Isabella Soprano ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I have reviewed the version that was just deleted. A7 probably wasn't the best reason as the recreated article was a gross BLP violation and whatever the result of this discussion these revisions must not be undeleted. The reason? Unsourced birth and married name for the subject in an article describing her as a sex worker. Spartaz Humbug! 18:44, 13 December 2013 (UTC) Oh and looking through the history this problem is thread through the whole article history. With over 500 revisions deleted it will be a nightmare trying to work any revs that are safe for undeletion. If we don't endorse deletion we are much better starting from scratch then trying to save this content. Spartaz Humbug! 08:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

This article was marked for speedy deletion first for invalid reasons. Then it was speedy deleted (with no discussion even though the page survived deletion discussions before) at the request of the subject, which isn't a valid reason according to the guidelines. Is subject requests really a valid reason to delete a page with no discussion? Hondo77 ( talk) 00:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment Well, firstly, this was previously deleted per subject's request: OTRS #2010092610000961. So at some level the needs to be a discussion prior to recreation. I protected it so it could not be recreated w/o that discussion taking place, out of consideration for the subject's wishes. I wrote in the protection log that it had beed deleted at the subject's request. I will review the article (I did not delete it to see if I think it meets relevant CSD. Cheers, Dloh cierekim 00:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment Someone should notify Malik Shabazz as he was last to delete. Dloh cierekim 01:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment I have informed Wikipedia:OTRS noticeboard. Dloh cierekim 01:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment It was most recently deleted per WP:CSD#A7. I probably would have searched for sourcing or awaited further developments. Dloh cierekim 01:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment I have notified the deleting admins about this discussion here and here. However, PeterSymonds has not edited since April. Dloh cierekim 01:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment The version I speedily deleted on December 12 made no assertion that Soprano was important or significant. Clean case of A7. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 02:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. It might be a case of A7 but it certainly isn't a clean case of A7. On 2 October 2010 the article was deleted at the subject's request. [1] Had there been discussion or office action? However the delete log refers to an AFD and the one I see was 11-16 December 2008. [2] which was "no consensus" but of course the subject's request was not material. Regarding A7, the policies are difficult to reconcile. Notability attaches to topics but A7 attaches to articles. Can an article on a topic that has survived AFD then be deleted as A7? Does an intervening (out-of-precess?) speedy deletion make any difference? I hope this can be sorted out without temporary undeletion. Thincat ( talk) 09:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

It was an Office decision. It was the result of an OTRS ticket. Apparently, the subject or her representative contacted the Foundation and requested deletion. Such deletions concern sensitive issues and ramifications for the Foundation. I would not reverse such a decision w/o an OTRS volunteer or the Foundation saying that it could be done. Please see Wikipedia:OTRS#Disagreeing_with_a_team-related_edit. Dloh cierekim 14:48, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment I have seen such cases in the past, however, they were handled differently: instead of outright deletion as seems to have happened here, such articles were taken to AFD (often by the OTRS volunteer who would generally !vote "neutral"). If the subject was only borderline notable, the AFDs tended to take the subjects' wishes into account. But if they were clearly notable, the articles were invariably kept, OTRS or not. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Undelete and list at AfD In general, I would say that an article kept (even as no consensus) at an AfD shgould not be subject to an A7 speedy deletion as there clearly was NOT consensus to delete, and speedy deletion is only consensus in advance. However, looking at the last version before deletion, I would have tagged it for A7. But looking at the version of 24 September 2010, at 17:08, I would not have tagged that version, and probably would have opined "keep" at an AfD on that version -- significant information, about the subject';s appearances on multiple television programs, and her comments thereon, sourced to a newspaper story, was removed from the article between the two versions. (On looking further these details were apparently lost in the OTRS deletion on 2 October 2010. I haven't checked the source, but that version makes the subject look notable to me, although not highly notable. I will also say that I can see why the subject would prefer this to be deleted. Had the deleting admin looked in the history (as one is supposed to do, but many do not take the time) I think this would not, at any rate should not, have A7 deleted. There is a clear claim of significance in the older version (which should probably be reverted to before the AfD). It might not survive at AfD, particularly given the subject's stated wishes, but I think a full community discussion is warrented by people who can see the article. This is just not in A7 zone, and should not be delted without discussion, unless the OTRS ticket warrants an Office action, which i cannot judge. DES ^(talk) 15:09, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I think it's pretty obvious the OTRS ticket generated office action. The procedure for reversing an OTRS action is also pretty plain. Still waiting for OTRS or PeterSymonds to respond. Dloh cierekim 20:55, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This particular deletion was a result of a request by a third party reporting that the article contained private identifiable information that could harm the subject. The general course of action is as stated by User:Randykitty. The unsourced content would have been better deleted/oversighted from the article, rather than the article itself deleted outright. It is not our position to delete articles about the subject by request of either the subject or a third party. Not sure why the process failed here. (It may be possible that the process was different in 2010 than it is now.) At this point, since it is clear that PeterSymonds is unavailable, I would recommend restoring the content (oversight identifiable unsourced content), then relisting at AFD. Note that an action resulting from an OTRS ticket is different from an office action. Cindy( talk) 04:59, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks Cindamuse, for clearing this matter up. Dloh cierekim 05:48, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Deleting the whole article like this is unusual for OTRS and without the full story its kinda hard to know what to do for the best. I have emailed Daniel an OTRS admin and requested some OTRS input into this discussion. 08:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

My comment above is offered in response to a request for OTRS input. Without divulging specific names, you have the full story. Let me know if you have specific questions which have not already been addressed. Cindy( talk) 11:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the WP:CSD#A7. (I commented above). In this case it was reasonable to only consider versions after the OTRS-related deletion and to disregard the 2008 AFD. I'll wait to see what transpires before commenting on what should happen next but I see no urgency to undelete anything at this stage. Thincat ( talk) 17:44, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Cindamuse:So it's ok to restore the version deleted in 2010, which is a separate issue from the 2013 deletion? Dloh cierekim 21:52, 15 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Only if someone is able/willing to go through every revision to hide the ones that provide a purported real name for the subject. That's a lot of work for one paragraph of text and starting afresh would be a much better plan. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

If we need a prior version then an admin could do a copy and paste move and then also copy and paste to the talk page the list of contributors. I've seen this being regarded as CC-acceptable though I don't have a reference. An advantage over fresh creation might be that it would provide something that could be protected right from the start. Thincat ( talk) 11:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• @ Dlohcierekim: Sorry about the ambiguity, please allow me to clarify. My comment above was in regards to concerns over the OTRS deletion. When it comes to restoration, we should be discussing the most recent deletion. I've added my recommendation below. Cindy( talk) 00:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Maybe that's why it was deleted-- a total BLP nightmare. Dloh cierekim 07:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

But that's going to be true of most any adult entertainer's page where the real name is not used. Sooner or later someone finds out their real name and adds it (unsourced) to the article. Then there is a follow-up removal of the name. So the name has been removed but it's still there in the history. That pattern is not unique to this page. Hondo77 ( talk) 23:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Why does User:Spartaz get to have his comments in a box at the top rather than in line like everyone else? ✄ ( talk) 14:10, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Because Spartaz was commenting in their admin role rather then contributing to the debate as a user and the recent practice at DRV is to use a notice to inform users commenting of something they need to be aware of for a particular discussion. Otherwise we will have users whose comments might be given less value in the close simply because they missed a particular facet that was important to the discussion. Don't you think its relevant to be aware of a potential BLP nightmare with undeleting the article before giving your opinion on whether we should do that? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AFD. As far as the A7, it appears as though it did not meet the criteria. There was a clear assertion of significance/importance as appearing in a regularly featured "role" on a nationally televised program. In my opinion, the deleting admin may have blurred the lines between "notability" and "significance". I recommend restoring the most recently deleted article, removing content that violates BLP, then sending to AFD.
• I must apologise for not replying here sooner to Spartaz's request for input via email surrounding the OTRS component of this, and I must also apologise that this post is going to be brief - time is short at this time of year for me, apologies. The primary issue relating to the OTRS ticket is the real name addition, which is a BLP violation and (in this situation) also unsourced/poorly-sourced not to the standards required. Reviewing the state of the article way back in 2010, I cannot fault the OTRS respondent's actions and I would have done the same. If I can recommend a course of action, I'd suggest recreating the article with a 'safe' revision, copying a plaintext version of the history to the talk page for attribution purposes. Personally, I'd like to see the article semi-protected per the BLP policy to prevent unsourced/poorly-sourced not to the standards required BLP violations surrounding the real name, but that can be a separate discussion/action to this DRV. I'd then offer the DRV nominator a couple of weeks (max) to flesh out and source the article's contents, and then any individual can re-evaluate the article in its state after that two weeks and choose to AfD or not. Thoughts? Daniel ( talk) 10:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion and salt as a poorly sourced BL nightmware. Though A7 did also apply at that point, the lack of proper sourcing makes it deletable under G10. Please see Spartaz's advisory above. OTRS has commented on the 2010 deletion. The same BLP concerns are there. Please see Daniels comment. Given the lack of reliable sourcing, the real name violation, and the desirability of the subject's real name not being bandied about with obvious need to prevent it from being re-added, the best course of action is to delete and salt so as tonot harm the subject. Dloh cierekim 12:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The material in question is easily found on the web. As long as we keep the real name out (also easily found on the web btw), I don't think there is an issue of harm. Hobit ( talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• overturn with the guidance provided by Daniel (start article from a reasonable version and the history deleted and with contributions in talk page) followed with an AfD to follow if appropriate at that time. This wasn't a proper speedy as it sounds like it didn't meet any of the criteria if one accounts for older versions and it sounds like we have a way forward that doesn't conflict with our BLP policy. Hobit ( talk) 21:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I have commented and voted already but I said I would comment again. However, I am confident this matter has continued to be handled appropriately and any further suggestions from me would be superfluous. Thincat ( talk) 09:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Grooverville Methodist Church ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The article was deleted as a copyvio, but my recollection is that the text is sourced to a historical marker. What I have read on the subject suggests that this is not a copyvio. I would like to get some broader discussion on the issue, particularly as we have lots of images of historical markers that reproduce not only the text but emblems and logos. Thank you for you kind consideration. Candleabracadabra ( talk) 19:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the text was taken from this marker erected by the Georgia Historical Commission, an organisation of the Georgia state government, in 1958. I can't see any reason to believe this text is in the public domain, and none has been presented. The text of a marker erected by an agency of the US federal government, if there is such a thing, would be in the public domain and we could use it, but that is not necessarily the case for agencies of a state government. Hut 8.5 21:50, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Unless there is a copyright notice (and I can't see one), items published before 1978 are now public domain. [3] Thincat ( talk) 08:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

But sticking up the marker doesn't constitute publication. Publication occurs when tangible copies of the work are made available to the public with the consent of the copyright holder Wikipedia:Public domain#Publication. In other words you would need something like someone distributing copies of the text or photographs of the marker for the work to be considered published. We don't know that this has happened, and even if it has happened we would need to know when it happened and whether the published work had a copyright notice on it. Until someone can demonstrate that this is in the public domain we have to treat it as copyrighted. I don't see how we can justify having an entire article as the entire text of a copyrighted work under fair use either. Hut 8.5 20:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

This was a WP:CSD#G12 speedy. Are you sure this was an unambiguous copyright infringement? Stephen Fishman discusses matters in The Copyright Handbook, page 386. The question might even come down to whether the marker is displaying the original work or whether it is a copy of the original work. [4] DRV (and Speedy Deletion) are absolutely not the places to be debating the finer points of copyright law. There is no unambiguous copyright infringement "with no credible assertion of public domain". The reason I have not (yet) voted "overturn" is that I have not seen the article and wonder whether it might be infringing some other copyright. Thincat ( talk) 21:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

I have now found Fishman's The Public Domain, page 134, where it says that for a work created before 1977 it is considered published if it was put on display in a public place and no effort was made to stop the public making drawings or photos. The marker is public domain. Thincat ( talk) 21:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Commons:Deletion requests/PAHMC is a useful recent discussion on Commons which confirms my view. Thincat ( talk) 22:05, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

If that's correct then our guideline appears to be inaccurate, and I've stricken my endorse above. However this was nevertheless a reasonable speedy deletion. The creator made no attempt whatsoever to clarify the copyright status of this material beyond citing it to a blog, even after the article was tagged as a possible copyright violation, and it seems that you need to be familiar with "the finer points of copyright law" to see that this is not in fact a copyright violation. Hut 8.5 23:24, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn as per Thincat. Moreover, even if under copyright, the text of a historical marker should probably be available under fair use -- our use is transformitive and for educational purposes, and no commercial opportunities are being lost. DES ^(talk) 15:14, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn deletion under CSD G12 as the copyright infringement appears not to be unambiguous; the guideline being seemingly unclear on this specific topic, I however find no fault with the deleting admin's original decision. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 00:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (I commented above). None of the people commenting here who can see the article think it should stay deleted, and I have strong reason to think the deletion was inappropriate. I accept that the deletion was not unreasonable, but it was probably incorrect. Thincat ( talk) 09:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Kapampangan Development Foundation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

there is no clear consensus for keep. as a minimum it should be no consensus. it appears the closing admin applied a supervote in making the result keep. the closing admin has argued here that it does not matter if it is keep or no consensus as the result is the same. but for the record in closing AfDs there is a clear difference between no consensus and keep. it was also relisted on 1 December with 2 additional participants arguing delete which would sway it closer to delete rather than the opposite way to the "keep" result. LibStar ( talk) 00:23, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment As Closer: I am happy for the review. LibStar is correct that there is a difference between keep and no consensus. But as a practical matter, the article is kept in either case. So since Libstar at least agrees that "as a minimum it should be no consensus," why are we here? Now if the request here is for me to change the close to no consensus I will if that will help him. The truth is this article has two sources that provide non-trivial coverage. The sources are both regional and possibly national level newspapers. I understand some thought it should be deleted but I did not and made my judgement. I am pleased for the community to review the process. JodyB _talk 03:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

we are here because the current official record is keep, I don't believe that reflects the discussion. if AfD rules were articles can have 2 results: keep or delete, I wouldn't question. but I believe the admin in this case is applying a supervote and her own personal opinion to turn it to a keep rather than a closure based on the arguments. If the admin thinks there is no difference between no consensus and keep, then that is quite a judgement call. LibStar ( talk) 05:39, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Clearly, I never said there was no difference. What I said was that in practical terms, the article would remain if the decision was keep or no consensus. If that is incorrect, please say so but please do not misrepresent what I said, that's a reasonable request. JodyB _talk 13:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• This looks very simple to me. Notability is an objective test: Is there significant coverage in two reliable sources? If so then the subject is notable and the article should be kept, QED. I see the two sources so the challenge fails. The "delete" side tried to keep their argument going by quibbling the definitions of "significant coverage" and "reliable sources" but there's no need to pay any attention to that.— S Marshall T/ C 08:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I think "keep" (as a result) was maybe just about within discretion though I would have preferred "no consensus". However, the closing rationale looks more like a "keep" !vote (and a rather well-argued one at that) than an assessment of the AFD discussion. I don't know whether it would be best to reopen the discussion or to relist afresh. (I'd !vote keep). Thincat ( talk) 09:11, 12 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn -- I agree with Thincat that the closing rationale seems more like a new argument than an assessment of discussion. No Consensus seems appropriate or even Delete. One thing that I look closely at are the three relistings that show that three different people came to the conclusion that there was not a consensus there before the closing admin, but after the last time the two additional !votes (with decent arguments) argued for Delete, so if there was no consensus before, I don't think that consensus had moved towards Keep. I would probably vote !keep if I had seen this AfD before, but that's not what DR is for. -- Michael Scott Cuthbert (talk) 01:37, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

Additional comment from AFD closer. Please allow me to clarify something here. AFD's are closed based upon policy and consensus. The closer is expected to evaluate both.

• I have already stated that I probably could have closed as no consensus rather than keep. Since AFD is not a pure vote I would close it that way if I had to do it again.
• Two policies came into play here and both were mentioned by people in the discussion. Two people mentioned newspaper references. I considered their comments, applied WP:N which expects multiple sources and determined that in that regard, the subject met the criteria. The publication SunStar has multiple references to the organization. While this counts as 1 source, it did give some depth to their coverage.
• Another person commenting for deletion, said the article failed WP:ORG. As I was supposed to do, I examined the guideline, part of WP:N and found that the subject did in fact meet, in my judgement, a subsection of it, WP:ORGSIG. Providing over 500 surgeries for cleft lip and palate deformations plus hundred of other procedures to indigents would have a significant impact on society, thus meeting the guideline.

My point in posting this is to show that while some may disagree with the close, it was closed according to proper procedure. Everything in my close arose from comments made by participants. I tried to evaluate all items raised by disputants and reach a sound conclusion. Now, separate and apart from all of this, I expected to work on the article and improve it even more but have not because I do not want to be accused of disrupting this discussion. I hope this assists your decisions. JodyB _talk 13:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC) reply

• Normally I would say that trying to distinguish between no consensus and keep is a pointless endeavour. And I think this isn't much of an exception. Endorse. Side comment: it should really not have gotten to this as WP:RELIST suggests 3+ relistings are inappropriate. ✄ ( talk) 09:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - there's sufficient coverage in the SunStar to pass the depth part of wp:GNG - and there's enough else for the rest of wp:GNG. I'd have gone with No Consensus, but there's little practical difference there. Neonchameleon ( talk) 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC) reply