Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:05, 31 July 2009

National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts

National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable nor could it be established as notable based on searches for confirmation. Only one source provided discusses it, and it has very little reliability and is unprofessional (see: "bitchslap" in title). Misplaced Pages is not news, nor is it a collection of random poorly sourced information that speculates on possible legal events, especially from non-experts to provide reliable sources for said speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Note - this also falls under BLP provisions since this deals with a living individual who is being sued, so any sourcing needs to be completely reliable and not contain speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Secondary note - during the creation of the page, the creator also placed it in multiple projects and ranked it mid importance. This is highly inappropriate and is part of the generalized misunderstanding of guidelines and policies surrounding the creation of this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Third note - Article now contains heavy use of original research. This can be found in the sections "Background" and "Conflict of international copyright law". Uses of Misplaced Pages as a source also goes against Misplaced Pages standards which state that Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, plus uses of it violate our original research standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Misplaced Pages is not news, as the nominator said. Furthermore, the Wikinews article is vastly more informative, this really has nothing to add. Ray 23:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
• Please before deciding, see this, many reliable sources have covered it, including the BBC. I however initially used the Register source since it was the first one I picked that mentioned Wikimedia Commons rather than just Misplaced Pages. It's a stub, what'd you expect, full article? ViperSnake151  Talk  23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The "reliable sources" contain the same information, which is that the NPG sued Misplaced Pages. That would cover one or two sentences. Thus, this falls under Content Fork regulations. The type of sources you are using would violate the POV Fork standards. A sentence or two at most could be added to either the Misplaced Pages or the NPG page. Anything else would be undue. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

They have not sued Misplaced Pages. However, this can be expanded. Why can't we just hold off until the article is more...filled? ViperSnake151  Talk  23:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, for anyone who is taken in by the claim that there are tons of sources - most are blogs and fail reliable sourcing. Even many of the ones hosted by legitimate presses are blogs. They also regurgitate the same information with the occasional addition of original speculation. Since there is a living person involved, BLP would apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - It is belly button gazing for the moment. At the moment all the coverage is rather transient. If this come to something it might be worth a few sentences in the history of wikipedia page. It has the potential to have a large impact but that impact is yet to materialise. Recommend creator contributes it to WikiNews. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We already have a long Wikinews article on this. And this page was never a fork of another. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - wikipedial notability is not transient. It is not required that something show continued notability, merely that it show notability at some time. While the article may be a little premature, it most certainly is notable, as the vast number of news stories show. Yes some are blogs, but you've also got several major newspapers, the BBC, el reg, EFF, etc. BLP does in some ways apply, but nothing is being violated here - sourcing is fine, and the guy is happy for it to be common knowledge because he told us about it to begin with. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is rather clear on the matter. BLP also states that blogs -cannot- be used in discussing matters that involve living individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we do use blogs as sources, I'm just saying that they're an example of the notability - it's the very definition of notability: someone has made a note about it. The sources are the newspapers and other "real" journalism. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And also, the general notability guideline is pretty much "if many reliable sources report the same thing, its notable". Even though right now its only boiling around a number of facts, the fact that according to the "accused" that someone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation has become his pro bono lawyer means that people are wanting to stand up for free culture. ViperSnake151  Talk  00:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

That is -not- what the notability guidelines say. If they report the same thing then they count only as -one- reference. That is what the guidelines state. Non reliable sources according to BLP cannot count towards notability in any form. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any reference to that in the policies. Also, why must this article specifically comply with WP:BLP? It is not a biography. And WP:N says "Multiple sources are generally preferred" ViperSnake151  Talk  02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The nominator's claim there are no sources of a reliable sort is not an accurate claim, and the argument fails. Indeed, a minute or two's use of a search engine reveals there are a several sources on the topic that may be considered usable. The primary content of the notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." As such the article may stand, pending improvement using those additional sources.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  I never claimed that there are "no sources". Please read the nomination. It deals with notability and this being under BLP invalidates most of those "sources" that you find in a search engine. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed, the nominator indicated that the one source that referred to the topic that was originally provided was not reliable or professional, and that the nominator's search failed to find reliable sources. The claim, that there are no such sources fails. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Instead of saying "nominator", you can refer to me directly. Saying notability cannot be established is different than saying there are no other sources. Notability requires direct and unique coverage in multiple reliable sources. BLP requires reliable sources to have the utmost reliability. Combined together, having only a dozen articles saying the same four facts over and over does not prove notability. It would only allow two or three sentences of text. This would not be even close to enough to warrant its own page, let alone meet BLP's strict requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• At this point, there are now sufficient references from sources that are considered reliable that it's fair to say the original claim is moot. Biography of Living Persons requirements are met, as only information sourced from media such as the BBC, the New York Times, or Reuters are relied upon for statements about the individual in question The article is supplemented by additional journals at this moment. Further, additional sources are able to describe links to the legal questions involved, if not actually state the doctrines advanced. By the way, no article that I encountered mentioned a law suit. At this time the article is merely in need of improvement, and not in danger of being an article amounting to zero-reliable-reference scribbling. The nominator, Ottava Rima and the "delete" commenters are invited to state the specific aspects of the article that need improving over on the article's talk page.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• By "sufficient references" you mean 70% of the page doesn't even discuss the matter and fails WP:Original Research? Not only are you abusing BLP and referencing standards, you are now coatracking. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• This reference falls BLP standards. The "funny" should have tipped you off that it is a column stating opinion with the purpose of humor. Not a highly reliable source. It must be removed immediately. Artnet is not a highly reliable news source per BLP. It must be removed immediately. Amatuer photographer.com is not a highly reliable news source per BLP. It must be removed immediately. This is not a highly reliable news source per BLP. It must be removed immediately. Also, Misplaced Pages is not reliable per Misplaced Pages policy, and it cannot be used in a BLP. The uses of it also constitutes original research. This must be removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• The New York Times article, entitled Misplaced Pages May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos describes the odd (some would say "funny" ) circumstance wherein qualifying licensed images of quality are less common than desirable. You're invited to describe persuasively with several reasons about how the article and the journal fails to satisfy as a source. You have failed to do so. Equally well, the Amateur Photographer is reporting on a press release or announcement of the National Portrait Gallery. Nothing especially remarkable or unreliable about that. Artnet merely confirms the information found in the BBC, NYTimes, and Reuters articles, and describes how the subject of the article--remember that?--could arise,namely how a dispute over copyright and public domain works is possible, given the differing copyright laws in the United Kingdom and the United States. It is not relied upon for biographical information, and after all, the article is about a topic, not a person.
  At this point the complaint of Ottava Rima is about the quality of the article, rather a distance from the topic of the deletion of the article. I am most interested to see Ottava Rima describe how Reuters, the New York Times and the BBC fail to be adequate sources for information about an individual, and how they should not be relied upon. More generally, the issues that the article is about has been hardly developed, and those issues are not subject to the Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons concerns in the least, apparently an area of some confusion for Ottava Rima .
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• The New York Times article fails highly reliable source as it is opinion, provided to have a humorist take, and does not provide information not found elsewhere. This was already stated. The rest of your arguments fail to have any real basis in reliable source guidelines. A source is not reliable simply because it regurgitates facts found in reliable sources, otherwise we would allow blogs in all forms as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• The statements described in that New York Times article are affirmed in the other cited sources, and indeed, the sole instance where the citation stands alone in support of a sentence is where a Gallery spokesperson is reported to confirm that the Gallery has succeeded in communicating with with the Encyclopedia staff. I'll see if an additional confirming citaton may be found in that instance.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• "are affirmed in the other cited sources" Then they do not provide original information and are there for the mere appearance of more sources. It is redundant and not reliable. It is best to remove it as it is inappropriate. Furthermore, notability is on sources not simply repeating the same information over and over. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• . ViperSnake151  Talk  02:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• I observe that the claim fails for Ottava Rima about an "unreliable" source when that source is affirmed and corroborated by other reliable sources.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Reliability is not determined by statements being used in other sources too. The fact that you would suggest it does shows a severe misunderstanding of what reliability is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
• The thoughtful explanation and reasoning is noted and remembered. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep (but possibly move out of the (article) namespace until notability is established). If Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is allowed, then this is. Could seriously affect thousands of our image uploads. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  There has not been a court case, so it would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Remember, this is currently a content POV fork off of the Misplaced Pages page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  Why do you keep saying this is a fork? I didn't fork it from ANYWHERE. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  We already have an article on Misplaced Pages. This would be a fork off of that. We even have History of Misplaced Pages or Criticism of Misplaced Pages, which would be equally appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - In my opinion this violates WP:NOTNEWS. The part that says "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own" sums it up pretty well. The information in this article can serve its purpose in the History of Misplaced Pages article or some other place. Just because something has a lot of news coverage doesn't mean it should get its own article. This is an encyclopedia; we want encyclopedic content. The AfD for Michelle Obama's arms showed that abundant sources do not prove something is encyclopedic. Killiondude (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per Killion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep, per RHaworth (except that in my opinion, it meets notability already). Question for Ottava Rima (or anyone): Can you explain the claim that "Non reliable sources according to BLP cannot count towards notability in any form"? I have never thought of notability as needing to be reliably sourced -- reliable sourcing, I thought, is for claims Misplaced Pages makes within articles ("about" things). But notability is not a claim we make within articles, it's a prerequisite for having the article in the first place. Thus, I assumed that notability need not be established from reliable sources. Alternative position: for establishing notability, even redundant gossip blogs would be "reliable", as they are indicative of the attitudes towards "notability" taken by their editors. Thoughts? Agradman /_contribs 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

  Read WP:BLP. It comes up quite often. The very spirit is rather blatant in this clause: "In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if and only if: (1) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and (2) the Misplaced Pages article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Misplaced Pages article taking a position on their truth." As you can see, we are only -allowed- to use highly reliable sources. Not "reliable" sources. Blogs don't even match "reliable" sources, let alone "highly reliable" sources. Notability must be established -within- the article. This is done through reliable sourcing. BLP states exactly what kind of sourcing can be used in this article. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Markedly non-neutral. Examples follow. See also other policy issues, below.:
  • " claims rights ... were infringed by ... uploading the ... prints of ... works that have already fallen into the public domain." Contains definite POV-pushing. It really repeats the preceding sentence...just to make sure Ms. Reader gets the point.
  • " had demanded a response by ... and also had demanded that ..." The 'defendant', C, "reports", B "states" and "demands".
  • " threat is in conflict with U.S. copyright law, where both C and F are based." Again with the POV-language "threat". This statement, is cited to BBC News article and a Computerworld magazine article. Neither are respected law academics or qualified legal commentators.
  • "The threat also claimed that" And again...
  • " had contacted a few months before ... over this issue, but did not receive an immediate response" Phrasing of the dependent clause comes across as B petulantly leaping into doing something just because someone hadn't answered them within a single day.
  • "In July 2009, lawyers representing threatened legal action to an editor-user of the free content multimedia repository (which is owned and operated by , also operator the free )" First, they took legal action—pre-court action, though stressing desire to resolve things amicably. Second, the deliberate goodguy-badguy painting of "the free content x also operator the free" is see-through.
  • Misplaced Pages, is not a soapbox, a news aggregator, nor is it a crystal ball. There's no court trial to cover in a Background-Arguments-Judgment format. The root of this topic is a single letter sent by one party to an individual. A single event on which not much can be written that isn't covered in the articles on cases that actually became court cases, and what was written here is far from neutral. –Whitehorse1 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Perceived non-neutrality is an argument for editing it, not deleting it. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm well aware that on its own lack of neutrality invites editing not article deletion. If you re-read the opening line of my comment "See also other policy issues, below", you'll see the POV problems illustrate other underlying issues: soapbox content in form and in style right from the beginning, plus extrapolatory speculating on what might happen in a case if one arose, contrary to Policy on what Misplaced Pages is not. –Whitehorse1 16:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Userfy with NOINDEX. My instinct is to userfy per RHaworth, as there is useful material and >50% chance we'll need to recreate this article in a hurry depending on what happens next. At the moment keep isn't an ideal option: the context and content don't look ready for prime-time yet—as often happens with legal situations, things have gone quiet for a while and we don't want the article to attract speculative comment. - Pointillist (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, userfying means we can put notability questions on hold for the time being. Pointillist (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The news coverage at this point has made it notable. Neutrality can be dealt with by editing. AFD is not cleanup. DGG (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• As posted on his talk page: Notable as what? The only "reference" information we have is that NPG sent a letter saying to remove something or they would pursue actions. The rest is impossible to determine as fact as there hasn't even been a trial. BLP makes it very clear that we cannot have innuendo or rumor. Anything not determined as fact by a court is simply not permissible. They can claim he broke whatever law they want, but that is the definition of libel. We are not to reproduce libel. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Erm, forgive me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the NPG said they sent it? Also, the article says alleged copyright infringement - it's not "Misplaced Pages says he broke the law", it's "Wikipiedia says the NPG says he broke the law", and that's the sort of thing we have in articles everywhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• We report -facts- and only facts. We are not allowed to report allegations according to BLP. We are an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

But in this case nobody has yet been formally accused of anything, nor have any actual threat been made--not even by the shortsighted administrators at the NPG. And the article does not say that anyone has been. Copyright violation is normally a civil matter, and even NPG suggested a civil settlement. Rereading it, claims of BLP violation there with respect to C. are an absurd red herring. A really absurd red herring. DGG (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

"in this case nobody has yet been formally accused of anything" Then there is no grounds for the article. There isn't even a case. There is a threat to take someone to court. You just destroyed any claims to notability according to BLP standards of notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. Jeni 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep Clearly notable and needs covering in depth. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• What exactly "needs covering in depth"? Nothing has yet happened. A letter was merely sent. Do we now contain full entries on a letter being sent with a page that should be a stubbed except for 70% of the page being devoted to original research? Did you even bother to read the page by chance? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Section break 1

I am starting to get confused by his applications of policy here, but his attempt to use WP:BLP here as an excuse, is fundamentally flawed. It only says in the lead "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." It does not say "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages, and any other material on such pages." I am starting to think about potential crystalballery with this article even with the sourcing. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is about a lawsuit against a living individual. There is no way to separate any of the facts or statements away from this. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am most interested to have Ottava Rima provide a citation to aforesaid lawsuit. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Okay, if there isn't a lawsuit what is the page about? A simple letter that made a threat? And that is acceptable how? Don't be absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• Incubate (Yes I made that one up). This article meets notability guidelines for its core subject matter, so nominially qualifies for its own article. NOTNEWS certainly speaks to the recentism argument, but my sense is a dispute of this nature, involving a respected institution asserting copyright action against a previously anonymous person who helped to make the media publically is likely to have lasting notability. The real problem here, is that Misplaced Pages simply isn't ready to write a proper article on this topic yet. You are taking three of the things Misplaced Pages does poorly - writing about recent events with an eye to lasting significance, writing about unnotable people who have been thrust into the spotlight unwillingly, and writing about itself (or at least a sister project) and combining them into one article. So, while I on balance I think this article meets inclusion policies, as an editorial matter I think it should be removed from mainspace and {{noindex}} added until a couple of high quality sources - not blogs, not opinion pieces, but genuine technology beat writers or the equivalent - treat the matter comprehensively. I rather suspect that such will appear soon, and will alleviate much of the synthesis that currently appears in the article. Xymmax _{So let it be done} 13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well put. - Pointillist (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Although the result of a court case would be notable, all that has been reported so far is that a letter has been sent warning that there may be legal action, and people have commented on this and its possible consequences. The content may be verifiable, but it shouldn't exist as a separate article as it appears to be based on a prediction of future notability. Deletion would be a possible solution although there is useful information that could be merged to other articles. snigbrook (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and others. This isn't notable, we're not news. Wikinews covers it. Let it stand there. And this is a BLP issue, as the editor is named. Lara 20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:Recentism, WP:News articles and WP:NOT#NEWS. -- œ 02:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It appears that the three arguments for deleting the article are a failure of the general Notability guideline, the policy on Biographies of living persons, and the policy on What Misplaced Pages is not with relation to being News reports.

  (a) The article seems to handily meet the nutshell description of the GNG (" received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"), currently citing BBC News, Reuters UK, and The New York Times among nine others. (b) While this is not strictly a biographical article, the information that does pertain to a living person ("Derrick Coetzee") is all cited to the reliable sources referred to above (to the extent of every sentence mentioning the LP). (c) Lastly, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't offer any hard and fast criteria, but the section pertaining to this article appears to exclude "outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism"; reading the article, I find it neither meets those criteria nor is of 'transient notability' by judgment and as evidenced by those commenting here. — pd_THOR | 05:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Web or Internet)
• AfD debates