Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts


 * 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   no consensus to delete, default to keep. From the discussion below, it is clear that the community is divided over this, and that there is not consensus on whether or not to delete the article. Proponents of both sides make valid arguments, and both the "delete" and "don't delete" opinions enjoy wide support. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 23:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts
Discussion resumed per Deletion review/Log/2009 August 1. Please add 14 hours to the discussion length. Thanks, IronGargoyle (talk) 07:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable nor could it be established as notable based on searches for confirmation. Only one source provided discusses it, and it has very little reliability and is unprofessional (see: "bitchslap" in title). Wikipedia is not news, nor is it a collection of random poorly sourced information that speculates on possible legal events, especially from non-experts to provide reliable sources for said speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:31, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note - this also falls under BLP provisions since this deals with a living individual who is being sued, so any sourcing needs to be completely reliable and not contain speculation. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Secondary note - during the creation of the page, the creator also placed it in multiple projects and ranked it mid importance. This is highly inappropriate and is part of the generalized misunderstanding of guidelines and policies surrounding the creation of this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Third note - Article now contains heavy use of original research. This can be found in the sections "Background" and "Conflict of international copyright law". Uses of Wikipedia as a source also goes against Wikipedia standards which state that Wikipedia is not a reliable source, plus uses of it violate our original research standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not news, as the nominator said. Furthermore, the Wikinews article is vastly more informative, this really has nothing to add. Ray  Talk 23:37, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Please before deciding, see this, many reliable sources have covered it, including the BBC. I however initially used the Register source since it was the first one I picked that mentioned Wikimedia Commons rather than just Wikipedia. It's a stub, what'd you expect, full article? ViperSnake151   Talk  23:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The "reliable sources" contain the same information, which is that the NPG sued Wikipedia. That would cover one or two sentences. Thus, this falls under Content Fork regulations. The type of sources you are using would violate the POV Fork standards. A sentence or two at most could be added to either the Wikipedia or the NPG page. Anything else would be undue. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:40, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They have not sued Wikipedia. However, this can be expanded. Why can't we just hold off until the article is more...filled? ViperSnake151   Talk  23:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, for anyone who is taken in by the claim that there are tons of sources - most are blogs and fail reliable sourcing. Even many of the ones hosted by legitimate presses are blogs. They also regurgitate the same information with the occasional addition of original speculation. Since there is a living person involved, BLP would apply. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - It is belly button gazing for the moment. At the moment all the coverage is rather transient. If this come to something it might be worth a few sentences in the history of wikipedia page. It has the potential to have a large impact but that impact is yet to materialise. Recommend creator contributes it to WikiNews. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 23:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have a long Wikinews article on this. And this page was never a fork of another. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:08, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - wikipedial notability is not transient. It is not required that something show continued notability, merely that it show notability at some time. While the article may be a little premature, it most certainly is notable, as the vast number of news stories show. Yes some are blogs, but you've also got several major newspapers, the BBC, el reg, EFF, etc. BLP does in some ways apply, but nothing is being violated here - sourcing is fine, and the guy is happy for it to be common knowledge because he told us about it to begin with. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTNEWS is rather clear on the matter. BLP also states that blogs -cannot- be used in discussing matters that involve living individuals. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting we do use blogs as sources, I'm just saying that they're an example of the notability - it's the very definition of notability: someone has made a note about it. The sources are the newspapers and other "real" journalism. -mattbuck (Talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And also, the general notability guideline is pretty much "if many reliable sources report the same thing, its notable". Even though right now its only boiling around a number of facts, the fact that according to the "accused" that someone from the Electronic Frontier Foundation has become his pro bono lawyer means that people are wanting to stand up for free culture. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:58, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is -not- what the notability guidelines say. If they report the same thing then they count only as -one- reference. That is what the guidelines state. Non reliable sources according to BLP cannot count towards notability in any form. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:18, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not see any reference to that in the policies. Also, why must this article specifically comply with WP:BLP? It is not a biography. And WP:N says "Multiple sources are generally preferred" ViperSnake151   Talk  02:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The nominator's claim there are no sources of a reliable sort is not an accurate claim, and the argument fails. Indeed, a minute or two's use of a search engine reveals there are a several sources on the topic that may be considered usable. The primary content of the notability guideline: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." As such the article may stand, pending improvement using those additional sources.  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I never claimed that there are "no sources". Please read the nomination. It deals with notability and this being under BLP invalidates most of those "sources" that you find in a search engine. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the nominator indicated that the one source that referred to the topic that was originally provided was not reliable or professional, and that the nominator's search failed to find reliable sources. The claim, that there are no such sources fails. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Instead of saying "nominator", you can refer to me directly. Saying notability cannot be established is different than saying there are no other sources. Notability requires direct and unique coverage in multiple reliable sources. BLP requires reliable sources to have the utmost reliability. Combined together, having only a dozen articles saying the same four facts over and over does not prove notability. It would only allow two or three sentences of text. This would not be even close to enough to warrant its own page, let alone meet BLP's strict requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * At this point, there are now sufficient references from sources that are considered reliable that it's fair to say the original claim is moot. Biography of Living Persons requirements are met, as only information sourced from media such as the BBC, the New York Times, or Reuters are relied upon for statements about the individual in question The article is supplemented by additional journals at this moment. Further, additional sources are able to describe links to the legal questions involved, if not actually state the doctrines advanced. By the way, no article that I encountered mentioned a law suit. At this time the article is merely  in need of improvement, and not in danger of being an article amounting to zero-reliable-reference scribbling. The nominator,  Ottava Rima  and the  "delete" commenters are invited to state the specific aspects of the article that need improving over on the article's talk page. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By "sufficient references" you mean 70% of the page doesn't even discuss the matter and fails WP:Original Research? Not only are you abusing BLP and referencing standards, you are now coatracking. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This reference falls BLP standards. The "funny" should have tipped you off that it is a column stating opinion with the purpose of humor. Not a highly reliable source. It must be removed immediately. Artnet is not a highly reliable news source per BLP. It must be removed immediately. Amatuer photographer.com is not a highly reliable news source per BLP. It must be removed immediately. This is not a highly reliable news source per BLP. It must be removed immediately. Also, Wikipedia is not reliable per Wikipedia policy, and it cannot be used in a BLP. The uses of it also constitutes original research. This must be removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article, entitled Wikipedia May Be a Font of Facts, but It’s a Desert for Photos describes the odd (some would say "funny" ) circumstance wherein qualifying licensed images of quality are less common than desirable. You're invited to describe persuasively with several reasons about how the article and the journal fails to satisfy as a source. You have failed to do so.  Equally well, the Amateur Photographer is reporting on a press release or announcement of the National Portrait Gallery.  Nothing especially remarkable or unreliable about that.  Artnet merely confirms the information found in the BBC, NYTimes, and Reuters articles, and describes how the subject of the article--remember that?--could arise,namely how a dispute over copyright and public domain works is possible, given the differing copyright laws in the United Kingdom and the United States. It is not relied upon for biographical information, and after all, the article is about a topic, not a person. At this point the complaint of  Ottava Rima  is about the quality of the article, rather a distance from the topic of the deletion of the article. I am most interested to see  Ottava Rima describe how Reuters, the New York Times and the BBC fail to be adequate sources for information about an individual, and how they should not be relied upon. More generally, the issues that the article is about has been hardly developed, and those issues are not subject to the Biographies of living persons concerns in the least, apparently an area of some confusion for  Ottava Rima . -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:59, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The New York Times article fails highly reliable source as it is opinion, provided to have a humorist take, and does not provide information not found elsewhere. This was already stated. The rest of your arguments fail to have any real basis in reliable source guidelines. A source is not reliable simply because it regurgitates facts found in reliable sources, otherwise we would allow blogs in all forms as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The statements described in that New York Times article are affirmed in the other cited sources, and indeed, the sole instance where the citation stands alone in support of a sentence is where a Gallery spokesperson is reported to confirm that the Gallery has succeeded in communicating with with the Encyclopedia staff. I'll see if an additional confirming citaton may be found in that instance. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "are affirmed in the other cited sources" Then they do not provide original information and are there for the mere appearance of more sources. It is redundant and not reliable. It is best to remove it as it is inappropriate. Furthermore, notability is on sources not simply repeating the same information over and over. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * . ViperSnake151   Talk  02:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I observe that the claim fails for Ottava Rima about an "unreliable" source when that source is affirmed and corroborated by other reliable sources. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Reliability is not determined by statements being used in other sources too. The fact that you would suggest it does shows a severe misunderstanding of what reliability is. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The thoughtful explanation and reasoning is noted and remembered. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece is not identifies by the NYT as a humor piece. Ottama is refering to the html.  But look at a physical issue of the NYT.  It is one of the cover stories for the Arts section, because it is about our photographic coverage of performing artists.  It is not in the opinion section - yes, the NYT distinguishes explicitly between articles on the arts, and essays expressing personal opinion, it puts them in two different sections, and this is not in the "opinion" section.  The actual NYT does not identify it anywhere on the page as a humor or opinion piece.  So stop frabricating things, Ottava. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Outdent - if anyone honestly believes Slrubenstein above, then you are gullible. The NYT isn't under some conspiracy and there are no people mysteriously and evilly relabeling things as "funny" when they are meant to be taken seriously. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article itself is about how our licensing requirements are the cause of rather amateur and funny-looking photographs of celebrities at times. They got some sort of clean URL thing going on there. ViperSnake151   Talk  21:01, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that the word "funny" isn't included in the article, so it would not be eligible for such a "clean up". Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Yellowdesk the Gullible." It has a princely feel to it. Perhaps  I can live my life with a certain kind of guile-less wonder now. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong keep (but possibly move out of the (article) namespace until notability is established). If Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. is allowed, then this is. Could seriously affect thousands of our image uploads. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 13:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There has not been a court case, so it would violate WP:CRYSTAL. Remember, this is currently a content POV fork off of the Wikipedia page. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why do you keep saying this is a fork? I didn't fork it from ANYWHERE. ViperSnake151   Talk  15:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have an article on Wikipedia. This would be a fork off of that. We even have History of Wikipedia or Criticism of Wikipedia, which would be equally appropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - In my opinion this violates WP:NOTNEWS. The part that says "not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own" sums it up pretty well. The information in this article can serve its purpose in the History of Wikipedia article or some other place. Just because something has a lot of news coverage doesn't mean it should get its own article. This is an encyclopedia; we want encyclopedic content. The AfD for Michelle Obama's arms showed that abundant sources do not prove something is encyclopedic. Killiondude (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Killion. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, per RHaworth (except that in my opinion, it meets notability already). Question for Ottava Rima (or anyone):  Can you explain the claim that "Non reliable sources according to BLP cannot count towards notability in any form"?  I have never thought of notability as needing to be reliably sourced -- reliable sourcing, I thought, is for claims Wikipedia makes within articles ("about" things).  But notability is not a claim we make within articles, it's a prerequisite for having the article in the first place.  Thus, I assumed that notability need not be established from reliable sources.  Alternative position: for establishing notability, even redundant gossip blogs would be "reliable", as they are indicative of the attitudes towards "notability" taken by their editors.  Thoughts?   Agradman talk/contribs 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Read WP:BLP. It comes up quite often. The very spirit is rather blatant in this clause: "In the laws of many countries, simply repeating the defamatory claims of another is illegal, and there are special protections for people who are not public figures. Any such potentially damaging information about a private person, if corroborated by multiple, highly reliable sources, may be cited if and only if: (1) the allegations are relevant to the subject's notability and (2) the Wikipedia article states that the sources make certain "allegations", without the Wikipedia article taking a position on their truth." As you can see, we are only -allowed- to use highly reliable sources. Not "reliable" sources. Blogs don't even match "reliable" sources, let alone "highly reliable" sources. Notability must be established -within- the article. This is done through reliable sourcing. BLP states exactly what kind of sourcing can be used in this article. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Markedly non-neutral. Examples follow. See also other policy issues, below.:
 * "[B] claims [its IP] rights ... were infringed by ... uploading the ... prints of ... works that have already fallen into the public domain." Contains definite POV-pushing. It really repeats the preceding sentence...just to make sure Ms. Reader gets the point.
 * "[B] had demanded a response by ... and also had demanded that ..." The 'defendant', C, "reports", B "states" and "demands".
 * "[B's] threat is in conflict with U.S. copyright law, where both C and F are based." Again with the POV-language "threat". This statement, is cited to BBC News article and a Computerworld magazine article. Neither are respected law academics or qualified legal commentators.
 * "The threat also claimed that" And again...
 * "[B] had contacted [D] a few months before ... over this issue, but did not receive an immediate response" Phrasing of the dependent clause comes across as B petulantly leaping into doing something just because someone hadn't answered them within a single day.
 * "In July 2009, lawyers representing [B] threatened legal action to an editor-user of the free content multimedia repository [E] (which is owned and operated by [D], also operator the free [F])" First, they took legal action—pre-court action, though stressing desire to resolve things amicably. Second, the deliberate goodguy-badguy painting of "the free content x also operator [sic] the free" is see-through.
 * Wikipedia, is not a soapbox, a news aggregator, nor is it a crystal ball. There's no court trial to cover in a Background-Arguments-Judgment format. The root of this topic is a single letter sent by one party to an individual. A single event on which not much can be written that isn't covered in the articles on cases that actually became court cases, and what was written here is far from neutral. –Whitehorse1 20:51, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Perceived non-neutrality is an argument for editing it, not deleting it. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware that on its own lack of neutrality invites editing not article deletion. If you re-read the opening line of my comment "See also other policy issues, below", you'll see the POV problems illustrate other underlying issues: soapbox content in form and in style right from the beginning, plus extrapolatory speculating on what might happen in a case if one arose, contrary to Policy on what Wikipedia is not. –Whitehorse1 16:41, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Userfy with NOINDEX. My instinct is to userfy per RHaworth, as there is useful material and >50% chance we'll need to recreate this article in a hurry depending on what happens next. At the moment keep isn't an ideal option: the context and content don't look ready for prime-time yet—as often happens with legal situations, things have gone quiet for a while and we don't want the article to attract speculative comment. - Pointillist (talk) 21:11, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW, userfying means we can put notability questions on hold for the time being. Pointillist (talk) 21:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep The news coverage at this point has made it notable. Neutrality can be dealt with by editing. AFD  is not cleanup. DGG (talk) 01:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As posted on his talk page: Notable as what? The only "reference" information we have is that NPG sent a letter saying to remove something or they would pursue actions. The rest is impossible to determine as fact as there hasn't even been a trial. BLP makes it very clear that we cannot have innuendo or rumor. Anything not determined as fact by a court is simply not permissible. They can claim he broke whatever law they want, but that is the definition of libel. We are not to reproduce libel. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, forgive me if I'm wrong, but hasn't the NPG said they sent it? Also, the article says alleged copyright infringement - it's not "Wikipedia says he broke the law", it's "Wikipiedia says the NPG says he broke the law", and that's the sort of thing we have in articles everywhere. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * We report -facts- and only facts. We are not allowed to report allegations according to BLP. We are an encyclopedia, not a gossip column. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * But in this case nobody has yet been formally accused of anything, nor have any actual threat been made--not even by the shortsighted administrators at the NPG. And the article does not say that anyone has been. Copyright violation is normally a civil matter, and even NPG suggested a civil settlement. Rereading it, claims of BLP violation there with respect to C. are an absurd red herring. A really absurd red herring. DGG (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "in this case nobody has yet been formally accused of anything" Then there is no grounds for the article. There isn't even a case. There is a threat to take someone to court. You just destroyed any claims to notability according to BLP standards of notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They did not make such a threat.It may be implicit, but they did not explicitly make the threat. The person talking here about a threat is mainly you. To do so without evidence is a violation on your part of BLP. That's the relevant BLP problem here. DGG (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * DGG, if there is no threat why is there a page about a potential court case? Your understanding of the matter right now is just as faulty as your understanding of the matter as a whole. Now, for your generalized ignorance, read this. And please, DGG, you have already lost any respect you could possibly have from me. Now you are just digging your whole deeper as you continue to speak to what you clearly don't know. Your statements suggest a complete disconnect from reality or an utter abuse of the human language to read what is not there. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per DGG. Jeni  ( talk ) 01:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Clearly notable and needs covering in depth. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:23, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Further to the above, I don't favour merging, as the NPG article already has a small section of appropriate length. Putting all the detail there would seriously unbalance it. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What exactly "needs covering in depth"? Nothing has yet happened. A letter was merely sent. Do we now contain full entries on a letter being sent with a page that should be a stubbed except for 70% of the page being devoted to original research? Did you even bother to read the page by chance? Ottava Rima (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How civil. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't you see how the NPG article already having such makes this redundant? You just provided an argument to delete, not keep. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I've argued exactly what I wrote: that the topic needs covering in detail but not in the NPG page. It's quite clear to anyone with a life. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 19:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * We do not make content forks simply to give something that only has a few sources its own page. Please read WP:UNDUE. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong delete: Navel-gazing at its worst. --MZMcBride (talk) 09:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, but consider merging the main points into National Portrait Gallery (with WP:Undue in mind) until we see what the long-range notability of this is. The core of notability is significant coverage in reliable sources; in other words, whether a matter is "worthy of notice." This seems to meet that. As a sample, I see:
 * Eric Felten of Wall Street Journal covered it.
 * Rory Cellan-Jones of BBC News covered it
 * Maev Kennedy covered it for The Guardian.
 * Noam Cohen in The New York Times gave it a column.
 * The NYT piece is not identifies by the NYT as a humor piece. Ottama is refering to the html.  But look at a physical issue of the NYT.  It is one of the cover stories for the Arts section, because it is about our photographic coverage of performing artists.  It is not in the opinion section - yes, the NYT distinguishes explicitly between articles on the arts, and essays expressing personal opinion, it puts them in two different sections, and this is not in the "opinion" section.  The actual NYT does not identify it anywhere on the page as a humor or opinion piece. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See above for the dismissal of the conspiracy theory that Slrubenstein is promoting - the NYT doesn't mysteriously add the word "funny" to its online resources because they are meant to be taken seriously. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dana Blackenhorn covered it for ZDNet.
 * It's in Metro & London Standard A search of google news shows that people are talking about this around the world. (I don't know if all of them are reliable, but some of them—such as this—certainly look official.)
 * Artinfo picked it up
 * (As an aside, since this is not reliable, it's even entered advertisements, which I mention here only because I was fairly gobsmacked to find it there.)


 * Even if much of the coverage is in op-ed or blog, it's in op-eds or blogs by reliable sources contributed by professional journalists, and hence reliable (there are rules in WP:RS for handling op-eds, but nothing I see that excludes them as sources to establish notability). In terms of WP:BLP1E, this is not, strictly speaking, a "biography of a living person." There is a living person involved in it (as with many current incidents of interest to human beings), but the article could stand and be almost as informative if the individual's name were omitted altogether. He is a participant in the subject, but not the subject. Information regarding the specific individual needs to be impeccably sourced, but currently the article seems BLP-vio free. The individual in question has expressed that he has no concern about his real name being used, here, when queried by the nominator of this AfD. The main question for me is WP:NOTNEWS. I don't think we can predict whether this is going to be a flash in the pan or develop into something of sustained notability; I suspect it will depend on what the NPG does next. Given that, I would support merging relevant major points into the NPG article, though I think we should be careful not to give it more attention in that context than it merits. Naturally, it is of great interest to Wikipedians, but it may not loom that large to our general readership. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The allegation covered by mostly British newspapers is that the individual broke into the BNG and stole images. Even if the name was omitted and lessened the damage, it is still rather damaging to take allegations and post them. During court cases, lawyers normally ask how much knowledge people have of a case before they are taken as jurymembers. The reason why is that allegations and unfounded claims -can- taint people and make them thing that the claims are fact. That is why it is unethical to reproduce them and why Wikipedia's BLP states that we have to be "right" and that we have to have unquestionably reliable sources and to treat them appropriately. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, the NYT is labeled "funny" and not to be taken as a news article. The WSJ is an opinion article and cannot be taken as a news article. The Dana Blackenhorn is a blog and fails RS and BLP RS standards. Artinfo is not a reliable news source. Etc. Once you remove the unreliable fluff, there are very, very few actual sources. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces such as that in WSJ and NYT are acceptable; I see nothing excluding them from establishing notability (which, again, is whether or not people are talking notice). BLP is meant to protect individuals from libel and to protect Wikipedia from accusations of libel. Are there other individuals about whom you are concerned? Unless I misread his response to you, here, User:Dcoetzee is not bothered. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did you get that crazy idea? No opinion piece is acceptable as fact. this is very clear - "but not for statements of fact". Please read these guidelines before making such statements, as they would mislead others who also failed to read the guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you can try to remain civil? The entire sentence (et seq) from which you quote may clarify: "Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements of fact. A prime example of this are Op-ed columns that are published in mainstream newspapers." If Op-ed pieces are being used irresponsibly to source statements of fact, that should be addressed. However, they are expressly not inherently unreliable, and I see nothing that indicates that they are excluded from establishing notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your undestanding of civil is as faulty as your understanding of the other guidelines. I have not attacked your person in any way, nor have I made anything except to point out that you are completely mistaken. "not for statements of fact" is very, very blatant. BLP demands that we only carry facts, or, if we do have opinions, we attribute them directly to the source and other important restrictions. That does not mean that we simply tack them as a reference to another article in order to fluff up how many sources there are. Regardless, opinion pieces cannot be used for notability, they can only be used to attribute an opinion when that opinion is pertinent, i.e. an expert on an issue dealing with the issue. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not regard it as civil (as characterized by "consideration and respect") to imply that people's ideas are crazy and that they haven't done the homework. Likewise, if you think "Your understanding of civil is as faulty as your understanding of the other guidelines" is courteous, then we are coming from a wide divide. In any event, I am uninterested in bickering with you about it. The full sentence from which you selected seems pretty clear. Too, I'll note that WP:BLP policy does not forbid the use of op-eds. On the contrary, it accepts them ("Where a news organization publishes the opinions of a professional but claims no responsibility for the opinions, the writer of the cited piece should be attributed....") and even online blogs "so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." Of the ones I linked above, the op ed writers are all professionals with clearly established journalist credibility, and they are all published in reliable sources. Do you have a source to substantiate that opinion pieces cannot be used for notability? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Then your understanding of civil is completely disconnected from WP:CIVIL. Now, incorrectly throwing out accusations of incivility as you are doing is a violation of WP:CIVIL. I suggest you stop now before your bury yourself even deeper. Now, you can say whatever you want, but WP:Notability is clear that only reliable sources count to notability and WP:RS makes it very clear that opinions cannot be construed as fact, and therefore, are not reliable sources. They can be included, as non-reliable sources can be included when notability is established elsewhere. But your argument fails regardless. Ottava Rima (talk)
 * WP:N says, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." It does not say "fact-based." And, in fact, opinion pieces are specifically included under some subject-specific guidelines, such as reviews for films or books. I suspect that my understanding of "civil" is quite fine. And I also suspect that any further conversation I might have with you will prove unproductive, so I will keep any further conversation I have about this subject to individuals who understand "courteous" and "respectful" more in the sense that I do. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Doesn't say fact based? Are you serious? It is really clear that fact based is the only way to establish notability. Blogs don't cut it. Further conversations with me would prove unproductive because your statements about Wikipedia are far beyond absurd that you can't even admit you are wrong when direct citations were provided that blatantly proved you as such. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece is not identifies by the NYT as a humor piece. Ottama is refering to the html.  But look at a physical issue of the NYT.  It is one of the cover stories for the Arts section, because it is about our photographic coverage of performing artists.  It is not in the opinion section - yes, the NYT distinguishes explicitly between articles on the arts, and essays expressing personal opinion, it puts them in two different sections, and this is not in the "opinion" section.  The actual NYT does not identify it anywhere on the page as a humor or opinion piece.  So stop frabricating things, Ottava. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep it is about an issue covered in the news, but so are lots of our articles. And it is an important issue. Let's keep it.  OR or NPOV concerns?  What article doesn't have those?  I am sure we can work on them, there, like we do with other articles. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Most of the articles have already been debunked as reliable or constituting notability per saying the same material over and over without anything new or original. Your conspiracy theory above reproduced enmasse is troubling also. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - well sourced; no basis for deletion. Tom Harrison Talk 21:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As pointed out, many of the sources are unreliable or sources for original research. Thus, just "looking" at the list of sources isn't enough to declare that it is well sourced. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Why are you so obsessed with this that you feel the need to challenge every one of the "keeps"? Do you have some personal stake in this? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 14:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The ones I challenge are those that show a false understanding of BLP or RS, especially when people claim there are many reliable sources when most of the ones in the article have been debunked as reliable or usable per our policies. There is even a source from 2007, 2 years before this incident happened. My stake in this is that if this page is kept, its horrible use of sourcing plus casting of potentially libelous material as fact would make the whole encyclopedia look bad. It would affect all of our integrity, and as a content contributor that deals with high end referencing, I cannot afford to have pages I work on cast in the same light as something that breaches all encyclopedic and ethical sensibility. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What BLP issues do you allege? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The page amounts to the publishing of an accusation of impropriety against a non-notable individual. They claim he broke into their servers, and they claim that he violated copyright on 3,000 images. This is a serious offense. The presentation lacks any trial, and there is no way for him to be deemed innocent. Thus, the presentation of an accusation in such an expanded state gives credence to the accusation itself. It is the equivalent of saying "we have read the accusation and have deemed it factual", thus supplainting a trial and jury with Wikipedia editors. That could open us up to reprinting libel and other major BLP related problems. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do the sources make that claim? Or is it based on interpretation of the sources?


 * Keep—seems like a perfectly notable topic, not just "news" but an important case of Internet dispute. Some sources back this up; others can doubtless be found. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► prorogation ─╢ 10:51, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Ample sourcing establish notability.--Pink Bull (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Section break 1
I am starting to get confused by his applications of policy here, but his attempt to use WP:BLP here as an excuse, is fundamentally flawed. It only says in the lead "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." It does not say "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages, and any other material on such pages." I am starting to think about potential crystalballery with this article even with the sourcing. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This article is about a lawsuit against a living individual. There is no way to separate any of the facts or statements away from this. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I am most interested to have Ottava Rima provide a citation to aforesaid lawsuit. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, if there isn't a lawsuit what is the page about? A simple letter that made a threat? And that is acceptable how? Don't be absurd. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Incubate (Yes I made that one up). This article meets notability guidelines for its core subject matter, so nominially qualifies for its own article. NOTNEWS certainly speaks to the recentism argument, but my sense is a dispute of this nature, involving a respected institution asserting copyright action against a previously anonymous person who helped to make the media publically is likely to have lasting notability. The real problem here, is that Wikipedia simply isn't ready to write a proper article on this topic yet. You are taking three of the things Wikipedia does poorly - writing about recent events with an eye to lasting significance, writing about unnotable people who have been thrust into the spotlight unwillingly, and writing about itself (or at least a sister project) and combining them into one article. So, while I on balance I think this article meets inclusion policies, as an editorial matter I think it should be removed from mainspace and added until a couple of high quality sources - not blogs, not opinion pieces, but genuine technology beat writers or the equivalent - treat the matter comprehensively. I rather suspect that such will appear soon, and will alleviate much of the synthesis that currently appears in the article. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  13:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well put. - Pointillist (talk) 08:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Although the result of a court case would be notable, all that has been reported so far is that a letter has been sent warning that there may be legal action, and people have commented on this and its possible consequences. The content may be verifiable, but it shouldn't exist as a separate article as it appears to be based on a prediction of future notability.  Deletion would be a possible solution although there is useful information that could be merged to other articles. snigbrook (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and others. This isn't notable, we're not news. Wikinews covers it. Let it stand there. And this is a BLP issue, as the editor is named. Lara  20:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:Recentism, WP:News articles and WP:NOT. -- &oelig; &trade; 02:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. It appears that the three arguments for deleting the article are a failure of the general Notability guideline, the policy on Biographies of living persons, and the policy on What Wikipedia is not with relation to being News reports. (a) The article seems to handily meet the nutshell description of the GNG ("[having] received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject"), currently citing BBC News, Reuters UK, and The New York Times among nine others.  (b) While this is not strictly a biographical article, the information that does pertain to a living person ("Derrick Coetzee") is all cited to the reliable sources referred to above (to the extent of every sentence mentioning the LP).  (c) Lastly, WP:NOTNEWS doesn't offer any hard and fast criteria, but the section pertaining to this article appears to exclude "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism"; reading the article, I find it neither meets those criteria nor is of 'transient notability' by judgment and as evidenced by those commenting here.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 05:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * As stated before, articles must have unique information and not simply regurgitate the same few details to count under notability. Furthermore, BLP has stricter notability requirements. You state the NYT as a reliable source, although it is clearly marked in the humor section. This shows a lack of appropriately analyzing the source per our requirements, which disqualifies your vote. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Your requirement that the independent reliable sources all provide unique information is not supported or born out by the general Notability guideline, as such, this seems to be your own personal special requirement for this article and has no bearing on this discussion. Furthermore, this is not a Biography of a living person, it only references one, and duly cites each line of reference to said LP. Whether The New York Times finds this situation humorous or not does not invalidate their standing as a reliable source, and arguing that it does has&mdash;again&mdash;no corroboration in the English Wikipedia's sundry guidelines, policies, and precedences.  If you can find that the NYT article has been labeled or categorized by the newspaper as "something we just made up to sell papers without any of our usual fact-checking and editorial processes", then that would be a viable argument for striking its use as a reliable source. Lastly, you have no standing whatsoever to make any determination that my input (this is not a vote) is "disqualified".  I am not a single-purpose account, not have I violated any longstanding rules or practices in voicing my opinion here.  You may feel that my arguments do not have merit with regards to your aforementioned special undocumented requirements for this article's allowance, but this is is a discussion between equals and you are very far from your place in judging my input or contribution here.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:27, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read the Notability guideline before pontificating about what it says. Here is a strong statement: "Mere republications of a single source or news wire service do not always constitute multiple works" or more to the point "Several journals simultaneously publishing articles in the same geographic region about an occurrence, does not always constitute multiple works,". The reason why is from it regurgitating the same few bits of information. If 100 sources all say "black is good", that does not justify having an article on it with a sentence stating "black is good" and having 100 references all linked to the same statement. Your statement is disqualified because you show an ignorance of our guidelines. Your post is insulting to anyone who bothered to read the guidelines. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, these are plainly not republications of the same source or news wire service. Secondly, I'm sorry I failed to realize that multiple reliable sources from London, New York City, Framingham, Massachusetts, Tarrytown, New York, Denver, Colorado, Oxford, England, and San Francisco, California fit your criteria of "the same geographic region".  Furthermore, where in "does not always" do you draw forth the equation of "do not ever"? My statement is not "disqualified" because you have neither a right to do so, nor the weight of consensus; if the administrator who closes this discussion chooses to disregard my input, they are welcome to do so, as that is the prerogative we have empowered them with by our consensus of their station.  I'm providing my interpretation of the article, the sources, and the relevant policies and guidelines; calling me ignorant and my input insulting is far from civil, and I would ask you find some other avenue of expressing your opinions herein than shooting down the opinions and input of your equals.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 17:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "these are plainly not republications" This suggests that you failed to read the whole statement. The "and" is highly important. Also, you can list those areas but you failed to prove that the sources used are also reliable. The New York is the NYT, which is marked "funny" because it is a humor opinion column and not a reliable news source. As proven above, the guideline makes it clear that opinion pieces cannot be used as "fact". And if you think my comments saying you are ignorant of the matter are incivil, then you clearly do not understand the word "ignorant" nor have you read WP:CIVIL. Ignorant means "unknowing". It means that you are wrong. Civil makes it very clear that I have the ability to state that your comments are wrong. Your inability to understand multiple guidelines and policies even now when it was proven that they say what I am saying is disturbing, and just verifies my original claim that your "vote" is invalid. My "equals" bother to read guidelines and policies before making claims about them. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to continue to have a wikifight with an incivil contributer. My input stands.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 18:28, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Seeing as how your understanding of WP:CIVIL is wrong and that I have not actually committed any incivility, your constant statements to the contrary are an actual breach of WP:CIVIL. The only thing that stands is that your comments show a lack of actual reading of our guidelines and policies along with you making it obvious that you deserve to be blocked for your false accusations. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece is not identifies by the NYT as a humor piece. Ottama is refering to the html.  But look at a physical issue of the NYT.  It is one of the cover stories for the Arts section, because it is about our photographic coverage of performing artists.  It is not in the opinion section - yes, the NYT distinguishes explicitly between articles on the arts, and essays expressing personal opinion, it puts them in two different sections, and this is not in the "opinion" section.  The actual NYT does not identify it anywhere on the page as a humor or opinion piece.  So stop frabricating things, Ottava. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Covered by multiple reliable sources in more than one country; sources include The New York Times. No reason to delete. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:25, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The New York Times source is marked as being humorous so it cannot be taken as a source of news. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are looking at the HTML. Now why don't you look at how the article is actually identified?  It is in the "arts" section of a newspaper that has many sections.  I guess you must come from a small town where the newspaper has only one section, Ottava, but in New York the paper has many sections divided by area of coverage.  Section A covers national and international news, section B covers City news, section C covers the Arts, and that is where this article is, as it addresses our use of photographs to illustrate articles on artists and performing artists.  By the way, there is a whole other section just for opinion.  But this article is not in it.  When interpreting sources like newspapers, Ottava, you need to understand their own classification systems.  Now I have taught you, so you know. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - if this case makes legal history in copyright law or otherwise achieves historic notability, then keep. Until then it's a legal dispute between two organizations and there are a thousand of those a year. We do not keep articles on every dispute, every death, or every other item that gets news coverage while it's ongoing. Any future potential is far from certain as well. Categorical WP:NOT and WP:CRYSTAL - this is just routine news, in encyclopedia terms. FT2 (Talk 16:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, else merge to appropriate location. I think this is more a NOTNEWS issue than anything else. Covering the group, not the event is the smart choice here. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 16:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or userfy. Wikipedia has a tendency of writing articles about itself at any given opportunity, even when it should not. This is where an article is not warranted. &mdash;harej (talk) (cool!) 17:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

State of play at 31 July/1 August
The current situation is a bit confusing so here is a summary as I understand it. To comment on the situation please use this section. To add further !votes, please use the next section titled "Further !votes". Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC) I've removed the tally of !votes I created earlier—it was only to assess whether SNOW was valid, and is no longer relevant, if it ever was. - Pointillist (talk) 15:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Current situation (is this correct?)

 * NPG has made an allegation alleging that an upload to commons has caused damage (see letter).
 * Dcoetzee and the Wikimedia Foundation have not admitted any facts about the alleged upload to commons (which is not admitted either).
 * NPG and Dcoetzee have not mentioned Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
 * Commentators have mentioned Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.
 * The EFF claims to be represnting Dcoetzee. Dcoetzee hasn't confirmed this.
 * The Wikipedia Foundation has historically claimed that as their content is stored on and served from servers based in the USA, US law should apply to use of non-US :sourced content.
 * Is this summary correct and complete? If so, shouldn't the article be structured around it?


 * Yeah, but actually the letter DOES reference Bridgeman v. Corel ("There is a common misconception that, as a result of the decision in Bridgeman v. Corel, copyright can never subsist in a photograph of a painting. That conclusion is erroneous because [blah blah blah]. And also, the nominator in good faith RE-OPENED this AFD after it was closed by an administrator because by his rule, 3 days isn't enough. Also, vote tallies are not allowed since AFD is not a vote, its a discussion. ViperSnake151   Talk  00:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * IIRC, Dcoetzee said he was being represented by the EFF. -mattbuck (Talk) 10:50, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Viper - Why would it matter what the original letter did or did not do? It is not a reliable source per BLP. It is an accusation, and we are not supposed to take accusations as fact. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, usual WP:NOTNEWS case. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not news, not encyclopedic. Wikipedia's fascination with itself should not be in article space. Resolute 17:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Just wanted to note that it already is, in the article on National Portrait Gallery (London). This is one of the reasons why I propose considering a merge of major points to that article pending establishment of long-term notability. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:31, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * the notability is not the NPG alone, the notability is the NPG vs Wikipedia. Merge is inappropriate. I continue to see denying the  likely long term importance of the confrontation as imperceptive.DGG (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you just make that idea up? Are you certain that you can't spread information on two different subjects in two different areas, and that you instead need a POV fork for them? Did you not bother to read WP:FORK? So, if two people with pages get married, they have to have its own page for the marriage? Or anything else? Not only is that not how Wikipedia works, it is so absurd that it is strange for you to even think it would be how Wikipedia works. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying it. I suspect it will develop into long-term importance. Meanwhile, coverage at the NPG seems appropriate to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying it. I suspect it will develop into long-term importance. Meanwhile, coverage at the NPG seems appropriate to me. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Sufficient reliable sources. The idea that the filename chosen on the NYT web server classifies what is clearly a news story as humor and impeaches its reliability is remarkable.  Genuine BLP, forking, neutrality, paucity of sources, etc.  issues are equally absent. (The NotNews, recentism etc deletes are much better founded.) John Z (talk) 20:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So, lets see, a source that is clearly marked "funny" mentioning the case in all of 5 sentences with one sentence making a direct insertion that cannot be known (i.e. it is claiming he stole works from a website) before a case is even heard is now what you are going to say is enough to see it as notable? And BLP is absent? Have you even read WP:BLP? This is about a court case against a living individual. Your comments are so absurd that your vote is disqualified. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is likely to be as accurate as any other story on a newspaper website, at least for the quotes that it is being used as a source for. Maybe it doesn't have the same neutrality standards and doesn't represent the views of the New York Times, but the fact that one of the URLs that can be used for accessing the page contains the word "funny" doesn't mean it was written as a joke. snigbrook (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. WP:SNOW.  Legal disputes are plainly an encyclopedic subject.  The sourcing for ths one clearly establishes the formal baseline criteria notability.  WP:NOT is about trivial news of the day.  WP:NAVEL is, likely, something to keep us from covering trivial issues simply because they affect Wikipedia.  This is a significant issue involving two of the more prominent players on opposite sides of the issue - WIkipedia and the NPG.  It is pretty important to people interested in artwork and copyright.  Nevertheless, after a small spate of significant coverage the matter grew quiet as a news item, and has received relatively little attention in the days that followed, which may in fact suggest it is just the news of the day.  If the dispute gains ongoing coverage that would argue for keeping - an actual lawsuit would probably get a lot of coverage; if it diminishes into obscurity via uneventful resolution or lack of coverage I might change it to a weak delete.  I don't see much fuss either way. So what's the fuss?  Wikidemon (talk) 23:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC) refactored and !vote modified after further review and consideration - Wikidemon (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that legal disputes are an encyclopedic subject, and this one may be become important (and there is already some notability because of the amount of coverage), but if the dispute doesn't result in any legal action being taken, or if it is settled out of court, then it is unlikely to have any lasting importance (other than any effect it may have on Wikipedia) and a few lines in the relevant articles should be enough. snigbrook (talk) 00:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * More than a majority of the statements are for deletion, so your statement of "snow" makes it seem like you might not understand how AfD works. The sources have already been stated as having many problems, with over 50% of them not reliable blatantly and only one is being defended. Others contribute only to original research, such as a 2007 source that can't possibly discuss events in 2009. As such, your statement shows a lack of anything more than just a "vote" and is discounted. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * In plain point of fact, you can not discount, disqualify or render invalid a single comment on this page. You're free to disagree, although I think everyone would appreciate it if you could be a bit more gentle about it and forgo offering your opinions about those with whom you disagree. Nathan  T 01:33, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Quite the opposite. Consensus is a discussion. Proving someone's premise as wrong and flawed is part of that. If you look at the original attempt to close, the closer stated that the deletes were wrong because they didn't know a certain set of information. This would be appropriate except that he was wrong (the other sources were discussed by the second statement). AfD works by balancing and judging statements. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A few things. I appealed to WP:SNOW because there is, indeed, a "snowball's chance in hell" that this article will be deleted after discussion.  I am rather familiar with the process.  The point is, the article satisfies all of the technical and normative standards for why it should exist  It passes WP:N, blindingly obviously so.  Thus, if anyone wishes to argue that despite being a technically notable subject we should not cover it here, they have the burden of explaining why.  People aren't buying it; hence, this article is unlikely to be deleted.  The "sources have many problems" argument is quite bizarre.  We're talking Guardian, Times, Wall Street Journal, etc.  These are the most sterling mainstream sites in the world, and their coverage of the incidents is substantial, and dead center on why we listen to any news sources for any reason - per WP:V and WP:RS we cover what the sources cover.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs)
 * I do not think this is a snowball keep, this will either be keep or no consensus at the rate we're going. ViperSnake151   Talk  14:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It is obvious that people "bought" that this page is pointless, lacks sources, and is a BLP violation based on the majority of people who are not voting keep. Your vote for keep based on the above is an admittance that you didn't read this page and probably didn't even bother to read the page on AfD. As such, it is merely a "vote" and not acceptable per consensus. The fact that you say things like the WSJ is a source when it is an -opinion- column only verifies that you haven't a clue what you are even taking about. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * In lieu of a civility warning on your talk page I'll reply here. Unless somebody died and appointed you closing administrator, it is none of your business whether my !vote should be discounted or not, nor is it your concern whether or not I read the materials or understand WP:RS.  For the record, though, you are all wet on all accounts.  I know WP:RS extremely well, I know that the WSJ piece is an opinion column, and it is my considered opinion that the careful and serious treatment of the issue via an entire column entirely about that issue in the Wall Street Journal, when taken with the many other major press articles on this subject, weighs very heavily in favor of finding the event notable.  My opinion is my opinion.  It is clear that you don't like it, and that's tough luck.  You have argued yours extensively here, and in the process insulted, accused, and tried to browbeat a score of well respected Wikipedians with whom you disagree, to the point of making a mess of this page.  I will say this once only before taking this to a notice board, please stop.  Do not insult me further.  You have had your say.  A closing administrator will review it all and decide.  Wikidemon (talk) 22:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Your admittance right there that WSJ is an opinion column is proof that your post is completely invalid. Policy is very certain on the matter. Just because you disagree with it does not make it any different. This is not a discussion to change policy. This is not a !vote either. You either put proper arguments based on policy to delete, or you don't make a comment. Your comment proves that you are voting against what policy states. I have not insulted you, but your claims to such are as nonsensicle as your understanding of the AfD process or what Wikipedia is about. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Nope, I rest on existing policy and guidelines to find this subject notable, no changes necessary. Regarding civility, you can't say you weren't warned.  I've filed a Wikiquette alert, here.  This part of the discussion is done.  Take any further concerns there. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, OR, it's spelled "nonsensical". If you're going to level insults, at least try to spell them correctly. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My spell checker didn't have a problem with it, so I don't really care. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to the NPG article, per Moonriddengirl (whose comments are, as usual, completely correct and well stated in every respect.) Nathan  T 01:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, notability is solidly established by multiple reliable sources. Dreadstar  †  02:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * keep Fundamentally distinct from the Wikinews article which is a well-researched report about what was going on in the matter at a single time (and includes OR). This in contrast is an article about the ongoing dispute which easily meets notability requirements. As a long-term, ongoing matter, claims of NOTNEWS are not persuasive. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Which notability requirements? You do realize that there has to be a justification for a content fork, right? For something that doesn't even have a court case or a submitted legal complaint for a court case, your statement is laughable. Since when is "sending a letter" a notable event let alone something that "easily meets notability requirements", especially when most of the sources have to come from art websites, blogs, and opinion columns? Or how about that one source that is from 2007 on an event about 2009? Ottava Rima (talk) 16:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need to point to sources already in the article. The fact is that this matter has received large-scale coverage in international news sources and continues to do so. That easily meets WP:N and makes it not a single event of the WP:NOTNEWS sort. Any other issues are irrelevant. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Really? Is that what you are going to go with? Joshua, explain why instead of having it printed in the WSJ news section that it was kept only to opinion? That instead of World news, it was kept to an art column in the NYT with "funny" as part of the heading? Furthermore, the Notability standards are clear - there must be something substantial in them and not just the same reporting of "facts". They all state the allegation by the NPG. They add nothing. Why? Because there IS nothing. All we have is one allegation. That is the end of the story. There is nothing here. This is an encyclopedia. We deal with facts. We don't accept major BLP violations that are basically just pages that are 50% OR, and of the 50% not OR are just copied and paste of what the NPG alleged -without proof-. That page is nothing more than libel, and if it was cut down appropriately it would amount to, at most, 3 sentences! There is no way to think that a page of three sentences would be acceptable when we already have pages on that topic. Ottava Rima (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ottava, give it a rest. You are just repeating yoursself here and have had these claims dealt with quite well above. Incidentally, the notion that there is a "major BLP violation" here is laughable as you would know if you read the reply that the individual in question actually made to you. There's nothing even resembling a BLP issue. I also think you may need to look up the definition of libel. Now, if you have something to say that you haven't already repeated above multiple times then say it. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Laughable? So you think that Wikipedia is supposed to have allegations of criminal activity without any kind of proof or even a criminal case? Are you serious? Have you even read WP:BLP? Because if you did, then you are just making things up. By the way, Washington Post disagrees with your claim that the matter was news worthy. As does the Washington Times. I can go on, as I checked dozens of important news organizations before I even listed this. The simple fact that the Google search on the matter produces primarily blogs talking about it and nothing else should have tipped you off. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll save you some effort as you scramble to look - Reuters and The Associated Press didn't feel it was news worthy for even a mention. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact that certain news sources didn't report on something isn't an argument that it isn't notable. Since you've got the NYT, the BBC, the Guardian and many others disccusing this the fact that others don't simply isn't relevant. I'm a bit puzzled by this chain of logic since if it followed through almost no event would ever be notable since one could always point to some sources not discussing something. The fact that you are reduced to trying to find newspapers which did not report on the matter about summarizes things. Your claims about BLP are about as far off since no one except you seems to think that anyone has made any allegation of criminal behavior. Moreover, notable allegations of criminal behavior can go in BLPs even when they don't lead to legal trials (if you think otherwise, please point to a specific sentence in BLP that supports your claim). a fortiori, that's the all the more the case when no one is making any accusation of criminal behavior except you (which incidentally might be a real BLP violation). JoshuaZ (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I never said that other news sources not reporting on it made it not notable. I put those links to show that your claims about it receiving wide coverage were fake. I investigated. I checked. I looked in. And if you honestly think that it is within BLP to put up allegations against a person without even a court case, I would like to see you ask Jimbo on his talk page and see if he agrees that Wikipedia is supposed to do that, and that we are legally okay even though we could be reproducing libel. By the way, 1 Event would apply, and you cannot hide from the fact that 1 Event applies by trying to claim it is Wikipedia as the center of this, as the letter was sent to him and about his actions. We have 1 Event for a reason. The fact that you would try to claim that this is a notable instance of an allegation is almost disgusting. Even Ben Rothelsberger's allegation, receiving actual news coverage across the world, does not have its own content fork page. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:00, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * BLP1E applies to articles that are specifically about an individual, not an event. Nathan  T 18:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest you read WP:COATRACK. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should reread what I wrote. BLP1E doesn't apply. Nor does NOTNEWS since this is an ongoing controversy handled by international media. Not being covered by every single major news source doesn't make coverage not international (I don't know where you got the term "wide" from since I never used that term). (Incidentally, I don't understand at all why you think this has anything to do with Wikipedia involvement or what I ever said that makes you think that I've tried to argue that's at all relevant. It really would help if you read what people have to say and tried to have a discussion rather than just repeat the same things again and again). And you have again made claims about their being a possibility of libel which shows that you really don't understand what constitutes libel at all. I'll interpret your failure to give a specific point in the BLP policy supporting your position as a consequence of the fact that you can't. You have a general history of not understanding legal matters and this seems to be yet another example. Your mention of the Ben Roethlisberger shows once again that you seem to be unable to understand the distinction between civil and criminal issues and also to not know about basic Wikipedia issues like WP:OTHERSTUFF. So I will try to be as blunt as possible: a mention of a claim of a possible civil problem is not the same as a criminal accusation. That's aside from the fact that discussion of notable criminal accusations are acceptable even if they never went to court. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:11, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See WP:COATRACK. What is the page discussing? A court case? No. Wikipedia? No. A user's actions? Yes. A user's actions is biographical. Thus, the page under the title is a coatrack for a page on a non-notable individual that was claimed to have done something. However, this would have been obvious, so your blustering above is more of a ruse than anything else. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:14, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And for the record, what is this nonsense about? "civil and criminal issues"? Ben Roethlisberger didn't have a criminal complaint filed. He had a civil complaint. There isn't even a filed complaint against this user! You just shot yourself in the foot and verified that you don't understand what you are even talking about. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. So one point is wrong. I don't see how that shoots myself in the foot since I haven't claimed that a separate article would be inherently a problem solely for a civil matter, merely that that would be one of a variety of possible issues. As has already been pointed out to you, repeatedly, most of this article doesn't deal with or focus on the individual in question so it isn't a major issue anyways. Now, if you would like to actually respond to the points various users have stated rather than focus on a single error of fact in an OTHERSTUFF article then go ahead. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to shrug off notable examples as "otherstuff", then your statement shows contempt for evidence. Furthermore, as pointed out above, the NPG page already has statements about the case, so there is a redundancy with this page. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. I didn't write it. The presence or absence of other articles is not an argument for the creation or deletion of other material. And people have already explained to you why they prefer a separate article from the main page. I don't see a need to belabor that point. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you are going to say "please read", at least get the right link, as the redirect no longer goes to the -essay-. Other stuff exists Clearly marked as an "essay". That essay then says "Sometimes these comparisons are invalid, and sometimes they are valid." Then, when you are done, read the next section: 'When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because "other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc."' It is refering to people like you who are abusing the statement in order to hide from a valid statement. Thus, your citation of WP:OTHERSTUFF undermines your claims and makes your statements completely bogus. "Preference" is not a valid use of forking. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm happy you got along to actually reading the linked essay. The point which you seem to be missing is that this is precisely the sort of comparison that OTHERSTUFF was written for: the primary reason we don't have such separate articles is that no one has bothered to write one. Thus, pointing to the absence of an article which was never created really doesn't help matters much. Meanwhile, for someone so fond of accusing others of using rhetoric (and I presume next will be sarcasm and all the tricks, dramatic irony, metaphor, bathos, puns, parody, litotes and satire), you seem to have trouble quoting other people accurately. Your use of the word "preference" in quotation marks is an attempt to dismiss the arguments that have been made: so let's be clear: Others have given explanations to you why a separate article in this context makes the most sense. You have not responded to such arguments. If you got some weaker notion than that by my saying "preference" then you are welcome to blame me. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Outdent - As I pointed out from the quotes, the Otherstuff essay verifies my use of an example to -demonstrate- how other pages incorporate material without forking in order to show what consensus is on a policy. The policy was BLP and it was how to deal with material about an allegation. The individual used shows that many sources are used, the allegation is trimmed to nothing, and deals with a matter with heavy coverage. Just about every major newspaper ran a news article on -that- allegation plus it is a notable individual. However this has little news coverage as proven by links to many papers not mentioning it at all and others keeping it to opinion columns. This also deals with an individual not notable enough for his own page. Thus, if it was comparable in all aspects, there still wouldn't be an individual page. So, it would be impossible to claim we need a page on this. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused by the above, so you may need to expand upon your logic. As I explained earlier, one major there's no separate article on the Rothelsberger allegations are that no one has bothered to do so. Now, if there had been an attempt followed by an AfD you might have an argument. Moreover, as has already been explained to you, this article is not primarily about the individual in question. Indeed, the articles on the NPG matter often mentioned his name simply in passing. So comparing this to a full on serious set of allegations is simply not a helpful comparison. Overall, this seems like almost a textbook case of OTHERSTUFF. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You are a bit confused by a comparative example? What is confusing about it? I already laid out above what to draw from the example. Do I need to simplify my langauge even more? And it has to be primarily about the individual because the allegation states that he broke in and then posted the pictures. Thus, this falls under WP:COATRACK. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:11, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm confused because it seems like a bad comparison. So yes, use simpler words and explain in detail why it is a good comparison. In regards to the individual in question, as I've already explained, the majority of focus has been not on the editor on question but on the NPG and Wikipedia. That's one obvious contrast to an article where you already have a notable individual and the individual in question is the center of the controversy. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, true, it is sourced, but the fact that there is no actual legal action yet started seems to justify a deletion (unlike the LICRA vs Yahoo! article, for example). Diti  (talk to the penguin) 18:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC


 * Delete As said before, nothing but navel-gazing. If this comes to anything we can put up an article at that time. But as of now, its somebody threatening to sue somebody else, happens millions of times a day and is demonstrably not notable. -- M  ask?  20:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete; serious neutrality issues aside, Wikipedia is neither a news source nor a news aggregator, nor has this event even been in the news long enough to establish notability. Show me one other cease and desist letter that has garnered enough notability to warrant an article. - Chardish (talk) 03:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of articles in which a cease and desist letter figures significantly. Here's an arbitrary several. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Google_(verb)
 * ScienTOMogy
 * Synthesia


 * Exodus_International
 * Thanks for finding those, but I'm talking about articles where the topic of the article is a cease and desist letter, not articles which include discussion of cease and desist letters. In other words, I'm looking for articles about cease and desist letters, such as the one in question. - Chardish (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. That would take some sorting effort. The search, for anyone who cares, via Google, -> site:en.wikipedia.org/wiki "cease and desist"   - or "cease and desist letter" -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Don't censor just because it puts egg on wikipedia's face. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 05:12, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The subject of the article satisfis both the Verifiability and Notability policies. It has numerous, non-trivial, reliable third-party references. That is all that matters. It is currently factual and appears to be neutral. Even if it weren't, it could be improved. Threshold for including is WP:V and WP:N. &lt;&gt;Multi-Xfer&lt;&gt; (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Multiple RS and a clear pass for WP:N. The claim that the NY Times article is a humor piece is absurd, "funny" is used here as synonymous with "odd".  BLP concerns are misplaced.  And oh, all the drama.  Power.corrupts (talk) 10:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "used here as synonymous with 'odd'" - Proof? And what multiple RS? The RS guideline is very clear on the matter and most of the sources used and could be used are already not-reliable. Furthermore, all of the major groups like WSJ, NYT, Washington Post, Washington Times, AP, Reuters, etc, refuse to cover this as news in their news section. RS makes it clear that only news can be treated as fact, not opinion. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as a blatant POV fork. This legal action, which hasn't even reached trial, does not even warrant a separate section in the main museum article yet, (but is does deserve a mention, per the recent poll). The current version of this fork article is just a badly written self important navel gazing essay/blogroll about copyright law and free content, coatracked on a small piece of noteworthy news, the only decent content herein just duplicates the Wikinews article which presents it as what it actaully is, a news item. It is not yet by any standard, not even NOT#PAPER, a plausible topic for an encyclopoedia article. MickMacNee (talk) 12:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge & redirect to National Portrait Gallery (London), per Moonriddengirl. MLauba (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to NPG article and trim. I'm objecting to "news-style" fork articles like this, but the matter could, and should, be discussed in the main NPG article. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to NPG. Mathsci (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Plenty of reliable sources establish notability. Rlendog (talk) 14:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. There's plenty of reliable sources about a lot of things that do not meet notability requirements. Per Ottava, per MickMacNee. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia entry. Tan   &#124;   39  15:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. As Tan said, the existence of reliable sources does not confer notability. Navel-gazing at its worst. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. Tan hit on the head. Also, I am beginning to wonder why we need all these articles on Wikipedia-related stuff, as it sounds more like we're self-advocating. Don't have to agree with me, but it doesn't seem like a good idea.Mitch/HC32 15:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as POV fork. This is a news story involving Wikipedia, so shouldn't we handle it like a news story not involving Wikipedia, or is that too much to ask? Cool Hand Luke 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Someone objected to me wanting me to call this National Portrait Gallery copyright conflicts with the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia Commons copyright conflicts with the National Portrait Gallery. ViperSnake151   Talk  18:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete nn letter/navel gazing. KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 15:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, consider merging into NPG article. Plenty of reliable sources, the only question is whether will end up being a mountain or a molehill in the long run. Right now, I suspect molehill. However a "merge" is not a "delete", it's a "keep". --GRuban (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Technically, a merge in this situation would be a delete, as the redirect name would most likely not be kept. It is not a technical name, so it wouldn't be a viable redirect title. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Per DGG, Rlendog and John Z. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikinews covers this. There are BLP concerns. Merge anything useful to the main NPG article, and delete the rest, leaving a redirect. ++Lar: t/c 22:22, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I abstain as an involved party, but will say: I've reviewed the article and I don't believe it to contain any factual errors, and I am not at all concerned about the BLP impact of this article on myself. I am, after all, a Wikipedian. I've also recommended an additional source on the talk page. If it is deleted, I recommend moving it to the project namespace, as it's a good reference. Dcoetzee 23:46, 3 August 2009 (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.