Wikipedia talk:Fair use deletion

Good concept[edit]

But the implementation could probably be better. Something like PUI (which we have somewhere, but it's not really used and is more like Wikipedia:Speedy deletions, as an alternative to the tag, and it's never monitored anyway) would be better, as there would be a forum for discussion and it would most likely be maintained by people who at least know some stuff about fair use. --Rory096 02:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good concept IMOwnHO, these images should be deleted and users that made the mistake of not categorizing it will come back with an answer to the speedied delete thus maybe bringing back the image and better define its fairuseness. Lincher 04:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many uploaders aren't on Wikipedia anymore, so it's probably best if others see the objection, like in a PUI process, especially because images can't be undeleted. --Rory096 04:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean objection to the fair use itself, or objection to the disputed fair use tag? Either way, anybody can see objections if they just browse images in Category:Disputed fair use images. TheProject 04:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The objection to the fair use itself. Yes, they could browse the category, but everybody knows from prod that many aren't looked at (plus with prod there are a lot more people looking, probably), so having a page for it would be better. Also, the waiting period should be at least a week, maybe even 2 weeks. --Rory096 04:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a prod-style tag, there is still a forum for discussion on the image's talk page, which might even be more appropriate too. Also, by way of analogy, just as prods are used over AfD for deletions that are generally uncontroversial among those who understand Wikipedia inclusion policies, so this process is intended over something like PUI (which seems very analogous to AfD) for images whose disputed fair use is also generally uncontroversial among those who understand fair use guidelines.

It's also my guess, though I don't speak for the entire community, of course, that most Wikipedians probably know the proposed deletion process better than the PUI or even the AfD processes. TheProject 04:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PUI is not the equivalent of AfD. PUI is more like "possible copyright violations" (which actually includes images, but many PUIed things don't have the source image at hand, but it's obviously a copyvio). IfD is the image equivalent of AfD. Yes, it's easiest to propose deletion of something, but we have to make sure that as many people can review it as possible, preferably people who actually know something about fair use, so a page for that would be best. --Rory096 04:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm worried about images that people are not actively watching. If a template is put on these images, but not on any associated articles, then no-one will be able to argue against the proposed deletion. Bluap 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With a PUI-like system, people will be watching the page where it's reported, so it can get to more pairs of eyes. --Rory096 04:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the concept too. I see lots of images and photos that have a copyright notice like film-screenshot but no fair use rationale whatsoever. --Starionwolf 02:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]