Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-08-06 Randy Pausch

Who are the involved parties?
It seems that there are a number of editors who want to see an image (a screenshot of the Google search page) stay, because they believe that an article used an image under fair use. However, one editor is persistent in saying they will delete the image because it violates the Not Free Content category.

What's going on?
There have been some editors who have shown precedent of using Google screenshots in articles. There have been editors who say that replacing the image with text doesn't do the event justice (as Google rarely changes the homepage text). As I said though, one editor is persistent in threatening to delete the image.

The discussion has been going on here: Talk:Randy_Pausch

Here is the image Image:Pausch_google.png

What would you like to change about that?
I just want to see a consensus, not so much about whether the image would be a good addition to the page -- it undoubtedly would, but about whether this image can remain under the NFC category, citing fair use and Wikipedia precedent.

To speak of the deletion of this image, I believe we also need to bring in our precedent, Image:Google earth hour.PNG. On the day of Earth Hour, Google turned its homepage black in support of the event. There was a consensus in the talk page to keep this kind of screenshot (minus a sockpuppet that is against this idea). And after 3 months, the screenshot still stands in the article. Another precedent is Image:MarcChagallGoogleLogo.gif. It was for very similar reason. With that said, I believe this Google screenshot in memory of Randy Pausch should be kept. OhanaUnitedTalk page 21:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion
Just a note that the image in question is now at Images and media for deletion/2008 August 6, where a reasonable discussion is ongoing. Since the process issue (speedy deletion vs. IfD) was solved amicably, and the image policy issue can appropriately be treated at the competent forum, I don't really see a need for mediation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the reason we are here is to discuss the issue amicably and so the speedy deletion should be stopped.

whats the point of mediation if it will be deleted(before the mediation takes place).ajoy (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The mediator didn't even do ANYTHING. No wonder so little people resolve disputes using MC. OhanaUnitedTalk page 17:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you expected - duplicating discussion here wouldn't have been productive. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)