Image:BaldwinBros.jpg – moot since this was restored but i have nominated this to pui to discuss whether the current license is correct and whether the different licenses for the original images are compatible – SpartazHumbug! 18:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
Please advise how to undelete BaldwinBros.jpg and my accompanying notes. I thought that I had indicated that this was Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License like my other recent image contributions, but if not, please let me know how to fix this. The Admin who deleted this image (East718) says on his talk page: I am inactive due to health reasons; if you have an urgent inquiry, it's best that you contact another administrator.
George Church (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least one of the images used in the collage has no copyright information (Stephen Baldwin), so you cannot use it. Also, the one on flickr is licensed with Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 License (rather than 3). I'm afraid that unless you can clear those issues up, it's unlikely this will be undeleted. Note: you did not include a copyright tag according to the history of the image page. - Mgm|(talk) 13:01, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image description page said it was merged from individual Wikipedia photos. Can you point out which ones? Stifle (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The photo of Stephen seems to have copyright info i.e. Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 2.5. Or perhaps I'm missing something about this and/or the 2.0 license for William? My image description page was explicit about crediting the 4 images -- all of which are still (undeleted) in wikimedia. Furthermore, the merged image should be acceptable since each of the individual images was from a thumbnail. Is it possible to edit my original page text, so that I can try to bring it up to wikimedia standards? I'm willing to classify it under whichever license is acceptable. Thanks, George Church (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the question; can you please specify the exact name of the original images that you created this one from? Stifle (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The four images from left to right (& chronological) order are:
If those are correct It seems to me to be a problem. The first image no problem assuming you correctly attribute where it came from. The second image is non-free used under the fair use doctrine, you have no rights to use this image and issue it under any license (It would be a nice end run around anybodies copyright if you could just include it in a montage, and claim your own licensing on it). The third is under CC2 Attribution - which states "For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work", without seeing the way your image was tagged I can't tell but this is a horrible mix of licensing terms you couldn't just put your own license on it. The final image as the first, provided it has correct attribution probably not an issue. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not trying to put my "own license on it", I'm just trying to illustrate a wiki article using wiki images. If the four images are adjacent on a wiki page with their own frames, is that OK? If the frames are not evident is that OK? Can they all be used as thumbnails under fair use? Thanks, George Church (talk) 23:22, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's possible to put multiple images together closely, although I'm not sure exactly how it's done. However, while the third image can be used with any other image as long as the creator is attributed, the first and fourth are incompatible with each other, and the second is non-free. Therefore I endorse the deletion as the licenses are not compatible. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
{{double image}} and related templates. --NE2 19:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As the image has been restored, I can now see it. Regardless of the intent at the moment the copyright status as represented on the page is misleading to say the least, it says in a nice banner for permissions "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.", however people aren't free to use it under that license. There is doesn't seem to be any creative element in pasting the four image together, so you probably have no copyright interest in it at all, not even in the collective work. For the other images the original licensing isn't particularly obvious nor is which images relate to which link you give, given the links can break I would have thought relying on that rather than detail of which is which and under what terms seems risky to me. Although in theory there is nothing wrong with putting images together in this way rather than through markup it makes the correct licensing difficult to document properly when the licenses aren't compatible, and in terms of the fairuse image it is likely probablematic under the NFCC criteria 1 of "No free equivelant", it may succeed for use showing the TV show itself but for illustrating the individual likely fails. --82.7.39.174 (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Jdimytai Damour – Deletion endorsed but if the material from the user version gets merged somewhere let me know because we will need a history undelete and redirect to comply with the GFDL – SpartazHumbug! 10:26, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the article above. Please do not modify it.
The AfD for this article was pretty divided, without any clear consensus, but it was nevertheless closed as delete. I think the subject is quite notable based on extensive press coverage: Google News currently gives me 3,627 results. (The deleted version of the article can be seen here in my userspace.) Everyking (talk) 07:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While AFD is not a direct vote, there were 16 in favour of deletion and 12 in favour of retention of the article, and four of the keeps would customarily be discounted as coming from IPs. In these circumstances, the closing administrator should consider the strength of the arguments, whether they were motivated by policy or contrary to it, and close based on this. Mr. Z-man did exactly that — he observed correctly in his closure that Wikipedia is not a memorial, and as such it's correct to give less weight to !votes which mention only that the article should be kept as a memorial, or just say "keep per above". As such, I endorse deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article was userfied Everyking's userspace. - Mgm|(talk) 12:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I wouldn't have discounted only anons. Schuym1's comment was not helpful either. I think we should follow the common procedure here and work towards merging the article about the person with the event. Frankly, I'm shocked that so many people chose to express an extreme opinion when the middle road could have satisfied both parties at least to some extent. (Only the last commenter commented how they thought a redirect to be unsuitable, most delete voters didn't even seem to have considered it) With the material already userfied, I think the appropriate thing is to ask the closer for a merge outcome. - Mgm|(talk) 12:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the Black Friday article is too broad in scope to incorporate much of this content; however, perhaps an article could be written specifically about the stampede, or about the 2008 Black Friday, and that way it would be less vulnerable to "memorial" complaints. Everyking (talk) 18:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I could go for one about Black Friday 2008, even though you run the risk of running a coach and four through WP:CSB. Stifle (talk) 18:41, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
