Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. state driver's licenses


 * 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 of the debate was delete. No fair use galleries. Period. Utility does not enter into the equation. Most of these images are incorrectly tagged as public domain, under the mistaken assumption that works of state governments are works of the federal government. Go ye back to civics class! Mackensen (talk) 21:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

List of U.S. state driver's licenses
This is nothing but a collection of images and Wikipedia is not an image repository Nv8200p talk 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I am troubled that it appears the woman in the Nebraska license, alias "Francesca A. Sample, M.D.", appears to be the same woman in the Nevada license, going under the name "Suzy Driver". If Dr. Sample is using aliases and fleeing the law, perhaps the authorities should be notified.  That startling revelation aside, I could see a few choice images being used in driver's license, and if someone were feeling plucky I suppose the article could have Driver's licenses in the United States, a full article talking specifically about the U.S. licensing process and the variations from state to state.  As it stands, though, it's merely a photo gallery and should be deleted. JDoorj a m     Talk 16:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy this to me please, friendly closer. An image gallery is unencyclopedia; however, I think this is an admirable start to an encyclopedic article subpart, and all of the images are PD, so there is no reason to orphan and delete them after someone took the trouble; I'll try to work something up.  BTW, I loved the joke, JDoorjam! Xoloz 17:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The images may not be PD. They are tagged incorrectly (WP:PUI) -Nv8200p talk 18:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Most of these images are currently incorrectly tagged as public domain. Should this article be kept, they would have to be tagged as fair use (unless scans of real driver's licenses can be uploaded, but it's doubtful that scanning it is enough to obtain the copyright. Anyway, a fair use assertion would be weak, as this article doesn't even describe the images, it just displays them (and it can't be userfied if the images are fair use).  --Rory096 22:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
 * JDoorj has made an argument that applies to most of wikipedia. However there is an article that is a clear reason why this article should not be deleted. How is it that wikipedia can say that a List_of_U.S._state_license_plates is acceptable and seriously consider deleteing this article? I am making an argument about the article, NOT the images contained therin --Greataff 02:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is nothing but the images... --Rory096 06:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have nominated List_of_U.S._state_license_plates for deletion. The images in the article are mostly tagged incorrectly just like this article. -Nv8200p talk 13:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to Commons unless encyclopedic text added. Max S em 06:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The images are not free, it can't go to Commons. --Rory096 07:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep I've made some changes to Nevada (a beautiful state but that not NPOV) and Alaska and included some information on the licenses themselve. I and all of us should fee the changes made to these two states should show a precendent of what should happen to the other states and territories —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Greataff (talk • contribs).
 * By adding the words you go from a collection of images to an article about non-notable items. -Nv8200p talk 03:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The combination of copyright issues, notability consideration, and the poor current state of the article introduces too many problems. Though I feel bad for whoever uploaded all these images.--Chaser T 05:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment: There are a fair number of votes above; however, every single one of them call for a different action. Please help me out here, friendly AfD voters  --Deathphoenix ʕ 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a good reference. That's what wikipedia is for: To help us find out information. - Richardcavell 01:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The article has virtually no content except the images. How is it a reference? --Rory096 05:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although the article is unorganized and missing states, like mine, the article can provide some usefulness if it cleaned-up and expanded with more information to go with the pictures. The current pictures may need to be clean-up as well. Every state probably has a "sample" photo of what a driver license looks like, such as Michigan, and these anonymous and undoctored licenses are the ones that should be used to add consistency and professionalism.  — №tǒŖïøŭş  4lĭfė   ♫   ♪
 * Strong delete. Violates Wikipedia guidelines (original research), image copyright laws, and very possibly privacy as well. This article is truly a collection of discriminate information, which is what we are not supposed to be doing. --FuriousFreddy 02:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This is undoubtedly an interesting article. However, at the moment, I am not quite sure what the point is. I am also bothered that many of the photographs are marked up as possible copyvios.I think the best solution is for it to be deleted for now and the author can create a new article when he has sorted out the various issues. BlueValour 02:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * TOTALLY KEEP whichever is not copyvio. Brjatlick 02:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Which would be none. --Rory096 05:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename as per JDoorjam's suggestion for creating an article on [Driver's licenses in the United States]]. There are issues about copyrights, public domain, fair use etc.; I'm not informed enough to comment on these. But an article about licenses in the US and the ways they are de facto identity cards would be verifiable, NPOV and non-OR. Given that the US system is certainly a mystery for many foreigners, and also for many Americans, gives the added benefit of notability. People should be encourage to expand the narrative about each state's ID and also to contribute to the ways the automobile has become of central importance to American identity (literally). Inter lingua  talk 02:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment A thoughtful suggestion, as always, from Interlingua. I like the concept of the new article. Where I differ, however, is in achieving it by renaming. That leaves a number of the issues unresolved. I still think that a Delete followed by a fresh start is the answer. BlueValour 02:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

While this may well be a useful resource, that in itself is not a reason for it to be in Wikipedia. There are many types of useful resource which we do not include: telephone directories are useful, but we do not include lists of phone numbers; marriage registers are useful, but we do not list every wedding in the world; dictionaries are very useful, but we do not include mere dictionary definitions. The question is not "is this useful", but "is this an encyclopedia article?" And the answer is, "no, this is not an encyclopedia article, it is a collection of pictures". Therefore, we should not keep it in its current form. If the pictures were cut down to a representative sample, and the list was replaced with an actual article on the history of state drivers' licenses, the cultural significance of their differences, the controversy surrounding their use as ID, etc etc., then we could keep that. But we cannot keep this. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 16:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, copyright violations aplenty. --Coredesat 07:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, copyvio, listcruft, and how do all those people look so good for their DL photos? Tychocat 07:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this was for any other country we wouldn't be having this discussion, it would have already gone: compare List of North American area codes and List of Slovak telephone codes for example. GeorgeStepan e k\talk 08:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy. Unfree images can't be considered fair use in a gallery format. But I'd be happy to whoever asked for userfication to take a go at writing Driver's licenses in the United States. If he doesn't do it in a reasonable time period (say 2 weeks), I agree with a delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, I find it an interesting and useful article that reflects just one facet of the fact that US states can have a lot of different laws in many areas. Shan246
 * Strongly Keep, I feel this is a very useful contribution to the encyclopedia. -- Drewry 14:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete for the pictures, at least.
 * Delete, lack of encyclopedic content, but the idea for the new article makes sense and I'm sure many of the images could be used there. -Dawson 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep (if)for the reasons listed above. Further, I contend that this list is in fact encyclopedic. A list of items that are encyclopedic on there own is what lists are for, aren't they? And besides, unlike many of our lists, this one can be "finished".  However, if those images (or the majority) are not public domain then the list suddenly becomes a liability and should be Deleted. It is possible that each license should get it's own article and a category. (would be easy to justify FU then)  Is Split a usable vote? :) ---J.S (t|c) 17:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is encyclopedic content, or at least has the potential to be. --Alex S 17:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix, expand. Good basis for an article.  Aguerriero  ( talk ) 20:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This is useful, unlike all the Pokemon and Star Trek crap we currently have. Erik the Rude 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it has its value. I don't think many have ever seen so many different driver licenses. Though the article ought to be expanded. --WinHunter (talk) 00:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * it has its value Not unless you're the X-Files prop guy looking for references, otherwise not really useful or informative. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I found it interesting. It would be interesting to know more information, too, like which licenses have holograms and of what, and what other security features are used in them.  Even just looking at the image gallery was interesting.  Mango juice talk 15:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, but try to expand beyond a collection of images. Maybe talk more about the security feature of each license. Nationalparks 03:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's an image gallery, in support of...what, exactly? What encyclopedic information is actually being preseented here or which could be potentially presented by 51 pictures? This is someone's misguided idea of completeness, not to mention the copyright violations and probable bogosity (check out the "DC driver's license" -- despite the claim on the image page, it's NOT from the DC DMV). --Calton | Talk 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Would keep but image copyright issues makes me say delete -- Tawker 07:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Rename per Interlingua to Driver's licenses in the United States and expand as he suggested. Seems nearly as encyclopedic as Flags of the U.S. states and, at least to me, much more interesting. --William Pietri 23:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment There appears to be a misconception here this list is somehow a useful reference.  Point of fact, many states change their D/L designs every few years, and at this point, it looks like listcruft.  Tychocat 06:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. A collection of pictures with copyright problems? No thanks!! Write a new Driver's liscences in the United States from scratch. Grand  master  ka  20:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete This is inviting forgery of drivers licenses. That is not a good thing in today's climate. The responsible thing would be to delete this now! Buckner 1986 16:50, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Most of the images are public (state) resources so probably no copyvio. Interesting resources to have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wep (talk • contribs)
 * Keep & Rename -- can someone just WP:SNOW this as no consensus? The images have got to be fair use at least, and Interlingua is right that a move to Driver's licenses in the United States is a good idea and will allow for more information.  Mango juice talk 15:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep They are state licences and I doubt if a state sees the licence here they will sue the wikipedia. The "copyright vio" argument is just silly. --DragonWR12LB 04:38, 27 June 2006 (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.