File talk:Palin nowhere.jpg

Is this the same bridge as "and I told the Congress, thanks but no thanks"?

The image appears to have {{cc-by-sa-3.0}} lincense. Why is it up for deletion? --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of this image was previously discussed here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering the same. The copyright holder sent an e-mail through OTRS. Grsz^X 15:28, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, someone may have found an error, as is being discussed here. --Evb-wiki (talk) 15:33, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In short, while it is claimed that a release under an acceptable CC license was emailed to OTRS, it appears that the wording of the release on the image was not sufficient. Stifle (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following reasons have been asserted for deleting this image:

1, because the image is replaceable text or by a free image which exists or could be created in the context in which it is used

There is no other free image suggested that depicts this event. A text description would not convey the full impact of the image without original research.

8, because its presence does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the subject, and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding

This is purely a matter of opinion. Gov. Palin's position of the bridge is a major subject of debate in the current U.S presidential election. This image is of direct relevance to that debate.

10a, because its source and copyright holder are not indicated

The source and copyright holder, Bob Weinstein, is clearly listed on the image page. Apparently correspondence is in progress concerning his release under CC license.

10c, because it does not have a specific fair use rationale for the article Governorship of Sarah Palin

This is a possible reason to remove the image from the Governorship of Sarah Palin article, not for deleting the image itself. --agr (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

10a and 10c are conceded.

Re: 1, a text description, saying "Sarah Palin was pictured with a t-shirt bearing the text '...' would be sufficient to replace this image.

Re: 8, relevance is necessary but not sufficient for use. Whether the matter is a "subject of debate" or not does not bear relevance to the non-free content criteria — in two weeks' time, the debate will be over and if it won't pass the non-free content criteria then, it doesn't do so now. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:1, Editors working on the article seem to have concluded the image is necessary and cannot be replaced by text. In any case, there is no mention in WP:CSD I7 about replicability by text. Your suggestion should be raised on the article talk page and appealed to IFD if you feel necessary.

Re. 8, your opinion of might happen in two weeks time is just that, your opinion. Gov. Palin might be vice president elect. She has also been called the future of the Republican party and a likely candidate for president in 2012. Or she may be blamed for a crushing Obama landslide and the Gravina Island bridge debate considered a key factor of historic importance. We don't know yet and we shouldn't make decisions about an image's suitability based on peering into our crystal balls.--agr (talk)

Per WP:CSD "Where reasonable doubt exists, discussion using another method under the deletion policy should occur instead. If a page has survived a prior deletion discussion, it may not be speedily deleted, except in the case of newly discovered copyright infringements." Note that there was a previous CSD in September and I am not the uploader. Accordingly I am removing the speedy tag.--agr (talk) 13:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where the article has been marked for deletion for an extended period of time, and no reason for it not to be deleted has been found, the removal of the first tag is not proper even if the speedy deletion tag is removed. There has been no consensus in Talk:Sarah Palin that the image could not be replaced by text (such as: "Palin was shown with a 'Nowhere AK' tee shirt on a trip to Ketchikan"). Collect (talk) 14:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again per WP:CSD "The creator of a page may not remove a Speedy Delete tag from it. Only an editor who is not the creator of a page may do so." Speedies are not for contested situations. I have stated reasons for not deleting the image. If you disagree, follow the standard dispute resolution mechanisms. Talk:Sarah Palin would be a good place to start.--agr (talk) 14:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put the tag I deleted back, it is a disputed fair use tag, not a speedy tag. My mistake.--agr (talk) 16:44, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other images http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Palin_Nowhere_99901.jpg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nowhere_99901_(Crop2).jpg are also flagged for deletion. They are all under the same copyright, which is being researched in the following topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Image_permission_problem_with_Image:Palin_nowhere.jpg. The same message cannot be conveyed without the image, this has been conceded before by many other people. Duuude007 (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Concede"? Nope. Asserted? Yes. True? No. I just gave an example of text which conveys the actual substance of the image. True. Collect (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The text you suggest "Palin was shown with a 'Nowhere AK' tee shirt on a trip to Ketchikan" does not convey her attitude toward the t-shirt, which is central to the images significance. Including the image lets readers form their own conclusions about the degree to which she was supporting the project. Clearly any image can be described in text to some degree, and that is something we should strive for to meet accessibility goals. So why bother including fair use images at all? I'd like to see an pair of example images that otherwise meet our fair use requirements, one which can adequately be described by text and the other which cannot.--agr (talk) 22:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that when a person is shown with a tee shirt, that a reasonable person whould understand that the person approved of the message on the tee shirt. Whereas saying a picture shows the Taj Mahal is not very descriptive of an image. In this case, the suggested text fully describes the significance of the picture, and does not require a copyright violation (I assume that the "license" was found to be insufficient by OTRS). Collect (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not found to be insufficient. It was not found at all. The OTRS was so backlogged (not many OTRS volunteers) that they couldn't find the email, and so they said that they are contacting the copyright owner directly again, to validate. I can assure you, he has released full permissions, as I was the one who got him to release them in the first place. And what is so special about this t-shirt you are talking about? I think I need an image to better explain your text description, as it is too vague :P Duuude007 (talk) 15:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give a cite for OTRS saying they "lost" the email? I was under the impression that someone found the email to be insufficient. We had the ORTRS number earlier, but that is useless unless you are part of OTRS. Are you in it? Thanks! Collect (talk) 18:59, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it says, “Best I can tell the relivant OTRS ticket number is 2008091810048421 and the problem is the lack of an explict CC release.” And “we recived an email yes. We did not get a solid CC release.” —teb728 t c 19:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and they are contacting Bob directly to reconfirm, because based on policy, the specific wording has to be especially explicit. As I already pointed out in that topic, I spoke to Mr. Weinstein on the matter, and he was more than happy to provide explicit release. The OTRS volunteers were planning to contact him directly so as to avoid any confusion in what that specialized wording entails. Duuude007 (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WEEKS is not "speedy deletion" by a long shot. Looks from here like all that is being done is a delaying game. Sigh. If the release was not in good order, the image should be deleted. And that deadline was 25 October. Why do I have the funny feeling that Mr. Weinstein is unable to give an absolute release? Collect (talk) 18:21, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently satisfactory permission has been received and the above discussion is now moot. --agr (talk) 04:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the image has been added to commons, this tag does seem mostly valid, except, after looking over the rules that have to be satisfied to delete, the older versions of the image have not been moved over yet. Does anybody know how to do this? Duuude007 (talk) 23:47, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another person has prompted that this is a duplicate of Commons:Image:Palin_nowhere.jpg, but before this one is deleted, the alternate versions of the image need to be copied over, and I am not certain how to do it myself. Duuude007 (talk) 17:13, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]