- File:ZwillingeStampSWA1985.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I would like to request a deletion review of this file.
- I have been unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the deleting adminstrator User:Fastily
- I believe the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly
- I believe significant new information has been added to the article which renders the image's ommision detrimental to readers understanding
- I believe that image's presence would assist in the identification of the stamp
I believe that image was being used to identify (not merely 'illustrate') the stamp. The image's presence, in my view, significantly increased readers' understanding of the topic of the section 'Zwillinge (Locomotives)#The Stamp' and its omission is detrimental to that understanding. So it seems to me it passes WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8.
The proposer of the deletion User:Ww2censor is I think operating a far tighter criteria than is stated in our policy. His suggestion was that "stamp's existence and its purpose are already perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image". I think the key things here are whether the image is being used to aid in the identification of the stamp and the use of "necessity". It seems that a criteria stronger than our polices is being used. I have tried to raisie these issues with the deleting admin and but only got a reply from Ww2censor. His reply seemed to me to just ignore rather than adress my questions and just be a restating of his interpretation of policy. User_talk:Fastily/Archive_3#File:ZwillingeStampSWA1985.jpg
That is it looks to me like in Ww2censor's view one cannot use a stamp to allow the identification of a stamp in a section of an article on a stamp unless the article itself is on the stamp or the stamp itself is worthy of an article.
Only one other editor User:Seresin commented and he asserted that it "Fails NFCC.8 as seeing the stamp is unnecessary for comprehension"
But NFCC.8 is on Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.
These seem to me significantly different from User:Seresin's "unnecessary for comprehension".
I have tried but been unable to resolve the issue in discussion with the administrator and I think the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly if one is judging against our stated policy rather than a vote.
Also I have added, what I think is, significant new information since deletion to try to improve things. In short I think even more so than previously the omission of the image of the stamp is detrimental to reader's understanding of the topic of the section and the ability to identify the stamp. Anyway Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
PS: Users Fastily and Ww2censor have had little notes put on their talk pages about this being brought here (Msrasnw (talk) 17:54, 22 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Overturn this is a question of whether the "topic" is intended to mean the topic of the article, or the particular topic or point within the article. Requiring the very narrow interpretation here is like requiring that every person or thing mentioned in an article be notable, which would make it almost impossible to write about any but the broadest topics. If we're interested in communicating information, the information within an article is what needs to be communicated properly. Images cannot be described properly in words. If a stamp is being discussed in an article, and is relevant to the overall subject, it should if possible be illustrated. DGG ( talk ) 18:32, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Equivocal, and I think we need more information. Stamps are copyrighted, and on Wikipedia NFCC8 is taken very seriously and given great weight. I do accept that the image would significantly readers' understanding of the topic, but the law is the law. Some postage stamps do present unique complexities because it could be convincingly argued that Wikipedia has wide latitude to use images in Crown Copyright. (The image fair use criteria need revising to take proper account of Crown Copyright, by the way.) But would a South African stamp from 1985 be covered by Crown Copyright in any case? SA left the Commonwealth in 1961 and did not rejoin until 1995, and even while in the Commonwealth, I'm not sure if there is a concept of Crown Copyright in South African law. In the absence of clear information on this, I think administrators have a duty to be very rigid in respecting copyright and while I recognise Msrasnw's case has some merit, I am not yet convinced that its merits are strong enough to justify overturning Fastily's decision.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 18:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on copyright - This stamp's copyright is a bit complex I think. It is a South West African stamp produced by the illegal South African colonial authority - "In 1971, acting on a request for advisory opinion from the United Nations Security Council, the ICJ ruled that the continued presence of South Africa in Namibia was illegal and that South Africa was under an obligation to withdraw from Namibia immediately. It also ruled that all member states of the United Nations were under an obligation to recognize the invalidity of any act performed by South Africa on behalf of Namibia" like perhaps the issuing of stamps!
- I have asked here for help but nothing yet - Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Copyright_status_of_South_West_African_Stamps_.281985.29.3F(Msrasnw (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- You might want to try asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions as well. Jafeluv (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I have now asked there. - By the way have been in email contact with both SA post and Namib post but no joy yet.(Msrasnw (talk) 21:09, 3 May 2010 (UTC))[reply]
- Comment I've deduped the references in the article. The section on the stamp is referenced to two places (1) A blog - see WP:RS and (2) Pictures of the postmark - i.e. it's pretty much unreferenced. The text also seems pretty much contrived to attempt to justify inclusion of the image - "The locomotives there depicted are marked 2A and 2B." seems to have little encyclopedic worth, and certainly isn't "critical commentary", "The name of the Otjimukoka station on the notice-board on stamp, written in German - Gothic script, was changed in 1903 to Johann Albrechtshöhe and again changed later on to Albrechts" - is pretty much nothing to do with the stamp or the locomotive. Remove those two sentences and the stuff about the postmark and the section on the stamp comes down to "A painting by Koos van Ellinckhuijzen of a Zwillinge was used on one of a set of four commemorative locomotive South West African postage stamps issued in 1985." --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Copyrighted stamps should only be used in the article about the stamp, if there is one, and to discuss the stamp itself. Not something on the stamp. Of course, if it is proven to be PD, then it's all fine. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse - the debate hinged around interpretation of WP:NFCC#8, and I think the views expressed on both sides were reasonable. Overall, I think the close was well within admin discretion. PhilKnight (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to no consensus (defaulting to keep). The stamp is discussed in the article: Zwillinge (Locomotives)#The Stamp and Post Mark. There's no requirement in NFCC#8 that a separate article need exist, as posited above. There was no consensus in the original discussion either (2:1 for delete). One of the delete arguments as "unnecessary for comprehension", which is again not a criteria in NFCC; the wording is "detrimental to that understanding". WP:NFCI#3 explicitly allows stamps for indentification purposes, even without commentary. But there's a fair bit of (sourced) commentary about the stamp itself in this case, so meets NFCI#4 as well, and possibly NFCI#8 as well, as historical image. Pcap ping 09:39, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
