There is rough consensus that the close should be either overturned or vacated due to the lack of counterpoints offered by keep !voters with regards to the subject's notability. While there is no clear preference, relisting will allow for further input from editors and clearer consensus. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bose: The Untold Story of An Inconvenient Nationalist (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) The book has been the subject of two newspaper articles, it is notable per WP:NBOOK. WP:NBOOK says "that the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." Subject of two or more non-trivial published works: Book Review \| Relook at Netaji, the inconvenient one who made all the hard choices - The Deccanchronicle New book explores ‘hidden’ political legacy of Subhas Chandra Bose in 2010 declassified files - The Print Books with the India twist - The Statesman New biography of Subhas Chandra Bose with untold stories to release in February 2022 - The Times of India Special note: Nowhere in the criteria for notability of a book does it mention the need for a review or critical review. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. Additionally, I do not believe the DRV nomination and presented sources sufficiently address the quality (i.e., sigcov vs trivial, and independence) issues raised at AFD, so I would advise against recreation per #3 at the present juncture, as it seems likely to be re-deleted. However, I may defer to a more detailed analysis of the sources if one is offered. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] The four references above address the book directly and in detail as a subject. Also, the four references are not advertisements and press releases. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] I've not reached a conclusive opinion of the first two, which is why I'd defer even though I'm skeptical, but the latter two are definitely not suitable, either on depth or independence grounds. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Although, I suppose it's not like we have to do the source analysis here, so I would not be fussed if this was relisted specifically for comments on quality of the sources. I just don't think the close was wrong, even if I would have also endorsed a no consensus or NPASR. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] overturn to NC I'm not buying any of the arguments made that the reviews don't count toward WP:N. It's possible that they shouldn't, but the fact the reviewers have similar political leanings to the author of the book isn't a reason to not count them. Nor is the author holding beliefs that are probably wrong a reason. So basically, I don't see consensus to delete. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse You can find 2 - 4 reviews about just many many books these days but those sources were supposed to be WP:RS. Editorkamran (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] The Times of India, Deccan Chronicle and The Statesman (India) are India's leading newspapers or mainstream newspapers. The Times of India is the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world. Deccan Chronicle is one of the leading newspapers of South India based in Hyderabad. The Statesman (India) is one of India's oldest English newspapers based in Kolkata. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] And I see no arguments the sources aren't RSes in the deletion discussion... Hobit (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Overturn to keep The deletes are not making any compelling arguments, one of them is contingent on the reviews being NN, ReaderofthePack posted a decent rebuttal to the arguments against sourcing without a bolded !vote, and probably most importantly of all, the author of a review being "a fringe pro-Hindutva writer" is an ad hominem attack, rather than a critique of notability. The whole mess seems to suggest that this evolution is a political disagreement disguised as a deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse. The deletion process appears to have been properly followed, and there is no argument here to suggest otherwise, just an attempt to re-argue the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Relist. While the delete side enjoys a substantial numerical advantage, Reading Beans' "keep" vote references two reviews which were not successfully refuted. Another week of discussion will allow further analysis of these reviews. Also okay with an overturn to no consensus, but there clearly is not policy-based consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 13:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Endorse The last comment on the AfD,[1] was the fair analysis of all arguments that happened on the AfD. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Except that it suggested a perfectly sensible ATD which was not implemented by the closer. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Note from closer. Indeed, it was the analysis in that comment which swayed me to delete (despite that the commenter suggested redirecting). Redirect is certainly an option as well, and I would have been very open to discussing that post-AfD. I assumed good faith that the other contributers had considered ReaderofthePack's analysis (in which ReaderofthePack refrained from "making a judgment call" on the book's notability), and were not making ad hominems against the author/subject, but rather were exercising reasonable suspicion. At any rate, in my view it was clear enough to me (though not as clear as any closer would like) that I had best take the side of delete/redirect rather than keep/NC. *Arbitrarily0* ^(talk) 08:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Overturn per Jclemens and Hobit. Either no consensus or keep would have been appropriate outcomes of that discussion, depending whether you just down-weight the ad hominems or disregard them completely. Nobody attempted to refute ReaderofthePack's detailed rebuttal of the nomination statement, and it's unclear whether Oaktree b even read the article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] I think it can be presumed that Oaktree b read the reviews based on his first comment on the 8th which was not a bolded !vote. I am not entirely clear on the reasoning behind the change in his assessment, though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Relist. RotP's arguments to keep were strong and unrefuted, so more input is needed. An overturn to keep or no cons would also be fine by me. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 12:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Relist Since the discussion was not long, we can have more active participants. There is not many counterpoints to keep votes and the vice versa.Jimandjam (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Bose: The Untold Story of An Inconvenient Nationalist – There is rough consensus that the close should be either overturned or vacated due to the lack of counterpoints offered by keep !voters with regards to the subject's notability. While there is no clear preference, relisting will allow for further input from editors and clearer consensus. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 23:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

The book has been the subject of two newspaper articles, it is notable per WP:NBOOK. WP:NBOOK says "that the book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book."

Subject of two or more non-trivial published works:

Book Review | Relook at Netaji, the inconvenient one who made all the hard choices - The Deccanchronicle
New book explores ‘hidden’ political legacy of Subhas Chandra Bose in 2010 declassified files - The Print
Books with the India twist - The Statesman
New biography of Subhas Chandra Bose with untold stories to release in February 2022 - The Times of India

Special note: Nowhere in the criteria for notability of a book does it mention the need for a review or critical review. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 08:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Additionally, I do not believe the DRV nomination and presented sources sufficiently address the quality (i.e., sigcov vs trivial, and independence) issues raised at AFD, so I would advise against recreation per #3 at the present juncture, as it seems likely to be re-deleted. However, I may defer to a more detailed analysis of the sources if one is offered. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:00, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The four references above address the book directly and in detail as a subject. Also, the four references are not advertisements and press releases. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 00:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've not reached a conclusive opinion of the first two, which is why I'd defer even though I'm skeptical, but the latter two are definitely not suitable, either on depth or independence grounds. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:15, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Although, I suppose it's not like we have to do the source analysis here, so I would not be fussed if this was relisted specifically for comments on quality of the sources. I just don't think the close was wrong, even if I would have also endorsed a no consensus or NPASR. Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:16, 25 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
overturn to NC I'm not buying any of the arguments made that the reviews don't count toward WP:N. It's possible that they shouldn't, but the fact the reviewers have similar political leanings to the author of the book isn't a reason to not count them. Nor is the author holding beliefs that are probably wrong a reason. So basically, I don't see consensus to delete. Hobit (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse You can find 2 - 4 reviews about just many many books these days but those sources were supposed to be WP:RS. Editorkamran (talk) 00:31, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Times of India, Deccan Chronicle and The Statesman (India) are India's leading newspapers or mainstream newspapers. The Times of India is the third-largest newspaper in India by circulation and largest selling English-language daily in the world. Deccan Chronicle is one of the leading newspapers of South India based in Hyderabad. The Statesman (India) is one of India's oldest English newspapers based in Kolkata. -- খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And I see no arguments the sources aren't RSes in the deletion discussion... Hobit (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep The deletes are not making any compelling arguments, one of them is contingent on the reviews being NN, ReaderofthePack posted a decent rebuttal to the arguments against sourcing without a bolded !vote, and probably most importantly of all, the author of a review being "a fringe pro-Hindutva writer" is an ad hominem attack, rather than a critique of notability. The whole mess seems to suggest that this evolution is a political disagreement disguised as a deletion discussion. Jclemens (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The deletion process appears to have been properly followed, and there is no argument here to suggest otherwise, just an attempt to re-argue the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. While the delete side enjoys a substantial numerical advantage, Reading Beans' "keep" vote references two reviews which were not successfully refuted. Another week of discussion will allow further analysis of these reviews. Also okay with an overturn to no consensus, but there clearly is not policy-based consensus to delete. Frank Anchor 13:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The last comment on the AfD,[1] was the fair analysis of all arguments that happened on the AfD. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 00:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Except that it suggested a perfectly sensible ATD which was not implemented by the closer. Jclemens (talk) 06:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note from closer. Indeed, it was the analysis in that comment which swayed me to delete (despite that the commenter suggested redirecting). Redirect is certainly an option as well, and I would have been very open to discussing that post-AfD. I assumed good faith that the other contributers had considered ReaderofthePack's analysis (in which ReaderofthePack refrained from "making a judgment call" on the book's notability), and were not making ad hominems against the author/subject, but rather were exercising reasonable suspicion. At any rate, in my view it was clear enough to me (though not as clear as any closer would like) that I had best take the side of delete/redirect rather than keep/NC. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 08:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn per Jclemens and Hobit. Either no consensus or keep would have been appropriate outcomes of that discussion, depending whether you just down-weight the ad hominems or disregard them completely. Nobody attempted to refute ReaderofthePack's detailed rebuttal of the nomination statement, and it's unclear whether Oaktree b even read the article. Thryduulf (talk) 01:21, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be presumed that Oaktree b read the reviews based on his first comment on the 8th which was not a bolded !vote. I am not entirely clear on the reasoning behind the change in his assessment, though. Alpha3031 (t • c) 16:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. RotP's arguments to keep were strong and unrefuted, so more input is needed. An overturn to keep or no cons would also be fine by me. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 12:32, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relist Since the discussion was not long, we can have more active participants. There is not many counterpoints to keep votes and the vice versa.Jimandjam (talk) 10:51, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:French Polynesian lawyers – Speedily undeleted and relisted – the closer of a deletion discussion is always welcome to re-open it at any time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Category:French Polynesian lawyers (talk`\|`edit`\|`history`\|`logs`\|`links`\|`watch) (XfD`\|`restore) After the CfD was closed, but before the category was merged into Category:French lawyers, two pages were added to the category, bringing the total count up to 5: Rudy Bambridge Michel Buillard Denise Goupil Tepuaraurii Teriitahi Richard Tuheiava –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Overturn or speedily relist per WP:NOTBURO, as the deletion rationale is no longer applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply] Comment - I've since added Vincent Dubois and Rachelle Florès as well, bringing the count to 7.--IdiotSavant (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Category:French Polynesian lawyers – Speedily undeleted and relisted – the closer of a deletion discussion is always welcome to re-open it at any time. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

After the CfD was closed, but before the category was merged into Category:French lawyers, two pages were added to the category, bringing the total count up to 5:

Rudy Bambridge
Michel Buillard
Denise Goupil
Tepuaraurii Teriitahi
Richard Tuheiava –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn or speedily relist per WP:NOTBURO, as the deletion rationale is no longer applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've since added Vincent Dubois and Rachelle Florès as well, bringing the count to 7.--IdiotSavant (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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