Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Main page image


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellany page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was Delete. — xaosflux  Talk  22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page image
Created to display fair use images in project-space, violation of WP:NFCC #9. If anything, this is worse than a fair use image on the main page Mr.  Z- man  01:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment this page was created to solve the contentious issue of fair use images on the Main Page. While it may not be the best solution, it was created in good faith to solve a difficult problem. Grace notes T § 01:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Using a single low-res fair use image is okay, this looks terrible. That or no link at all, as stated below. Rompe 01:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is not a reasonable solution to the problem. This page makes no attempt to explain why it itself should be an exemption. The only thing it does is make us all look like idiots. --- RockMFR 01:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment (editconflict) Oh gosh, this is really ugly. People who don't give a whit about non-free content but like to use an encyclopedia are going to be put off by having to click on an image and seeing "this is up for deletion" at the top of the page. This should be delinked from the main page until the MFD is complete. Chubbles 01:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We could also delay the MfD 24 hours. Which would have been a reasonable choice. Phil Sandifer 02:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or mark as historical; as I said on the talk page, a fair use image that merely serves to explain fair use, rather than enrich the text, may not meet the government's criteria. I also agree with RockMFR here. Grace notes T § 02:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Fair use outside of the main space. ~   Wi ki  her mit  02:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - yes, it violates NFCC. No questions or attempts to defend there. Given that removal of fair use on the main page remains controversial, however, this seems a reasonable compromise - it explains why we don't have an image, explains what it is we do, and serves as good self-promotion and self-presentation. It seems a halfway point between the NFCC violation of fair use on the main page and the occasional lack of images on the main page (which is weirdly inconsistent - ITN violates it left and right). And, if we're going to violate NFCC, we may as well do it in a way that at least restates the premises. Phil Sandifer 02:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Unlike the placement of a fair-use image on the main page (which most agree is legal but undesirable), this doesn't appear to comply with the fair-use doctrine (and it unquestionably violates policy, not to mention the spirit of the "no fair-use images on the main page" determination).  Therefore, on top of solving absolutely nothing, it actually makes matters far worse.  Additionally, the link is incredibly ugly and silly.  (Why wouldn't someone simply click over to the article and view the legal, policy-supported fair-use image transclusion?)  —David Levy 02:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - The license for Image:Lage raho munna bhai.JPG specifically states "please add a detailed fair use rationale for each use." No fair use rationale has been provided on the image page for its use on Wikipedia:Main page image. A reason for this is that fair use rationals would not support such use of images on Wikipedia:Main page image. Wikipedia:Main page image is unable to meet its intended purpose and should be deleted. I agree with David Levy, why wouldn't someone simply click over the article to view images that are posted in the article? In view of this, it is hard to disagree with RockMFR. The Main Page also has the problem of not including all the FA article content on the Main Page. Should we create a Main page article page to resolve this? I'm not sure how much thought was put behind this idea, but a review of WP:Point wouldn't hurt. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 08:10, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - is a fair-use image not in namespace, and therefore a copyright violation. Chris DHDR 08:37, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for a blatant attempt to circumvent policy. Rules are rules are rules. --Agamemnon2 11:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Not only is it not policy that is being "circumvented" but the zealotry of a small number of editors who clearly do not have consensus for their stance, one of the most important "rules" disagrees with your opinion that "rules are rules are rules." Atropos 20:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, and a large number of people disagree with me on the ironclad irrefutable fact that creme brulee is a superior dessert to spotted dick. Go figure. In other words, I'm sorry I wrote that in the tone I did, I'll try not to take myself so damn seriously in the future. Let's all chill out, have some pulla. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agamemnon2 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete No one likes this compromise. Atropos 20:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Clarification: I don't mean literally no one, of course, someone thinks its a good idea, but neither side of this issue is happy with the compromise at all. Atropos 20:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Finally, a reasonable delete vote. :) Phil Sandifer 23:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as above. — M o e   ε  04:17, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per ChrisDHDR. One 10:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Bad compromise. Not only does it confuse visitors and make us look silly, ironically such a page violates fair-use policy. -- Hdt 83   Chat 08:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Confusing, non-fair-use, and a "compromise" fortified by admin-only abilities, this is a bad idea both generally and as a solution to the problem. Phil, on multiple articles you've deleted history information needed for GFDL compliance, including creating the same problem twice in the same article, and now you're putting us in a position to have a fair use problem linked from the main page.  It comes down to how we deal with others' intellectual property here, and this doesn't seem to be a good way.  Unfortunately, this is more or less a bad idea that springs from good intentions.  --Ssbohio 00:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete It was a good faith idea, but it's a copyright violation. hmwith  talk  20:05, 5 September 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.