Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-passenger and special vehicle registration plates of Georgia (U.S. state)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. If the images are perceived to be a problem, then perhaps it is they who should be nominated for deletion instead of the list which uses them. Sandstein 05:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non-passenger and special vehicle registration plates of Georgia (U.S. state) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Page is merely a gallery of non-free images. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, nothing but a non-free gallery. Bop all the images too. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:33, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There's more to the article than just the images. If the images are a problem, that issue can be addressed directly. Deleting the article definitely seems like overkill. Qqqqqq (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some of the images claim to be free-use. I've got to call bollocks on that. Löschen because this many fair-use images in one article is kind of ridiculous, and without them there'd be no reason to have the article. I don't really see the point of the list either, but that's immaterial to this discussion. Nosleep break my slumber 07:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar Whether or not the list should exist is not immaterial to the discussion; it is central. The images should be considered separately from the article. However, I must agree with you about the few images used in this article that claim to be free-use (which are not more than a few of the many images in this article); they should be retagged as fair-use. These were uploaded by a now-blocked user who repeatedly violated various Wikipedia policies. But the article need not be punished for the few incorrectly-tagged images it employs. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I meant to say it was immaterial to my !vote. There's no good reason to have scores of fair use images in one article. Nosleep break my slumber 03:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But is the use of too many images a good reason to simply delete an article? Qqqqqq (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. WP:NONFREE#Non-free image use in list articles: "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section. The following considerations should be made to reduce the number of new non-free images associated with such lists:" And just below, "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." It's pretty commonplace to set a reasonable limit for the number of fair-use images in one article, with discretion of course for the article's length, but I'd never have more than about four or five in one article at the absolute most. Nosleep break my slumber 10:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing there about the inclusion of too many, if you will, non-free images' warranting the deletion of an article that features such images. It might suggest that too many images are being used in this article, but nowhere do I see that it suggests that the use of too many images is grounds to delete the article. Grounds to remove some of the images, though, maybe. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the images should be removed. My argument is that, without the images, this article is nothing, and so it may as well be deleted. This is more of a gallery than an article (though I do not doubt it was created in good faith). Would it be worth keeping a list of Pokémon, if it was decided that Pokémon were outside the remit of the encyclopedia? J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're deciding simultaneously that a list of the types of license plates issued by a state is outside the scope of Wikipedia? That's another issue entirely. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And one that is fitted to this AfD. I consider this article a gallery, and, generally, I do not consider gallery articles appropriate- the issue should be judged on a case by case basis. However, this article should have none of the images it does have, as they are an abuse of our NFCC, meaning that we are left with a gallery article with no images, which I can never support. J Milburn (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So you're deciding simultaneously that a list of the types of license plates issued by a state is outside the scope of Wikipedia? That's another issue entirely. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the images should be removed. My argument is that, without the images, this article is nothing, and so it may as well be deleted. This is more of a gallery than an article (though I do not doubt it was created in good faith). Would it be worth keeping a list of Pokémon, if it was decided that Pokémon were outside the remit of the encyclopedia? J Milburn (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I see nothing there about the inclusion of too many, if you will, non-free images' warranting the deletion of an article that features such images. It might suggest that too many images are being used in this article, but nowhere do I see that it suggests that the use of too many images is grounds to delete the article. Grounds to remove some of the images, though, maybe. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But if someone wanted to try to write this article without the images, I suppose that'd be okay. I just wouldn't see the point. Nosleep break my slumber 10:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. WP:NONFREE#Non-free image use in list articles: "In articles and sections of articles that consist of several small sections of information for a series of elements common to a topic, such as a list of characters in a fictional work, non-free images should be used judiciously to present the key visual aspects of the topic. It is inadvisable to provide a non-free image for each entry in such an article or section. The following considerations should be made to reduce the number of new non-free images associated with such lists:" And just below, "The use of non-free images arranged in a gallery is usually unacceptable, but should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Exceptions should be very well-justified and alternate forms of presentation (including with fewer images) strongly considered." It's pretty commonplace to set a reasonable limit for the number of fair-use images in one article, with discretion of course for the article's length, but I'd never have more than about four or five in one article at the absolute most. Nosleep break my slumber 10:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But is the use of too many images a good reason to simply delete an article? Qqqqqq (talk) 04:41, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. I meant to say it was immaterial to my !vote. There's no good reason to have scores of fair use images in one article. Nosleep break my slumber 03:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar Whether or not the list should exist is not immaterial to the discussion; it is central. The images should be considered separately from the article. However, I must agree with you about the few images used in this article that claim to be free-use (which are not more than a few of the many images in this article); they should be retagged as fair-use. These were uploaded by a now-blocked user who repeatedly violated various Wikipedia policies. But the article need not be punished for the few incorrectly-tagged images it employs. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. If ever there were a good gallery of non-free images, this is it. It is hard to imagine presenting this kind of information any other way. There is absolutely no issue here about stepping on the rights of a copyright owner to publish the images for money; the state of Georgia sells license plates, not pictures of license plates. The validity of every image is sourceable to an unimpeachable authority on the subject. If this article cannot remain, it is not because the subject is inappropriate, but rather because the anti-fair-use image brigade will not allow it. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Löschen, there is nothing more to this article than a non-free gallery- it would be considered useless without the images, but is not acceptable with them. Ihcoyc- there clearly is an issue with regards to publishing these images for money, otherwise the images would be released under a free license. As they have not been, we have to assume there is an issue. That's back to the completely flawed argument of "everything's fine until someone complains", which is not the way we work here. This article is not valid subject matter- it's not the equivilent to X discography, it's the equivilent to Album covers of X, which, presented in this format, would clearly be completely inappropriate. J Milburn (talk) 15:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar I don't follow your logic regarding a possible financial component to the images. They are produced for public promotional purposes by a state government agency acting in its official capacity. Just because the state has not actively worked to release them under a free license does not mean that it is suffering some financial hardship when those images are used elsewhere in a fair-use capacity. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not our place to make that judgement. If the state was happy for them to be used in such a way, they would have released them. If you feel the state would be happy to release images of them, why not contact whichever agency owns the rights to the images and request the release? J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In any case, I was arguing with regards to a hypothetical third party publishing the images for profit, rather than the owners losing money due to our publishing, in response to what was said above. J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not our place to make that judgement. If the state was happy for them to be used in such a way, they would have released them. If you feel the state would be happy to release images of them, why not contact whichever agency owns the rights to the images and request the release? J Milburn (talk) 17:16, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar I don't follow your logic regarding a possible financial component to the images. They are produced for public promotional purposes by a state government agency acting in its official capacity. Just because the state has not actively worked to release them under a free license does not mean that it is suffering some financial hardship when those images are used elsewhere in a fair-use capacity. Qqqqqq (talk) 16:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I don't see how so called "non-free" images are a reason to delete the article. SF007 (talk)
- Löschen, a gallery of images (non-free, at that) does not an encyclopedic article make. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar There's more to this article than the images. In fact, it existed for nearly a year without but a few images. Only when I began to add fair-use images did it attract this attention. That said, I do believe that a list of the types of license plates a state issues does belong in Wikipedia. Also, this article is probably the only resource there is anywhere for this list of information. The state itself hasn't even been able to keep track of all the plate types it issues. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that to say that the article is unsourced to reliable secondary sources? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kommentar There's more to this article than the images. In fact, it existed for nearly a year without but a few images. Only when I began to add fair-use images did it attract this attention. That said, I do believe that a list of the types of license plates a state issues does belong in Wikipedia. Also, this article is probably the only resource there is anywhere for this list of information. The state itself hasn't even been able to keep track of all the plate types it issues. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, merely that this article is likely the only place where information from a variety of primary and secondary sources has been compiled. The state itself does a poor job of presenting information; this article draws from the official website and a few other external sources. These are given in the article. Qqqqqq (talk) 18:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no reason to delete. Any image issues should be addressed but the list is valid even if there are no images. Rlendog (talk) 01:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.