Pindos (Russian slang) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Allow recreation There was only one vote for delete in the AfD. This term is indeed a very notable Russian slang term. There are many sources listed in the Russian Wikipedia: [1] 71.191.189.195 ( talk) 22:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• I'm afraid that my Russian has deteriorated to the point that I can't follow the article as well as I would like. Please can you identify which of the sources mentioned are substantive content that meets our sourcing requirements. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted pending the provision of substantive sources. Stifle ( talk) 14:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Icarly-logo-2.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

I'm a little concerned about the SVG file ( File:Icarly logo.svg) of the iCarly logo. The logo is unfree, and SVG is more superior than the PNG. I tried to request undeletion of the inferior PNG just to avoid infringement of the image's original use and original quality. However, it was rejected, so I'm requesting consensus here. If the format is irrelevant, then is avoiding copyright infringement less important than image quality? George Ho ( talk) 21:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Reverse - The PNG logo should be used in place of a user-made SVG logo. If this was a logo pulled digitally from documentation from the copyright holder, then using the SVG version is generally accepted, but this is clearly stated as a user-made recreation of the logo, and as a non-free image, an SVG is not allowed in this scenario (tiny errors, etc.). The SVG needs to be deleted and the PNG restored. -- MASEM ( t) 22:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment The refusal was here and the preceding discussion was here. My understanding is that, because SVG images are scalable to large dimensions without loss of quality, some think it is (normally) an unsuitable format for non-free images which WP:NFCC guidance says are to be of low resolution [2] because WP:NFC policy requires us to respect commercial opportunities [3] and minimal extent of use. [4] I don't think any non-SVG policy/guidance is documented. Anyway, there are problems. Thincat ( talk) 23:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The important thing here is to give a true representation of the logo so as not to tarnish the reputation of the trademark holder. Some of the fair use criteria go against what the purpose of the logo is for. The copyright holder does not want to minimize use or have low quality copies. The issue of resolution in nonfree images when it comes to svg files is how much information or detail is in the file. In this case there is not much. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 00:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I completely respect the true representation part, and that's justification for using an SVG that is pulled automatically from digital documents from the copyright/trademark owner. This is not (the uploader specifically cited it as their work). However close it may be to the actual logo, that's not true representation; a PNG pulled from the show's website is better than an SVG made by a user (and then we have to add in derivative work copyright issues). This is why SVGs are strongly discouraged for NFC. -- MASEM ( t) 02:26, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't see how reduced quality may infringe trademark use. Care to explain? George Ho ( talk) 09:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Question is there enough originality to be subject to copyright? I didn't think a shape with some text would rise to that level, but I'm no expert. Masem? Hobit ( talk) 04:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Masem says that 3D effects make the logo copyrightable enough. George Ho ( talk) 04:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Could well be, but I don't see how it isn't just a font. Hobit ( talk) 05:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
      • The shadow effects aren't copyrightable to you? George Ho ( talk) 05:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
        • I'd say it's just a font, but again I'm no expert. Might be worth bringing to possibly free files or something. Hobit ( talk) 07:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
          • Here's the old review. George Ho ( talk) 07:30, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
            • SVG files are sometimes copyrighted as computer software (see Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.), and therefore the SVG adaptation often needs identification of the programmer who created the SVG file and a licence from that person. If it is based on a different vector image, it may need permission from the person who created that vector image as well, even if that image was in a different vector format. Unfortunately, it doesn't say where the SVG file comes from, and the threshold of originality for computer software isn't clearly established on Wikipedia.
            • The logo itself may or may not be simple enough, but the United States Copyright Office approved a registration of the Disney Junior logo, so this is probably too complex. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply
          • The lighting and shadow effects go beyond simple dropshadows or the like, making the logo appear as a real 3D object and thus gaining the copyright that unique lighting/shadows would have been granted to photographers. A comparison is the Oreo logo which was at commons but since deleted (though reused here under NFC allowances) per [5]. This logo is even moreso well beyond the threshold of originality. -- MASEM ( t) 06:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• It could be argued that the SVG violates WP:NFCC#3b, but this depends on how closely the SVG resembles the correct rendering of the logo. If an SVG isn't faithful to the logo when rendered at a high problem, I don't think that it would violate WP:NFCC#3b. A low-quality PNG wouldn't have this problem. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Roslyn_Fuller ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Page has been deleted with reason A7 despite the subject being a well-known Irish academic, with dozens of citations on the deleted page. Timing of deletion is suspect as subject has just recently been featured in article on Russia Today on controversial subject - Link here: http://rt.com/news/wikilicious-whistleblower-calendar-glamor-091/

Please advise as to possible steps to reverse deletion

Abraedt ( talk) 18:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close on procedural grounds, DRV is not for reviewing CSD. The admin who deleted the article (or any other admin for that matter) can "userfy" the article to your sandbox so that you can work undisturbed on it until it is ready to be moved into mainspace again. -- Randykitty ( talk) 18:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

  Of course DRV can look at if a CSD was applied correctly. Point 2 in fact of what DRV can be used for. -- 86.5.93.42 ( talk) 19:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The admin who deleted it hasn't given any grounds beyond A7, nor has the admin sandboxed the article for me, but simply deleted it. Request for the article to be reinstated. If an admin wants it deleted, grounds need to be given.

Abraedt ( talk) 19:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

The page was already reviewed for Deletion in 2009 and content upheld... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skyscooby ( talk • contribs) 19:58, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Restore and send to afd First of all, it is not an A7 by any stretch of the imagination, as there are very clear claims to significance. Second, it was kept at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roslyn Fuller. FWIW, I am not at all sure that there is clear notability , but it has to be discussed. This speedy was totally out of process.

And Del Rev can certainly be used for undeleting a speedy. It's not usually necessary, but if the deleting admin declines to restore or userify it, it can be appropriate to come here. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you everyone! Please advise on next steps. Do I resubmit the article or just activate an earlier version? Some additional facts can be added to underline notability if required - for instance the subject has since published a leading text book on international law in Ireland. Thanks! Abraedt ( talk) 20:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment The deleting admin commented here so more discussion would have been helpful before coming to DRV. However, it does not look to me that speedy deletion was appropriate. @ Abraedt: you should not edit the temporarily undeleted article until this DRV discussion closes and I suggest you also wait before resubmitting anything. Thincat ( talk) 22:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

This isn't really the place to be saying it but the deleting admin has an unusual recent record for contributions [6] and deletions. [7] Thincat ( talk) 22:38, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Now that I can see the deleted article, I agree that this is in no way an A7. However, neither do I see in any of the respective talkpages a request to userfy or undelete (only a request for an explanation, which was given; also, another admin can decide to restore, too). The deletion certainly was a weird decision, but DRV was one step too early. -- Randykitty ( talk) 23:49, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

NOTBURO. When there's a really weird decision, coming here is one way of getting it the appropriate attention. It's however true that I and some other admins would have simply undeleted it if asked. DGG ( talk ) 03:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Abraham modal haplotype ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Let's give it another chasnce, for I need to add issn and oclc numbers to main source (klyosov 2011), my use of doi (more authorative for scientists, showed it in prepublication nature proceedigs, but issn/oclc show it in a published journal available in 100s of libraries as a paper document) also the same to other all articles showing they are available in tens of university libraries (in paper not just edocumet) and still being sold by mail order, plus to add more studies/sources of same topic that are referencing the main sources. I was not aware of 7 days limit of discussion and days wasted in wild goose chase because the other partyies did not specifiy which part of notability they allude to. article is essential for genetic diseases studies for many diseases are race specific and paternal line, even y-chromosome.the page perfectly meets notability wiki policy guidelines, my posts in the discussion were in adherence to notability/reliable sources: primary source?secondary source, while other editors like user-agricolae were stonewalling/word play and making arguments outside the notability guideline of which the page nominated for deletion for deletion in the first place.I contacted administrator coffee but no response. The article is important for Arabs and i would appreciate serious adminstration review of discussion Viibird ( talk) 02:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Did you see on the Purpose section of the Deletion Review page where it says, "Deletion Review should not be used: . . . 8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias"? That means you don't get to accuse me of "stonewalling/word play" here (or as you also did in requesting the Galilee modal haplotype deletion review). Agricolae ( talk) 18:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Uphold decision There was a clear consensus to delete. And despite huge walls of text and attempts at wikilawyering by Viibird, no cohesive argument to keep was presented. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:47, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - nothing to suggest the deletion discussion or close were invalid. Nominator is encouraged to drop his stick and read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies before trying again. Stalwart 111 12:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (no need to nominate and !vote - we understand your view) - Let's give it another chasnce, for I need to add issn and oclc numbers to main source (klyosov 2011), my use of doi (more authorative for scientists, showed it in prepublication nature proceedigs, but issn/oclc show it in a published journal available in 100s of libraries as a paper document) also the same to other all articles showing they are available in tens of university libraries (in paper not just edocumet) and still being sold by mail order, plus to add more studies/sources of same topic that are referencing the main sources. I was not aware of 7 days limit of discussion and days wasted in wild goose chase because the other partyies did not specifiy which part of notability they allude to. article is essential for genetic diseases studies for many diseases are race specific and paternal line, even y-chromosome linked Viibird ( talk) 17:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Out of scope, per item 5 of "Deletion review should not be used" at the top of the page. Stifle ( talk) 14:57, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have consistently disagree with Stifle over the years about the proper use of deletion review: I consider that correct WP deletion process requires the deletions to be in accord with WP policies and guidelines, and to take account of the arguments submitted and the consensus, and to use good judgment. Therefore any closure that fails to do so is a mistake in following WP Deletion process. A error in evaluating the evidence, the guidelines, the policy or the consensus are all cases of improper process, for the correct procedure for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. Therefore any closing that is asserted to not be in accord with correct judgment, or with the facts of the matter, can and should be reviewed here. All systems except drumhead court-martials provide for review. All admin decisions are reviewable, otherwise the community would not be willing to have admins, as none of them, including myself, are perfect. There needs to be a way of considering new evidence after something has been deleted, and this is the only place available. The guiding policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. If any statement on this page or elsewhere is inconsistent with that, it is not applicable. This is only a comment, because I have not yet examined the actual situation. DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Consensus was clear. Closing administrator acted in an appropriate manner, entirely consistent with the consensus. The lack of notability won't change by reopening the discussion for a term that has no Google scholar hits, no PubMed hits, no Google News hits, when you eliminate Wikipedia mirrors has fewer Ghits than some random word strings, and where the paper in which the term was coined has never been formally published. Agricolae ( talk) 18:11, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Uphold decision to delete. I follow the scholarly literature on this topic closely, and there simply aren't reliable sources out there in the real world to support this as an encyclopedic topic. An article based solely on fringe primary sources does not uphold Wikipedia policy, and the encyclopedia project will be the better for following reliable sources as the verification policy expects. Keep the article deleted. -- WeijiBaikeBianji ( talk, how I edit) 14:54, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply

Galilee modal haplotype ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

the page perfectly meets notability wiki policy guidelines, my posts in the discussion were in adherence to notability/reliable sources: primary source?secondary source, while editor agricolae was stonewalling and making arguments outside the notability guideline of which he nominated the page for deletion in the first place Viibird ( talk) 02:15, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• Uphold decision Basically the same as the one above. Viibird is encouraged to get more acquainted with our notability standards and to stop creating pages on non-notable subjects and creating unnecessary DRVs. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - as above, nothing to suggest the deletion discussion or close were invalid. Nominator is encouraged to drop his stick and read up on Wikipedia guidelines and policies before trying again. Stalwart 111 12:40, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (no need to nominate and !vote - we understand your view) Even though I don't have BA degree in English, I have MD degree among others (the field of article), and I managed to study extensively the great wiki-Notabiblity guidelines, to see the article clearly fit the guidelines. The sources in the article are clearly not Primary but secondary and tertiary (one to be added). The article is important scientifically for Arab ancestry and scientists tangling the issues of genetic diseases of Arabs. Viibird ( talk) 17:10, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

You may have studied them but you don't seem to have understood them, nor the concept of WP:CONSENSUS. You'll not get far by ignoring the views of others. Stalwart 111 21:03, 23 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I was talking about Notability guidelines policy of wiki policy, and you are talking about consensus of the discussion! ( is consensus of discussion part of notability guidelines of wiki? the consensus was one wiki user to 1. Is that a consensus of the scentific community?

because the scientific community have consensus that galilee modal haplotype credible according to the several studies sited in the article. so 2 perons beat the scientific community? consensus of deletion discussion is not part of notability wiki guidelines Viibird ( talk) 22:01, 24 November 2013 (UTC) reply

I noticed this at top "For administrator use only:

This project page was nominated for deletion on 14 November 2013. The result of the discussion was keep.

" doesnt that mean adminstrator decided to keep the article?

and the deletion was made by non administrator! Viibird ( talk) 02:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply

That's just hanging around in the template as a nowiki to remind someone closing manually to tag the talk page. Its means absolutely nothing in this context. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 25 November 2013 (UTC) reply

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC) reply
• Uphold Consensus was clear and policy-based. The page creator was the only participating editor in favor of retention. Closing administrator acted in an appropriate manner, entirely consistent with the consensus and with policy. Agricolae ( talk) 16:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC) reply