Wikinews:Deletion requests

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!

(Redirected from WN:DR)
Jump to: navigation, search
WN:DR redirects here. For dispute resolution, see WN:DISPUTE.

This page seeks to resolve the question whether a page or file should be deleted through consensus.

Articles written from other news sources, abandoned, minimal, or press release are listed in the appropriate categories for a period of three days (see bottom of page for a list of these articles). Original reports have to be listed for seven days. Non-articles also appear for Seven days. After the appropriate period, an admin looks at the page or file and determines whether consensus for deletion has been reached. If it has, the page is deleted. The period of time starts at the submission of the deletion request on this page.

You may also list an image, category or article pages on the candidate for speedy deletion page by adding {{delete}} to the page to be nominated for speedy deletion.

  • Read and be familiar with the Criteria for deletion before listing a page here, or debating on a page here.
  • Articles must fall foul of the Criteria for deletion to be listed here. Invalid listings will be removed. Editors may not edit the Criteria for deletion in order to justify their listing.
  • Note: If you have registered an account at Wikinews for the sole purpose of attempting to sway a deletion request, any vote and comment within the voting section will be struck and disregarded. Votes on this page are the purview of established contributors who have a demonstrated record of understanding site policy.

This page is also the proper venue for discussing undeletion requests. If you object to speedy deletion of an article, or wish to overturn another deletion request, please list it here, an admin may undelete it for the duration of the vote, so that users may view the article they are voting on.

You no longer need to nominate abandoned articles, copyright violations, or minimal articles here — see Wikinews:Proposed deletion.

Contents


[edit] How to list a page here

  1. Add {{Deletion request}} or {{dr}} to the image, category or article page.
    • For suspected copyright violations, instead add {{Copyvio|url=insert_web_address_here}} The page will remain here for three days before being deleted.
    • For abandoned articles, instead add {{abandoned}}, but please be aware that people often forget to {{publish}}.
  2. List the link below using the following template:
== [[Date of nomination]] ==
=== [[Article title]] ===
State reason for deletion request and sign (--~~~~).
==== Votes ====
Please vote using {{keep}}, {{remove}}, {{neutral}}, or {{comment}} followed by signature (--~~~~)

[edit] Note for admins

To close a Deletion Request, enclose the DR with:

and then delete the article if the DR was successful or remove {{DR}} from the article if it was kept.
  • The talk page of the article can be updated by adding {{Multidel}} with a Diff to the closed DR discussion to the top of the talk page.

[edit] Deletion requests

[edit] June 1, 2008

[edit] Image:Fifa world cup org.jpg

I am proposing that this image be deleted because although it is tagged as CC-BY-SA-2.5 license, the image is a derivative work which leaves this license very much in question. Whilst this means that the CC license is invalid, there is of course the potential for this to be used under fair use as is done on the English Wikipedia. However there appears to be no scope within our fair use policy's whitelist where this can be used. Also, in all but one instance this image is being used in a decorative manner which adds little to the article and doesn't really benefit our readers a great deal. Adambro (talk) 11:08, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

  • Image is of the iconic FIFA World Cup which, like Oscar, McDonald's double-arched building, and the Eiffel Tower, is also a logo or mark. It seems to me you would be putting forth less effort to find reasons why these images are fair use on Wikinews than trying to find reasons to remove them. - Amgine | t 14:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    Amgine, if you think my reasoning for nominating an image for deletion are wrong then simply say so, it is not necessary or helpful to brand these nominations as "bogus" just because you disagree. Regarding your suggestion that the World Cup is a logo or a trademark I would disagree, would you be able to link anything to support this? Adambro (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    It seems to me you are looking first for a reason to delete the image, and second as to whether it's a good idea for this image to be deleted. This, and the previous nomination, have clear reasons to be on Wikinews and appear, to me, to have no justification for removal other than your personal campaign. Since your campaign has a long history, and is not a reason here, that would equate with a bogus listing. Bogosity, of course is a subjective measure. - Amgine | t 15:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    My "campaign" is to ensure that the images we host have a clear licensing situation. In this, and any other instances, I've considered that not to be the case and have felt unable to address this situation myself. This is why I raise it here, so that others with experience of different subjects can assess whether they can clarify the situation and if not for it to be deleted. I've done a hell of a lot of work regarding images on Wikinews and what you see appearing here on DR is the tip of the ice burg, those I don't feel I can deal with. Adambro (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>

To add fuel to the fire I have responded to an email from Anthere and CC'd Kat Walsh. Anthere suggested this as Kat was instrumental in the drafting of the licensing resolution. [/me grumbles about her being on the scoop bouncelist.] It is fairly obvious from the way the vote is going that this image will be kept; with the way some people have "dug in" on this issue it may be viewed as, "kept in violation of policy". We can't go on like that. The policy needs to be here, on Wikinews, and should be the spirit of the licensing resolution, not the letter thereof.

If this means the Wikinews policy needs to be revised and re-approved by the board, then so be it. However I would point some people very bluntly at what our mission is - news. News needs to be timely. For this reason I believe Wikinews should be permitted to have fair use of pictures of living people. Can't get a free replacement in the week the article is on the front page? Tough. Get one later and the image under fair use is tagged as depreciated and no longer used on new articles. The archived article is not touched. If we don't stick to a principle like this, what's to stop us from ending up with a picture taken twenty years after an article is written stuck on it? Articles on Barack Obama winning his first primary showing him with grey hair from eight years in office? No thanks.

There are numerous other examples of what is fair use at a specific point in time. Everything on Wikinews is at a specific point in time, that should include the fair use criteria. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I have ever suggested that we should be replacing unfree images where a free alternative is found. If a free alternative is found however it probably demonstrates that the fair use was invalid to start with and the unfree image should probably be removed. Removing unfree images rather than replacing them with free images which, as you note, is likely to be inappropriate.
Not being able to find a free image within the seven days during which the article is open for editing is not justification to use an unfree image. Any unfree image needs a robust fair use rationale which can reasonably be expected to continue to be valid in the future. The point that people seem to be missing is that for as long as we host an unfree image we are responsible for denfending its usage. An article being archived is not a sufficient defence to continue using an unfree/against policy image, it is perfectly possible to remove such images and I somehow doubt an article being archived would protect the WMF from legal accusations.
Again the mission of the project is abbreviated to "news", I think you'll find it is more specific than that, free news. Just because other news websites have images on most of their articles then it doesn't mean that we can or should. We have to work within the restriction of limiting unfree content. Adambro (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Votes

  • Remove Its use doesn't really add to any of the articles. If there was an article about the trophy I would support its use, however. Anonymous101 :) 13:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove Hey, in his assult of reverting ALL the edits I made in order to remove my so-called copyvio, he reverted my addition of a fair use rationale and tag to the image. But, then again, I kinda have to agree with Anonymous101 here. ViperSnake151 (talk) 14:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is an icon, and its use in any article on a World Cup match is an illustration of what the teams are competing for. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Never mind what I just said. Keep per Brian. I have restored my (rather lengthy) rationale to it. ViperSnake151 (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per brianmc. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 16:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment If this is claimed to be fair use, which of the fair use whitelist criteria does it fall within? Adambro (talk) 17:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep time to update the fair use policy ? Anthere (talk)
    So presumably we'll be getting the board to approve any such changes? Adambro (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
No. I asked Anthere to look at this because I felt this was not what was intended with the board resolution. I asked her to comment as a member of the community, and not as a board member. It may well be the case that we revise our fair use policy and ask the board to review it; we are always going to be sailing close to the wind on these issues. --Brian McNeil / talk 22:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Member of the community? Hardly. Seems Anthere has called by to support your position after you sought her opinion. Whilst of course I appreciate this probably wasn't the motivation to speaking to her it doesn't look very good to see a member of the board parachute in voting keep just when you ask for her opinion. Only recently did she state that we "should not consider board members above the policies and guidelines". Presumably that also applies here. Considering she has voted "keep" without providing a reason we can treat this as having little value also taking into her account her lack of activity. Adambro (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
I see no contradiction in the position I have taken. I was seeking common sense, I did not ask Anthere to cast a vote. I interpret her comment as, "if the policy doesn't allow it, then the policy is wrong". This is a message a variety of Wikinewsies have been putting across for quite some time. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup. Seems like basic fair use to me. No big deal certainly. Will I ask the board to approve such a change ? I am not sure what you mean here, I see not really how such a use is non consistant with our current policies. But I presume it is a matter of interpretation of the policy... Anthere (talk)
If you think Florence simply cast a vote at Brian's request, then obviously you don't know Florence very well, and I'd take back an insinuation that she acts on other people's demands. TheCustomOfLife (talk) 17:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks ;-) Anthere (talk) 21:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, per TheCustomOfLife (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 22:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
    Very funny. Adambro (talk) 22:57, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Remove it is tagged as a logo, yet it is a photograph of the trophy. If we need to illustrate the trophy, we can use this Image:FIFA World Cup.svg. Now I don't know too much about the trophy/cup itself, but is it not on display somewhere where a free photo could be taken? Further, it's use in the articles (did anyone look at them) is as a silly little (50px) addendum at the bottom right for most of them. Rather useless. Image:World Cup 2006 logo.png is much more appropriate (and already in many of the articles). --SVTCobra 23:30, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
    This image is a free photo taken of the cup at an event, iirc... exactly what you suggest SVTCobra. - Amgine | t 15:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
    Unfortunately SVTCobra, any photograph which has as its primary subject this trophy will also be a derivative work. See the page on Commons for a better explanation than I can ever write. Adambro (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
This is something that should be challenged. If people can't assert protection over their likeness and may be photographed in public, why should such a right be extended to an inanimate bit of tin covered in gold foil? --Brian McNeil / talk 09:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
That deriv stuff is really just lame. Becuase it is a picture of the trophy by someone. If its NOT copyrighted, And I or and average person took the photo, then its whatever they want the license to be. If I go and take a picture of the Stanley Cup, then I have whatever right I want to license it as such, even CC. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 03:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Adambro is simply wrong in this instance. The image is of the trademarked FIFA cup, and therefore images/reproductions of it may not be sold. There is *no* specific protection of the non-trade use of such likenesses however. (e.g. you could build a house as a replica and live in it, but you couldn't *sell* the house, or charge for coming to see it/rent it out, or in any other way realize a return for it being a replica.) None of which justifies its presence here; it just removes the rational for requesting the deletion. - Amgine | t 03:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Is the actual Cup itself trademarked and copyrighted, though? If so, it unfortunately has to be remove, keep otherwise. How does the Stanley Cup in this image hold up compared? rootology (T) 03:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
In response to Amgine's comments, you seem to be confirming that the CC-BY-2.5 license is invalid as I've suggested if commerical use is prohibited. Therefore this image has to be used on Wikinews under fair use as it is tagged at the moment although it most certainly isn't a logo and I see no evidence that it is a trademark either. It does however remain a derivative work. Adambro (talk) 06:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Response to Rootology: I've requested clarification from FIFA as to the trademarked status of the actual cup; in every image/title of the cup on their website it is "(TM))"ed, and they go to pains to point out that winners of the cup receive a facsimile of the cup while FIFA retains all rights to the original object (in part because Brazil - deservedly - was given the previous cup in perpetuity.) I do not have a statement from a lawyer, yet, indicating it is trademarked, but I have every reason to believe such is the case. I am not aware of the status of Lord Stanley's Cup, but in the USA at least it would likely have at least unregistered mark rights.
Response to Adambro: So long as a mark is used to refer to the brand or owner of the mark, even in trade use (for example in a news article in a commercial paper,) it is legal and the cc-by license would be applicable to the photo itself, which would be copyrightable. On the other hand, if the image were being sold, for example as stock imagery, it might not be legal as it could be a trademark infringement. And, incidentally, even so the image should be copyrightable. In a simpler words: taking a picture of the cup at an event in which it is publicly displayed is fine if used to refer to FIFA or the cup; sell that image as stock footage without a release from the trademark owner and you might be infringing. - Amgine | t 05:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I find it ridiculous that an photo I took of whatever it might be, of a cup, trophy, whatever, is not MY photo to do with as I please. If I took that photo of the cup, regardless of where it was at, I should be able to own ALL rights to that photo. Trademark or not, if they display it in a public forum, where your are ALLOWED to take pictures of it, then its my photo and no one can say to me I cannot license it as I choose. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 20:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
In general, you're right DragonFire1024. But, in certain circumstances - such as when you are required to sign a waiver of rights as part of gaining your event press pass in which you give up the right to publish or sell your photos except in a news venue - FIFA would have some control over what you do with your images. So it's *possible* this image is not correctly cc-by, but extremely unlikely, and even so still qualifies as Fair Use under the WN:FU logos. - Amgine | t 20:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Come on now DragonFire1024, I've already linked to the explanation of the concept of a derivative work twice at least, well just for your benefit here it is again. Please take the time to read and understand this important concept. It is most definetly not the case that you can do what you wish with a photograph you have taken. This isn't a Commons or WMF policy it is copyright law, so if you have any issues with it then raise it with the US government.
Amgine's comments as to in what circumstances a photograph you have taken might not be yours to do as you wish don't address the issue of derivative works. The trophy, unless there is evidence to the contrary, is no a logo or a trademark, although it is a creative work so any subsequent work which has it as its main element will be not free for the creator to do as they wish. Therefore the photograph of the trophy is not available under CC-BY even if the photographer has agreed to release it under this license. The suggestion that we can use this under fair use as logo is also questionable since as I've noted, it isn't a logo. Of course the community could try to find some way to allow the inclusion of this image by way of changing our policies but until then we work by the current rules under which I see no way in which we can use this image. Adambro (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

<unindent>

I would point out that the above discussion indicates that the community would be more than happy to have the project guidelines changed so we didn't have to keep deleting stuff and having these disruptive discussions. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:15, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I also want to say that we are not commons. I really, in this case don't care what Commons says about an image NOT on their site. As far as I am concerned, in this case, I don't care what commons has to say about a deriv. Again this is a photo someone took and licensed it as they wanted, which is their right. If commons doesn't like that, then too bad. And no one has yet provide proof this is a deriv. I know Amgine is trying, but beyond that I see no reason to continue this argument. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 16:33, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This really is getting boring. Of course we aren't Commons and I haven't suggested this to be the case. I've highlighted the Commons page because it provides a good explanation of the concept of derivative works but you can read about it on Wikipedia or no doubt in US laws. I would disagree that there isn't evidence that this is a derivative work, go and read the Commons page and if you don't like what you read there then go somewhere else and learn about it, don't just plead ignorance. You clearly don't understand the concept of derivative works so instead of continuing your misinformed argument that a photo you've taken is yours to do as you wish, go and learn about the issue. Adambro (talk) 16:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Adambro: I have never seen a copyright symbol placed anywhere near the FIFA World Cup, yet I have seen (tm). To be a derivative work the original work must be copyrighted and copyrightable. Please prove to us that such is the case, and perhaps this argument might receive more consideration. - Amgine | t 17:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 :Everything is copyrighted unless otherwise specified. Anonymous101 :) 17:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
No, actually, that's not true. Functionality, design, and many other things are not copyrightable. Read trademark. - Amgine | t 17:44, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the item's copyrightability, which is not necessarily given as per Amgine, it isn't the Wikimedia Foundation which has said that you can't use copyrighted emblems to illustrate their related subjects. Rather, the WMF has only established that non-free works are only to be used where they are legal and essential to the informative value of the work, and where they couldn't be replaced with a freely licensed work. Iff the trophy is indeed a copyrightable work, then there really isn't a replacement: Any non-derivative alternative would be a fraud for the purpose of illustrating the trophy. This is both my understanding and Anthere's and I don't believe there is much of a genuine dispute over the WMF licensing policy allowing use of images like this in the appropriate contexts... If Wikinews policy is somewhat too restrictive to allow this, and the contributors here feel that its important then it might be reasonable to tweak the policy some. I'd be glad to help.

What concerns me most here is a pattern of argument and behavior which I've seen in the past on English WP as well: Someone, often someone who supports abandoning all restrictions on non-free works, picking the most obnoxious corner case possible, then they argue that it's not permitted (even if it may well be) and ultimately people argue that because this one strawman burns easily that the whole policy needs to be ditched. It's a fallacious line of argument. And to claim that policy makes you behave disruptively? Oh please, is time to transwiki Wikipedia:Ignore all rules over to WikiNews?

At the top we start with a corner case which other projects seem to have no issues allowing and continue on to Brian McNeil arguing "News needs to be timely. For this reason I believe Wikinews should be permitted to have fair use of pictures of living people. Can't get a free replacement in the week the article is on the front page? Tough." which sounds an awful lot like justification for taking the press photography from competing news sources, an activity which would be clearly illegal and of questionable ethics to even those who don't think highly of copyright law. Lets be real, we're talking about a trophy image up for deletion here, It's time for people to put down their agendas and correctly handle this particular issue the best we can. --Gmaxwell (talk) 18:04, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I am most certainly not arguing we claim fair use on images from competing news agencies, and you are seriously misrepresenting my viewpoint to claim such. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. But whom exactly is Wikinews going to most frequently take such images from? The obvious non-free sources of stock headshots are companies which make a substantial portion of their income from selling their works to publications such as Wikinews. The only source I can think not failing that test is non-freely licensed publicity photos release by the person or their agent(s), .. okay, but if thats what you're talking about then you should probably be saying "WN should allow non-free publicity photos" rather than "WN should allow 'fair-use' photos. --Gmaxwell (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletions

Purge Cache. For reference, it's currently July 4, 2008.

[edit] Abandoned

Delete articles in this category posted before July 2.

[edit] Copyvio

Delete articles in this category posted before July 3.

[edit] Minimal and PR

Delete articles in this category posted before July 1.

[edit] Undeletion requests

Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Wikinews:Deletion_requests"
Personal tools