Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems


 * 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 delete, "fair use" in Wikipedia isn't the same as fair use legally. Essentially, this page is using hundreds of fair use images just to show what they look like, with no critical commentary on any specific image, which certainly won't pass Wikipedia's fair use guidelines. - Bobet 13:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Gallery of Scout and Guide national emblems

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

"Fair use" gallery. And the scare quotes are very deliberate. &mdash;Cryptic 03:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete . scoutlogo specifically says that a scout logo image is only fair use if it's used "to illustrate the Scouting organization in question" (bolding in the original). The images are clearly not being used that way here. --Miskwito 03:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold for now, until the Wikimedia lawyers weigh in (and per NThurston below). Has someone contacted them? --Miskwito 20:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per above. Plus, Wikipedia is not a photo gallery.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * strong keep, and explain your glib term "scare quotes". Chris 03:46, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Cryptic was suggesting that the images were not actually fair use, by putting "Fair use" in quotes. And as I pointed out above, they're not fair use. What's your keep rationale, given that? --Miskwito 03:51, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Evrik said what I wanted to say, before I got back, actually. Thanks, Evrik! Chris 05:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - galleries of FU media are not a fair use. --Peta 04:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The page illustrates each of the organizations logos and allows the reader to compare them to the others. This fits within fair use. --evrik (talk) 04:34, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The image does not illustrate any "scouting organization in question" since it is in a photo gallery, not a page regarding a "scouting organization." It is a gross abuse of the Fair Use application.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: (edit conflict) I don't see how it does. The guidelines are very clear that the logos can only be used to illustrate the scouting organization in question. They're not doing that here. Here they're in a gallery that shows what all the logos are, which isn't the same thing as a picture of a logo being used on an organization's page to illustrate said organization. As far as I can tell, this very clearly falls outside FU. --Miskwito 04:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Violates WP:FU. Resolute 05:20, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and others. /Blaxthos 05:28, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting gallery, and has the potential to be a useful annotated gallery/encyclopedia article. However, my non-lawyer legal interpretation is that use as a comparison between the Scouting organisations in question is a definite legal no-no. From the looks of things, all images are already located on the papropriate pages, and if not, they are categorised at Category:Scout logos, so there will be no potential loss of information. If a verified lawyer can say that use in this fashion is legal under "fair use", keep. Failing that, reluctantly delete. -- saberwyn 05:29, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Saberwyn, this gallery represents a year and half of very hard work on the part of many dedicated Wikipedians. The original idea (my own, so of course I want to save it) was based on Gallery of sovereign state coats of arms specifically to show the unity, the uniqueness and the local evolution of a very simple emblem to one that represents so much history and pride. This year is the 100th anniversary of Scouting, and I would be happy to implement any changes to save this article. It is no longer just a gallery, and as you say has the potential to be a useful annotated gallery/encyclopedia article. What can we do to make this something able to be kept? Any improvements and suggestions would be most valuable. Chris 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please explain how, by deleting this photo gallery, it will ruin the work? These should be placed on their respective articles, per the fair use agreement that you licensed, or on an article regarding scouting in general. If you can move these to a scouting-related article where appropriate, it would solve the matters.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * reply easily. The gallery (now the beginning of an article) is the work, and like the coat of arms gallery is a ready reference where the Wikipedian can see and compare 400 related emblems without having to sift through and open separately those 400 articles. It is useful in its own right. I have no objection to either merging this in its entirety to a related article, or building the existing article into a better one. Chris 06:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * plea to those voting to delete-instead of boilerplate deleting this, help us find ways to make it worthy of keeping. Chris 05:49, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't know how to save this article in its current form. The fair use rules for organisation logos (as I understand them) are that the logo should only be used to illustrate an article on the organisation the logo belongs to. Under the rules, using "fair use" images in this way is (to my knowledge) not permissable. I'll say that a sourced, externally verifiable text article about the Scouting logo would be one way to go from here, but unfortunately, I cannot see a way for this not to be deleted. It is a shame; being an ex-Rover it is interesting to see all the logos laid out like that (the only other time I'd seen it done was on a poster sold at the last World Jamboree), but my liking it does not trump copyright law. -- saberwyn 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Support consultation of trained legal professional per Bduke below. -- saberwyn 06:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * support hold Chris 07:17, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. The question here is simply a legal one. Maybe it could be argued that these are illustrating their Scout organisation on a list of all such organisations in the world. Maybe it can not be so argued. There seems to be a feeling that it would be valuable if it was legal. As Chris has said this has been a lot of work (none of it mine) and this is an important year for Scouting. Can someone ask the Wikimedia Foundation lawyer to rule on this and in the meantime put this AfD on hold? A US based Admin not involved with WikiProject Scouting would be best. --Bduke 06:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: I am withdrawing my delete nomination. I am not proposing merging every emblem into 400 separate articles (as someone indicated above), but perhaps put this in context on another major article, or use some of the images more extensively elsewhere.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as these violate fair use and like other galleries are easily accessed through Commons categories, which display them just as well as formatted article galleries. -- Dhartung | Talk 08:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment how then do we get it into the "Commons gallery" you speak of? Chris 08:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is such a pity if this article will be deleted, but it currently does violate fair use. I would tell anyone who is interested in saving this article to email the Scouting and Guide international organization with a link to the article, to request permission to use the emblems.  --Haemo 10:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold - I recommending holding off on a decision while a) more information is gathered and b) we can work on an alternative. --NThurston 14:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - This issue isn't just a legal issue. I think I'm on solid ground when I say that under US copyright law, the doctrine of fair use makes us perfectly free to have this article.  If the law were the only issue, that's a non-issue.  If this were Gallery of news media photos, forget it, we would be infringing on their right to exclusively market their product.  But a gallery of logos of non-profit organizations should not be a problem UNDER THE LAW.  It is, however, a problem on WIKIPEDIA.  Our fair use policy is intentionally more restrictive than what we could get away with.  This is because Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia.  We only use non-free images under a claim of fair use when it is a necessity - we don't have articles that contain no free content.  Sometimes, this is inconvenient.  Sometimes it's annoying.  I am a Scouter and have been involved with Scouting for 20 years.  I like this article.  I enjoy looking at it.  But, for the ultimate goal of being a free-content encyclopedia, we sometimes have to make compromises and one of them is that we don't have articles containing nothing but non-free images. --BigDT 17:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - as an educational reference article its of use, but the suggested merger as above does make sense --portland12 20.04, 7 March 2007
 * What merge? The images are already used on the articles of their respective Scout or Guide organisations. --Bduke 08:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold/Keep for now. I've unfortunately forgotten the link to the relevant policy, but I'm quite certain that it's written somewhere: "Wikipedia editors are not lawyers.  Wikimedia hires professional lawyers.  In cases where a legal issue is in question (and/or disputed), leave it to them and/or seek their advice."  -- Black Falcon 00:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * We don't have to call up a lawyer every time there is a policy question. At any rate, I don't think that anyone questions that under US law, this article is perfectly legal.  But our policy is more restrictive than the law. --BigDT 03:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep since it has already been asserted that the page is legal. I think this is a useful point where WP:IAR applies in relation to the policy of there is a conflict with policy.  The page is very useful in seeing the adaptation of a common symbol to each country's organisation.--Golden Wattle  talk 23:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The page may be legal, but no I've seen no real evidence that the page is allowed by Wikipedia's rules, which are pretty darn clear with regards to free use guidelines. --Miskwito 23:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR is policy - ie one of wikipedia's rules - and it states  If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore them.''--Golden Wattle talk 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Aaaaand I totally missed where you brought up WP:IAR there. Gah. Sorry. --Miskwito 23:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The page is useful and is not a clear violation of any policy. The collection of the images together is itself helpful and useful for those interested especially for the many people who collect such items. To break among the many individual groups would, IMHO be sad. JBEvans 18:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Golden Wattle using WP:IAR. If it is not illegal to have these here, I believe we should keep them as they seem to have wide support. In this case, I think we should ignore the rules. --Bduke 22:20, 14 March 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.