Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 June 20



Template:Adirondack

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

The result of the debate was default keep. RyanGerbil10 (One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 04:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looked awkward when used in articles. JB82c 00:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep looks very nice to me. See Railway line template. –Pomte 16:35, 24 June 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Template:Non-free Football card

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

The result of the debate was deletion. If applicable, images will also be deleted. RyanGerbil10 (One, two, Charlotte's comin' for you) 04:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Template created solely for the purpose of uploading copyrighted sports cards, which are almost always not allowed under WP:FU guidelines. Suggest delete. — cholmes75 (chit chat) 00:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Given that the cards uploaded will almost certainly be deleted for failure of WP:FU, there is no reason to keep this template. -- tennis man  03:23, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The guidelines cite "uses that would almost certainly not be fair use under the policy", and give a Barry Bonds card as an example. It seems there should be some policy regarding "old" players, for many of whom there are few extant photos, other than old sports cards.  While these cards were not "free", and have value today, the cards themselves are the property of their owners.  The copyright holders have no claim to the cards and are not economically injured or restrained by use of the card in a Wikipedia article.  On the contrary, use of the copyright owner's name in the caption or the article can be seen as a positive economic benefit to that owner. SugnuSicilianu 03:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment/Questions Although the cards themselves are property of their owners, what does this have to do with the content (i.e., the images) of the cards, which is what the copyright applies to. Furthermore, how, as you claim, do "copyright holders have no claim to the cards?" I fail to see the rationale behind that.  Please explain.   Also, you brought up the fact that the cards have value, somewhat alluding to their "freeness."  I would suggest that you look into the various meanings of "free" here: Gratis vs. Libre -Seidenstud 03:33, 22 June 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 template's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.