Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freedom of panorama


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was Keep.  Citi Cat   ♫ 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Uncited WP:OR, was unverified and factually inaccurate takeoff on the German word Panoramafreiheit in what might have been an attempt to apply this word worldwide. ... Kenosis 20:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and start again from scratch - Looking at the page history, the text was copied from Freedom of panorama, so the best thing to do is delete and start again from scratch. There probably should be an article here, but it needs to be well-referenced and not copied from a Wikipedia essay. Carcharoth 21:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For those who know some German, see de:Panoramafreiheit. Carcharoth 21:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete. This is an essay, not an article. Meets WP:CFSD general criteria #1 and #4 at a minimum. ... Kenosis 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The history of this shows that it was created, then a redirect to the essay Freedom of panorama, then deleted, then recreated with the content from Freedom of panorama. This does not belong in the article namespace. ... Kenosis 21:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is an existing concept. The only problem with the article that it appears to be a non-standard English term. You may look into the German wikipedia article. I may assure you that in terms of validity of information and solidless of references these Germans take no bullshit. A possible title would be something descriptive, like, taking pictures in public places or taking pictures of public places or something. `'Míkka 23:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not only an important concept, but something I have tried to look up in Wikipedia before. But I wouldn't have found it under this name; I think that something like photographers' rights would be better. Here's a collection of links that isn't a reliable source itself but seems likely to lead to some: . —David Eppstein 02:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've checked the links at http://wiki.photoblogs.org/wiki/Photographer's_Rights, just cited by David Eppstein, and none of the sources appear to use the words "freedom of panorama", but rather, it appears to have originated at the Wikimedia Commons. Where are the WP:Reliable sources? ... Kenosis 11:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'd rather discuss the content of the article and not its title, which I think should be changed. —David Eppstein 20:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. An editor who is familiar with German tells me that It's also known as Straßenbildfreiheit, "street picture freedom". Maybe the article should be renamed street picture freedom? The movement to apply this priniciple of German law is a violation of WP:NOR, and a blatant one at that. There is no international acceptance of this term by any reliable sources that I could find, such that it can meet WP:VER as required. This is why I requested sources, but none of them appear to refer to "Freedom of panorama".  This movement started on the Wikimedia Commons and more recently was posted as an essay on Wikipedia entitled Freedom of panorama. So it doesn't matter what it's called, the only valid scenario that I can see is a redirect to an article on Panoramafreiheit written in English but citing to reliable sources about the explicit permissions given in German copyright law to be free to take pictures of anything that can be seen from the street or other public place of access. ... Kenosis 22:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete original research. Sef rin gle Talk 04:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, encyclopedic topic. See also commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama. John Vandenberg 04:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 04:13, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename - The concept is well-known and certainly noteworthy, but I don't understand why this name was selected. I've never heard of "Freedom of panorama," and discounting links to Wikipedia and the Commons, it looks like Google essentially hasn't either. I don't have a particular name in mind, but this title is not particularly descriptive, and very term of art-sy, which may be misleading to readers who assume that it is a technical term. Something more general like Copyright limitations for photography perhaps. Also note that this page is linked to from Template:Freedom of panorama. I'll change the link there to the WP-space page. — xDanielx T/C 05:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm essentially saying keep as well, but I think it is important to wipe the slate clean here. Starting from a Wikipedia essay is not the best history for such an article. Carcharoth 09:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete OR based on essay, no sources, no contest. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete As per above. Keep, Rename and Expand. Having read a bit more about this, I now think it would be better to flesh out the article, and list it under its German name rather than a clumsy English translation. Redirects as necessary should be introduced.--Filll 13:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep obviously notable as a major limitation of copyright in some countries. Deal with accuracy concerns by editing. Deal with title concerns on the talk page. (I agree that the title is highly unintuitive in an English encyclopedia) DGG (talk) 18:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per DGG and rewrite. The concept exists (not only in Germany, but in many countries, and in a very limited form even in the the U.S.; see 17 USC 120) and is certainly worth an encyclopedia article. On WP:PD, it's covered (in a U.S.-centric way) by Photographs of buildings. Hash out the naming issues on the talk page, and fix the content issues by improving the article. Also worth pointing out: the Commons' guideline on the subject started life as a user-space translation of the German article. Our "article" started life as a copy of the Commons page, then was moved to Wikipedia space. In Wikipedia space, it was then rewritten at my urging, because I didn't and don't want to maintain two lists of countries. In article space, the redirect was deleted (by me) and then someone else wrote the current blurb. There's no need "to wipe the slate clean" because the current blurb already started afresh (even if the editor may have borrowed some text from the rewritten Wikipedia-space page). Lupo 06:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - but this needs work, clarification, especially the name needs better explication, Modernist 02:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.