User talk:Violadamore/Archive 1

A tag has been placed on "Phil McCrea", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. —C.Fred (talk) 02:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted the article because the strongest claim of notability was a guest appearance on the Oprah show, and because no independent sources were provided to back up the claim. —C.Fred (talk) 02:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Presidency of NABT was second on my list of possible claims of notability. It's the one that gave me the most hesitation. Had there been a source to support that, the article would have gone to proposed deletion or AfD instead of being speedily deleted. Have you got a source for it? —C.Fred (talk) 02:29, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that works for me. Bear with me here. While you're at it, you can write up a fair use rationale for the Oprah screenshot. Otherwise, that needs to come out of the article. —C.Fred (talk) 02:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First, congratulations! You are the first person who has requested and presented a case for restoration of an article I have deleted. I have placed it under the better title of Phil McCrea. I have also added an intro to the article stating his "fame" and made a few other additions, including adding references to support that he's a president of NABT.

Second, any time a non-free image is used on Wikipedia, a fair use rationale needs to be provided. As a general rule of thumb, you can't use nonfree images—of which TV screenshots are included—in articles about living people. Because the image was a screenshot of him appearing on Oprah, and because that's discussed in the article, we may be able to skirt the issue here. However, the rationale needs to state, in your own words, that 1) The image is used to complement discussion in the article and enhance it, 2) no free image is available as an alternative, 3) the image is low-resolution, to prevent unexpected downstream use 4) using the image won't financially hurt the copyright holder.

Finally, as a housekeeping note, don't forget to sign your comments on Talk pages with ~~~~ at the end of your comment. That adds your name and the date/time.

Happy editing! —C.Fred (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good point! The fair use rationale for the picture goes on the image page itself—in this case, Image:PhilMcCreaOprah.jpg. That way, anybody who stumbles onto the image knows the story behind it and its status. All images need a copyright tag: in this case, I've added {{Non-free television screenshot}} to indicate what the image is. Below that, you just start a section with the rationale. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:PhilMcCreaOprah.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:PhilMcCreaOprah.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, all images have to have the tags. I just wasn't quick enough adding one, and you got the notice. —C.Fred (talk) 03:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]