Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of U.S. state license plates (second nomination)


 * 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  k eep. - Mailer Diablo 10:58, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

List of U.S. state license plates

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

(See also first nomination) This article is nothing but a gallery of images taken from. Even if we had permission from the owner of that website to use those images (which, from looking at the image description page, the uploader may be saying that he owns the website), except for Washington DC, they are all derivative works of copyrighted license plate designs and thus cannot be used freely. As this article is nothing but a gallery of copyvio images, it should be deleted. BigDT 05:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and mark for expansion, merge, or move - I've seen paper and glue encyclopedias (World Book) with just pictures of different breeds of dogs (with in the article on "dogs" actually) - perhaps 30-50 pictures over 3-5 pages. It does not seem to me to be unencyclopedic to have 50 different license plates on one page. It would be valuable and interesting information for someone who wanted an over view of what the different license plates look like. --Remi 07:42, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The question is NOT one of being encyclopedic. The question is one of copyright policy. Galleries of non-free images are not permitted. --BigDT 12:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright violation is a different problem than AFD. See WP:COPYVIO.   FrozenPurpleCube 13:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but once the copyvio issue is settled, the article becomes largely worthless, and needs to be deleted anyway. Hence, the AfD. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 14:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If it were a copyright problem, it'd likely be deleted anyway, so non-issue. Since I don't know whether or not the copyright concern is valid, I'd suggest taking it for investigation rather than AFD.  FrozenPurpleCube 17:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Assuming that there are no copyright issues with the page (and a number of the images here seem to be official samples intended for distribution as exemplars; and all of these images, and a gallery of them, are surely fair use in any case), this information, like a page about flags of the world, is uniquely suited for presentation as a gallery.  As the several states strive for ever uglier license plate designs, it will require frequent updates. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia copyright policy does not consider a gallery of copyrighted images to be a fair use of those images. "Fair use" galleries should be removed from articles on sight. --BigDT 14:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not fair use to use a gallery of unfree images. But in this case, the images are used to represent a specific purpose, and are not replaceable by free images. So I believe it is fair use in this instance. I also agree with the point User:Ihcoyc mentioned above, about them being sample images. I think these should be given the same treatment as unreplaceable promo images. &mdash; The Last User Name Ever (talk) 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh? What purpose are the images serving other than to simply exist as a gallery? If we were talking about an article about a controversial license plate and the article showed a photo of that plate or something, that would be fine.  But this article is a gallery of non-free images that exists soley for the sake of being there.  All of the images are going to be deleted, so I'm not sure what use the page is going to be after that. --BigDT 17:04, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article uses the format of a gallery is irrelevant. Showing an image of a state's license plate is like showing an image of a company's logo: A license plate is used to identify a state in the same way that a logo is used to identify a company. It just happens to be in the format of a gallery. &mdash; The Last User Name Ever (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the article were expanded greatly to include verbiage about each license plate, a bit of backstory to its imagery (ie: Tennessee's plate showcases a valley meant to suggest the Smoky Mountains.), then it could be acceptable under Fair Use. However, that is not the case here; it's just a gallery, and as such, fails FU. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 17:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't really see what the difference is (why explain the license plate and show it?), but I'm willing to compromise. If expanding this article will get you to back off, I'm willing to do it. &mdash; The Last User Name Ever (talk)
 * Keep I see no copyvio's or anything else bad, completely harmless page. Tellyaddict  14:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe that these images are fair use, and I'm ok with that. &mdash; The Last User Name Ever (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletions.  -- Pax:Vobiscum 18:20, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's apparently no way to legally include license plate images on this page if there's any sort of inkling that a plate design is copyrighted.  I know; I've tried.  Twice.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 23:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep This article is part of the U.S. state insignia series. State insignia are both notable and interesting. As stated above, copyright has nothing to do with AFD, and I'm sure there are legal ways to present license plates from all U.S. states (Even in the worst case, all you need is one wikipedian from every state willing to photograph and upload his own license plate). Malc82 23:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If the consensus here is that considering copyright issues is outside the scope of AFD, I don't agree with that proposition, but I have no problem with a speedy close as this AFD is moot. --BigDT 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment: I don't see how this is any different from having a page full of state seals. &mdash; The Last User Name Ever (talk) 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I would think/assume that most state seals are public domain because they have been around since pre-1923 or, in some cases, the state considers them to be PD. If all or substantially all of them are copyrighted, though, then we should not have an article of them.--BigDT 22:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Touche. But how do you know that the state doesn't consider license plates to be PD? &mdash; The Last User Name Ever (talk) 03:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The refutable presumption in the United States is that a creative work is copyrighted and all rights are reserved. In other words, we need evidence that the state has released copyright - we can't just assume that they might have. --BigDT 03:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly: That was my point: You can't assume that the state seals have been released either. But finish this first. &mdash; The Last User Name Ever (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep License plates are created by state governments and as such are in the public domain, so far as I can tell. Article is otherwise potentially useful to readers. DickClarkMises 16:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Materials released by US state governments are not in the public domain; 17 USC §105 allows only works by the federal government to be placed into the public domain. &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep As per Gallery of banknotes. 16:08, 4 May 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.