Article speedy deleted as a G4: but current version was not substantially identical (or unimproved) compared to the version deleted in 2008. Suggest restoring or relisting for appropriate discussion. 94.9.69.145 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - Although content has been added to this article compared to the last time it was deleted, there is still nothing in there to suggest that Hakon Winther has ever done anything that would pass WP:GNG. His association to the North Norway movement should be mentioned on any articles connected to said movement, not in a separate article, and his football career is definitely not noteworthy. – PeeJay 02:58, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That has nothing to do with a G4 speedy deletion, you realize? Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
this appears to be the diff between the deleted version and the one recreated. this is the diff between the one deleted and the one G4'ed. Jclemens (talk) 03:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak send to AfD, second choice weak keep deleted. I lean towards a new AfD because it will set an updated consensus. There is additional text in the recreation, but it is very weak. Two of the new sources are obviously poor: a personal (not Winther's) web page and a language blog. Neither Republikken Hålogaland nor Hålogalandspartiet exists as an English Wikipedia article. User:Eliteimp also created the Playerhistory.com article around the same time in June 2010. Flatscan (talk) 05:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural overturn. Unfortunately there is enough difference from previous version to qualify for G4, and almost 2 years had passed between deletion and recreation which with the additions could be impacted by WP:CCC, but as instigator of the original AfD discussion I too were looking at deletion options since yesterday noting its re-emergence, mainly on non notability and verifiability grounds. Suggest a new AfD if deletion overturned.--ClubOranjeT 10:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the G4 speedy because it was clearly an error and I do not see any other speedy criterion applying either. Importance is asserted. Whether the revamped article meets the notability guidelines, I am not sure, but that is not a present concern – the AfD discussion about playing in a fully professional league still has some relevance but is no longer decisive. Thincat (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
G4 is for when the recreation is substantially identical, and JClemens' diff shows that it was not. Our role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed and in this case I don't see that it was, so this belongs at AfD.—S MarshallT/C 12:08, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that recreating an already deleted article violated wikipedia's policies. If you go to an article which is already deleted, there is a notice on the page "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below." Even though there are differences between the deleted article and the improved article, it's still the same content. And I don't believe he got a green light from any administrator to recreate the page. Mentoz86 (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not against policy to recreate a previously deleted article (not necessarily, anyway). If the original page was deleted through a deletion discussion then a recreation of the page that does not address the reason for deletion can be speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G4. Pages which have been speedily deleted can also be recreated, though if the recreation still falls under the same speedy deletion criterion it is likely to be speedily deleted again. There's certainly no requirement to get the permission of an administrator before recreating a page. Hut 8.5 21:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and send to AFD- A good faith effort was made to address the problems that lead to the original deletion. As such, it should not have been eligible for WP:G4. Umbralcorax (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the recreation included a significant number of sources which were not present in the AfDed version. Whether or not these sources indicate that the subject passes the GNG is an issue for AfD. Hut 8.5 21:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, and send to AfD sounds good. -FASTILY(TALK) 03:15, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fastily, I'll note that you're the G4'ing admin. Do we need to continue here, or is restoring and AfD'ing the consensus outcome? Jclemens (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it, let's go to AfD. Fwiw, I'm not endorsing my own deletion! ;) -FASTILY(TALK) 07:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Category:Public domain films – No consensus to overturn category deletion due to sourcing concerns and scope. – v/r - TP 16:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Support: This review follows on from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Copyright_claimant_data. The main reason for the deletion I see was that films that are in the PD in the US aren't necessarily PD in other countries. The suggestion is to set up Category: Public domain films in the United States and make it a sub-cat of Category:Public domain films. We have a sourced article of PD films, so these categories wouldn't state anything beyond the claims the list already makes; anything added to the category will be required to be on the list with a source, and the category has the added benefit of making the information available from the film article. Betty Logan (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Could adding the category Public domain films in the United States lead to category clutter, if a film is in Public domain in many countries? Lugnuts (talk) 08:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your concerns; however, copyright laws are very complicated from country to country. If an American film is in the public domain in China, then I must add a category of China. Nevertheless, it requires a lot of paperwork from sources that mention the film. I tried "Copyright status" in Storm in a Teacup (film), but I realized I have done OR. --George Ho (talk) 10:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
George, if a film is PD in over a hundred countries, which is possible if a country is a Berne signatory, then you cannot add a hundred categories. We would have to limit the category to films of that country; for instance most countries are signatories of the Berne convention that recognise the copyright terms of the country where the film is copyrighted i.e. if a film is copyrighted in America then it cannot be PD in the country of a Berne signatory; if the film then becomes PD in America then it might be PD in other countries. Whether an American film is PD in China is not really that notable, but if it is PD in the US then that can have ramifications in 164 other countries. The reverse is true of Chinese films i.e. it is the Chinese copyright terms that are relevant for Chinese copyrighted work. Betty Logan (talk) 11:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support the concept of using Categories in this way as a potentially much better way of dealing with copyright data relating to films than adding confusing little snippets of data to all film articles. If we want to include copyright data, then this is a better way to handle it. I'm not personally convinced we should include copyright data at all, unless a secondary source has something notable to say about it, but if we are going to, then this approach of keeping it central to a "list" and using Categories beats the other approach hands down IMO. If the Category needs renaming, then rename it. Begoontalk 03:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. This category will be abused and misused, as it was in the past. Any reference to a film being in the PD needs to have immediate sources, a category should not be used to circumvent that process. We already have List of films in the public domain in the United States. If you create this category, it will be populated by films that people "believe" are in the PD but have no supporting sources. The notion that the Category would only contain films from the List-of article would never work, no one's going to police the category much less ensure the List-of article is properly sourced (I personally re-did the entire list, it was unsourced for years listing many copyright films as being PD, no one seemed to care). I would support a cat called Category:Public domain films in the United States from pre-1923, which is what I think George is really after. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Each category attached to an article has to be sourced within the article - we categorise by 'defining characteristics', ie essential properties, and something not mentioned in the article can hardly be essential. In any case, being PD in a particular country is incidental, not defining. Oculi (talk) 16:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think your "oppose" vote is grounded in policy, Oculi, because the existence of these types of categories are clearly permitted under Category:Public domain. Resurrecting the category would just bring it into line with books and music. The only real question is the scope and criteria for the category. Green Cardamom's revision to the proposal seems the most pragmatic solution. Betty Logan (talk) 17:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Have you looked at Category:Public domain books? This is explicitly for books which are PD globally and seems to go up to the eighteenth century: "articles about books published since the 19th century should not be added to this category, unless the article has a reference stating that the book is in the public domain worldwide". Category:Public domain music is much the same. Oculi (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
