Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 2009 June 25
2009 June 27 >

26 June 2009

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Headshot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I don't think good reasons were given in the discussion (eg, 'rather pointless article'). -Zeus-u|c 20:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse closure — WP:N was given in the AfD nom, and was properly discussed. The closure was fine, and this DRV request introduces no new reason to reopen the discussion. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that this fails WP:N. It is a real thing, both in video games and in real life, and should definitely be covered in wikipedia. -Zeus-u|c 21:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I said it is used in real life, I was referring to snipers. -Zeus-u|c 23:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A clear consensus was reached. Simply disagreeing with that consensus is not an appropriate reason for DRV to overturn a decision. If you honestly believe the material must be covered by wikipedia, then the solution would be to create a version of the article that was verifiably notable and worthy of inclusion with which to recreate it.--Talain (talk) 21:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can do that? -Zeus-u|c 13:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but make sure that you fix the problems raised in the AfD, particularly bridies', else your new article will simply be speedied. You can ask to have the old article userfied, if you want to use that as a starting point. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you userify the article? -Zeus-u|c 15:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to request that this deletion be reviewed.

I was very interested in the fact that this article was deleted, well astounded might be the correct word. I read with interest the deletion log [1] and I understand that the bill has very little chance of passing. However I must assert that this does not mean that the bill is below the threshold of notability for a Wikipedia article. I did a little research to see exactly how notable this bill is.

I went to http://stats.grok.se/ to look up how often this article was viewed:

  • Jan 2009 - 577 views
  • Feb 2009 - 4487 views
  • Mar 2009 - 3016 views
  • Apr 2009 - 2321 views
  • May 2009 - 6826 views
  • total - 17227 views

Even after it was deleted, in June, the deletion page was viewed 92 times.

To be fair, however, I ran view statistics for 10 random articles to see if the Blair Holt article received more views. Of the 10 I looked up, only two got more hits. This is hardly enough for a true statistical comparison, but it would indicate that the article was getting more hits than the majority of Wikipedia articles. This seems to indicate notability.

Next I went to Google to see how many Web hits I would get if I looked it up. For Blair Holt bill, there were 1,120,000 hits. I went to Google News and discovered there have been thousands of news stories on the bill as well. A recent story of June 20 even indicated that the bill may be responsible for a nationwide bullet shortage. If this is true, enough Americans are aware of the bill to create the shortage.

As a final note, I was at the Utah State Republican convention where it was brought up and discussed by Rep. Jason Chaffetz, which indicates that despite the fact that there is only one sponsor and no cosponsors, the bill is receiving considerable buzz in congress.

The bill is notable for another reason. It delegates powers reserved for the congress in the Constitution (the right to make laws) to one person, namely the Attorney General.

Given all this, I can only conclude that the article, and the bill are indeed notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia.

Thanks for your consideration,

J appleseed2 (talk) 16:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I hereby endorse One's accurate reading of the consensus at the AfD.

    I would further remark that this is Wikipedia, not Americanpoliticsipedia, and the last thing we need is yet another article about a piece of legislation that's only of interest to one nationality.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion -- A bill that is basically D.O.A. would almost always be not notable, and I see nothing here that would make this case an exception. -- Dougie WII (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion — Before the bill has passed, we'd need to see enough evidence of newsworthiness to justify WP:N. — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as an accurate assessment of consensus. There is nothing substantially different in this than what was brought up and denied at the AfD.--Talain (talk) 21:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse – clear consensus for deletion here. This is not AFD round 2, and, more particularly, the number of hits a page gets is not a reason to keep (or delete for that matter). MuZemike 16:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Deleted out of policy. The reasons given were that it would never come to a vote, but that is irrelevant to political importance. I consider the argument from number of views is appropriate in judging the basic suitability for an encyclopedia, which is that people will come to an encyclopedic like ours to look for information on a topic. All of the WP:N requirements are essentially an attempt to deal with the ones that nobody reasonable will look for in a work like ours. DGG (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, valid AFD closure. Stifle (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
File:Crayola.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Not a copyright vio, fair use under United States law and Wikipedia standards. All problems brought up in the deletion nomination were dealt with. Although the article itself is about Crayola, the image is used clearly in reference to the stamp in question in a section about the stamp, not as a primary means of identifying the subject of the stamp. The Wikipedia copyrighted U.S. stamp template clearly states that copyrighted U.S. stamps can be used here "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)" under fair use if they are used to illustrate the stamp, not simply to illustrate the subject. Free images of Crayola crayons are in the article before the stamp image, so it's obviously not being used for that purpose, but to illustrate the stamp itself in its historical context.

I would be grateful if the decision to delete this image was reviewed, I feel its deletion was unnecessary, not by consensus, and detrimental to the article and by extension Wikipedia as a whole. Thank you. -- Dougie WII (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "keep" side had that debate by the numbers, and I don't think the "delete" side's arguments held much water. The basic question here is whether it's appropriate to have a public domain fair use image of a stamp, in a section of the "Crayola" article about that stamp, which (I respectfully submit) is a complete no-brainer.

    Overturn to keep.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 07:09, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Question — Is it true, about the broad scope of fair use associated with images of US stamps asserted on the template page? Can we have some authoritative source for this? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:23, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The question is not whether this image is in the public domain. In the original XFD, some people brought that up, but I have never claimed it. The issue is whether this is a fair use of a copyrighted image. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm generally minded to say that FfD discussions get NFCC#8 right, but, given that Stifle's assertion about the PD-ness is wrong (the stamp is from 1996, it is the crayons that are from 1903), and he otherwise argues against fair use per NFCC#8, I don't see that the balance of the FfD discussion favours saying the image was fair use. Is there something in particular that you think went wrong in that discussion? — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not agree that NFCC#8 was broken here -- it's impossible to adequately describe a stamp design in words succinct enough to be in Wikipedia. I could probably photoshop together hundreds of fake stamps showing Crayola crayons. There is critical commentary about the stamp that would not be fully understood without seeing the actual image of the stamp (specimen). The stamp image is being used to illustrate the stamp, in the guidelines of the Wikipedia stamp template, general U.S. copyright law and the guidance given by the U.S. Postal Service itself (educational and philatelic use). Interpretations that this is a copyright violation are so draconian that virtually no image of a modern American stamp could ever be used on Wikipedia. -- Dougie WII (talk) 09:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd like to see the informational value of images be more widely appreciated here (cf. Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/galleries) but it's the place of DRV to argue about FfDs that are problematic either because they were incorrectly closed, or because their discussion was carried out in ignorance of obviously cogent information; they are not a forum to continue any FfD discussions just because they didn't go the way you wanted. I think, as I said, the closing was OK. The point about USPS guidance might be the kind of obviously cogent information, but where is this guidance? How does it change the NFCC#8 case? — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I think it was improperly closed because there was no real clear consensus. I am hoping that a posting here will generate a clearer result. Oh, and the USPS fair use guidance is here. -- Dougie WII (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Copyvio is one place where consensus rules don't apply in the normal way — check WP:CON, sect 1.1. If 100 wikipedians said an image was acceptable, but there is one person who showed a clear WPCC#2 violation, then the admin should delete the image. WPCC#8 is a more subjective requirement, and its the kind of thing where the weight of community opinion comes into play, but admins have to be conservative (not paranoid) in their interpretation of the WPCC rules. The absence of consensus is not troubling. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      I agree that copyvio, or any other case where there's clear risk of harm to Wikipedia or to a living person from leaving content up, needs to default to delete. But where there is no risk of harm (as in this case), the absence of consensus most certainly does not default to delete. Quite the contrary.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Despite that the stamp was created in 1996, it is a mere copy of a PD image which does not gain a new copyright. Stifle (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly *not* a mere copy. It doesn't meet the Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. criteria, for example, which is the basis for such claim and our rulings here. Could you maybe try to read and understand copyright rulings before making such aggressive declarations? DreamGuy (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion — I think I would have !voted keep in the FfD, but, putting aside the PD claim, this FfD looks to have been closed correctly, and no new information has come up indicating that it should be kept. It might be worth looking at taking another look at the copyvio policy with regards to USPS images, since at present we have a template that seems to suggest they can be used here freely, whilst the NFCC guidelines do not treat them any differently to other fair-use images. But DRV is no place to argue for changes to policy. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as a close against valid consensus. Of course consensus rules in deciding on copyvio--how else are we to decide if the NFCC is actually violated? To take an individual person;'s word for it? No, the decision like all decisions is to be made according to the established rules by the community. The role of the closer is limited to rejecting arguments that are not based on the established guidelines. If you are the 1 in 100, you may possibly be right, but the overwhelming likelihood is that you are wrong. In this case the consensus was to keep. DGG (talk) 15:42, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The thrust of the discussion in the FfD was whether or not the image of the stamp added significance to the article per WP:NFCC#8. The closing admin believed that the Keep votes were not following policy, but the entire focus of the discussion was on how that policy should be applied and in that there was certainly no consensus. While copyright violations can be objective in some cases, significance is rather more subjective, and thus, subject to community consensus. That was the criteria used by the closing admin to delete.--Talain (talk) 17:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. There were two !votes saying that the image passed NFCC#8, and two saying it did not. Both of those opining that it passed NFCC#8 claimed that because the image was used in a section about the stamp, and was being used to illustrate that stamp, NFCC#8 passes. This is very much against precedent. If an article about a music band has a section on a particular album, we don't illustrate that section with a non-free image of the album, because the article isn't about that album (and the band can be fully understood without seeing it). It's the same here, but more so. The stamp is not particularly important in the history of Crayola. Crayons have been used on album covers too, but we don't show those in the article. If the article on roses had a section about how a rose was on an album cover, we still should not use a non-free image to illustrate that section. The closing admin could not have kept this image without going against years of precedent, and two !votes are not sufficient for that. – Quadell (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I said that Wikipedia specifically disavows precedent, specifically because it doesn't want current discussions to be bound by previous decisions, and cited WP:OCE as my evidence for this, and added that the closing admin is specifically enjoined to disregard precedent in evaluating the consensus, how would you respond?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An image of some music band may be superfluous to the understanding of one of its songs or albums since the real content is musical, not visual. However, in this case with a particular display of a product in a postage stamp, the meaning is not easily conveyed in anything else but a faithful reproduction of the image itself. Here we are talking about a specific image and what is displayed in that image as a critical part of the article, noting the intricacies of the "Gold Medal" award on the stamp, what it means, and how that is related to the history of Crayola products. This can not be understood without the image. -- Dougie WII (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion - Our image use rules are quite clear on this, and, more importantly, there was nothing at all improper about the close except that some people didn't get what they wanted. And the claim that we need to do whatever the uninformed majority vote wants in legal matters is just absurd. As in all deletion discussion closes, the closing admin has to make a call if the votes and arguments are in line with our policies or not. There's no right to jury nullification here. DreamGuy (talk) 17:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
this is not a legal matter, because it is clear fair use under american law; the NFCC requirements are much stricter than that very liberal policy. So its a question of whether it meets our requirements, for which one need not be an expert. NFCC is policy--just how to interpret it is often open to question. The decision on how restrictively to interpret it is one that the community decides, both on the policy pages and in individual cases. The decision on when to make exceptions altogether is also one for the community, as long as it is not overruled by OFFICE as not meeting the Foundation policy [2] or US law. DGG (talk) 18:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but you simply do not know what you are talking about... Fair use is a legal matter, and one you clearly do not understand in the slightest. DreamGuy (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as the image was published in the USA in 1903, therefore is public domain. If it were fair use, it would be decorative and not permissible. Stifle (talk) 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to incorrect information: The stamp was not published in 1903. And the image is a photograph of three dimensional objects, which has a new copyright of whenever the photo was taken, even if some of the art on the box was designed in 1903. Good grief. This is why mob rule shouldn't be used to make decisions on legal matters. DreamGuy (talk) 00:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My understanding is that the stamp was issued in 1996, and is derived from a work from 1903 work now in the public domain. I would guess that the USPS does have copyright on the stamp on the grounds of transformativeness: the USPS successfully argued transformativeness in Gaylord vs US, part of which argued that artistic enhancement improved the case that the stamp counted as a new work. But IANAL, maybe it would count as a PD derivative work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The stamp features a three dimensional image (photo) of crayons in a box issued in 1903 or so. If this were just a scan of the image from the front of the box, then it would be public domain... but it's not. The photo is modern and under copyright, as it is of a three dimensional object and requires artistic choices of lighting, etc., so is a new work of art. the legal rationale for copies of public domain works to be public domain only applies to un-artistically altered two dimensional works. DreamGuy (talk) 16:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The image is no different from one that would be obtained by putting the box of crayons on a scanner. I stand by my assessment that it is not sufficiently original to generate a new copyright. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that's just nonsense. The stamp included more than just the front of a box, it included the full box with crayons, with full artistic composition of the three dimensional elements. Please familiarize yourself with the appropriate legal standards instead of aggressively making such baseless claims. DreamGuy (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Take a look at the Gaylord vs US summary, which noted the considerable effort and artistic talents of the photographer in his choice of lighting conditions, angles, exposures, and time of year and day, and observed that the Postal Service enhanced the artistic expression... in support of the courts view that a USPS photo of a sculpture counted as an independent creative work. — Charles Stewart (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gaylord case only enhances my argument since it upheld "Fair Use". The court said that the USPS could use a statue in a postage stamp without permission. It said "the stamp caused no harm to the value of Gaylord’s work" and "a stamp is an unlikely commercial substitute for future products sold by Gaylord." The exact same principles apply here — an image of a stamp in Wikipedia is not going to harm the USPS's ability to market a stamp (nor for that matter the ability of Crayola to market boxes of crayons), in fact it might actually stimulate demand for Crayola crayons, plus the stamp even though it's no longer being sold by the USPS itself. -- Dougie WII (talk) 23:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Gaylord vs. US states it was fair use on the grounds that it was a substantially novel artistic expression. In particular, that stamp is copyright USPS. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a sculpture, it's a box of crayons. Or more precisely, the front cover of a box of crayons. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this meant to be an argument showing that USPS doesn't have copyright on the stamp? — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer - though overturn if Stifle turns out to be correct and this image is PD. Copying my notes to the creator of this DrV from their talk page:
    • The nomination was on the basis that the image did not significantly increase reader's understanding (NFCC#8) and also that it fell into one of the "unacceptable use" categories under the non-free content interpretation guideline
    • WebHamster responded that the image was used in a section about the stamp and claimed that the in-context it met the guidelines, though they did not state how it met the significance requirement nor why an image that was covered by "unacceptable use" was to be allowed.
    • Stifle stated that it was PD as the object depicted was sufficiently old. I note here that the image page did NOT claim that it was public domain.
    • Quadell refuted that it was PD and re-iterated that the image failed NFCC#8
    • Howcheng and the nominator chimed in that in their opinion it was not a PD image
    • Dougie stated largely that the use of the image was to illustrate the stamp, though without addressing the "unacceptable use" problem nor showing how the image significantly increases reader's understanding.
Resulting from this the image is not public domain (so we must meet the criteria), falls into one of the examples of "unacceptable use" and no-one has sufficiently refuted this and lastly the arguments as to it significantly increasing reader's understanding fell short of those saying that it did not.
If the image is PD (which is not a matter I'm knowledgeable enough to decide) then there is no issue, if it is not PD then I see that I closed the discussion correctly in line with consenus/the NFCC policy - Peripitus (Talk) 05:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I entirely agree with that assessment. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OverturnComment as nominator -- All "Delete" votes and conversations cited above by the closing admin occurred before major revisions were made to the article to address the issues raised, especially by the original nominator. Yet he still closed the discussion summarily without any chance for other editors to comment on my changes that fixed the problems that had been brought up, in particular NFCC#8 issues. But even without taking that big point into account, there was still no clear consensus to delete, so it should have been left open for further discussion or relisted if possible in xfd as in afd. -- Dougie WII (talk) 08:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You opened this here, so you already made that clear. You wouldn't want anyone to mistakenly think you respresent the opinions of more than one person contributing to this conversation, would we? DreamGuy (talk) 16:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you do the same with above "vote" by the closing admin then? -- Dougie WII (talk) 20:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? The closing admin didn't have a double !vote here. DreamGuy (talk)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_26&oldid=1086355156"