Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 2

2 July 2006

Nigga Know Technology

This was deleted speedily. In my view, the AfD process would have been more appropriate. There were some controversial statements about the site's Alexa rating on the article's talk page. I am requesting that the page be undeleted and listed for AfD. -TruthbringerToronto 07:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Deletion The only "controversial" statement about Alexa that I see on the talk page is that someone mistakenly thought an Alexa rank over 1 million meant a million visitors. Since that is patently wrong, and was about the only supporting argument to keep, I don't see how it supports a reopen. Fan1967 19:17, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Clearly fails WP:WEB, speedy was appropriate. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn/list on AFD as out-of-process deletion. Two administrators [1] have speedied it as A7. A7 says, "An article about a real person, group of people, band, or club that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." This particular article does not appear to be about a person, group of people, band, or club and thus the deletion was out of process. I have no question that it ought to be deleted ... but an out of process speedy is not the appropriate method. BigDT 00:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. A7 certainly applies to blogs, they're written by a group of people, if not one person. The fact they're self-publishing "articles" about technology does not set them apart from the people who pick up a guitar in their parents' garage, which A7 explictly does cover. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 08:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: I'm impressed with BigDT's reasoning, and it almost made me switch sides on this, but blogs are, essentially, self-advertising. It's true that A7 would need a rewrite to include the really obviously minor websites, but I think these things are covered now under (perhaps overly broad) interpretation of the other terms. Geogre 13:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I've notified Fang Aili of this DRV. The Anome has already been notified. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, A7 covers blogs. If this blog were to have an established notability outside of the Alexa ranking, that would be something else. Unfortunately, it doesn't. --Deathphoenix ʕ 03:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• As one note to those who say that A7 covers blogs, please look at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal. A CSD proposal labeled A4 for "unremarkable websites" failed to achieve consensus. The bottom line is that even blatant corporate press releases get to sit in prod/AFD for a few days. Maybe that should be changed. I can see it both ways ... but as of now, the rule is "real person, group of people, band, or club". To say that "group of people" applies to a blog is ignoring that a separate proposal specifically about websites was not passed. BigDT 04:03, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If that's true, we could list this for AfD, where it will likely garner a lot of delete votes from respected Wikipedians, maybe a few keep votes from respected Wikipedians, and a whole lot of keep votes from "new users". While I have no real problems with listing this for AfD (and couldn't care less either way), I don't see how the AfD can result in anything other than a delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 04:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I fully support deleting it ... please don't get me wrong there ... if an AFD gets opened, I'll be the first one to put a delete there. However, as a matter of process, a speedy delete is inappropriate. BigDT 14:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. NN website. About out-of-process deletions-- I fully support being cautious when it comes to deleting anything, and encourage anyone who has a complaint about my deletions to message me. However, if admins had to prod or AfD every NN website article that gets created here, well, that just doesn't make sense. I regularly use A7 to encompass NN websites, and I believe other admins do too. I welcome further discussion on my talk page or other appropriate venue. --Fang Aili ^talk 15:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted Nothing notable here; nothing out of process. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Popebenedettoencyclical.jpg

Please see Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 June 23 for the original discussion.

According to WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5, it is not fair use to use "a photo from a press agency (e.g. Reuters, AP), not so famous as to be iconic, to illustrate an article on the subject of the photo."

User:Howcheng said, in closing the discussion as a keep, "This qualifies as fair use in Deus Caritas Est. In this case, it is NOT being used simply to show the Pope."

The closing administrator is correct that the subject, in this case, is not the pope, but rather, the signing of Deus Caritas Est. However, the photo is being used to illustrate that subject and thus, it does not qualify as fair use. Modern news media photos almost never qualify as fair use and are routinely deleted on WP:IFD. I suggest overturn and delete as copyvio. BigDT 00:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I believe you are reading the counterexamples too literally. #5 usually refers to a press agency photo of a person (such as a head shot) being used to illustrate an article about that person, without any reference to the action being captured in that photo. See at the end of WP:FUC:

  As a quick test, ask yourself: "Can this image be replaced by any other image, while still having the same effect?" If the answer is yes, then the image probably doesn't meet the criteria above.

  • That only works in the negative - it doesn't prove a positive. "If A then B" does not mean that "if B then A" is also true." BigDT 11:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• For Deus Caritas Est, there are no free images that show the Pope signing the document. That image cannot be replaced by some other image. Fair use applies. Now it might be argued that it's not necessary to show the actual signature taking place, but that's a decision for the editors of the article. howcheng {chat} 06:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
  • But that still isn't fair use. Fair use criteria are an "and", not an "or". "I want to" or "I need to" does not alone make it fair use. Just because there is no free alternative doesn't mean you can steal someone else's commercial image. If an image is in the list of counterexamples, it isn't fair use. Think about it ... if we can use media images as fair use, then why couldn't any newspaper print AP images without paying for them? After all, no free alternative is available. It just doesn't work that way ... press images are not fair use. BigDT 11:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia:Fair use#Policy establishes a ten part test. Because two of the criteria are not met, the test is failed. Here is my analysis:
  1. No free equivalent exists - asserted above and likely true. I consider this met.
  2. Not used so as to replace the original market role. The primary original market role for any wire service photo is sale for use illustrating news articles, this is fine for Wikipedia but would not be for Wikinews. A secondary original market role for wire service photos is sale for use in follow-on coverage. Wikipedia is follow on coverage. Further specification of the criteria is "our use of copyrighted material should not make it so that one no longer needs to purchase the actual product" and "Large copyrighted photographs from agencies that make their income selling photographs, for example, would likely not be "fair use" as it would be undermining the ability of the copyright holder to make money from their work." This is weakly met.
  3. "The amount of copyrighted work used should be as little as possible. Low-resolution images should be used instead of high-resolution images" The image is a low resolution version, so this test is met.
  4. "The material must have previously been published." Met
  5. "Unfreely-licensed media cannot be used as decoration." Not met - this photo is merely decorative and provides no additional content to the article.
  6. "The material meets the media-specific policy requirements." - presuming met.
  7. "The material must be used in at least one article." - Met.
  8. "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." Not met. The image only illustrates the signing, which is not a significant contribution. It does not identify the subject of the article.
  9. "Fair use images should be used only in the article namespace." Met.
  10. Certain data must be present on the image page. Met. GRBerry 16:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• • That's a very good point too ... I hadn't considered those criteria. But also, I think it's important to understand that if any of the counterexample cases are met, the image is NOT fair use. Using a photo from AP without permission is no different than using an article from the AP without permission. To be perfectly honest, this one isn't really a debatable issue - using a media photo in order to illustrate the subject of the photo is NEVER fair use. BigDT 03:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)