Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITV Idents and Presentation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Delete, unless cleaned up. While Vashti's comment below is well-reasoned, there are flaws within it. First and foremost, copyright laws of the United Kingdom are not so much a concern to the Wikimedia Foundation as are copyright laws of the United States, where most of the Wikimedia servers are hosted. Also, the non-commercial aspect of fair use is one that we should be reluctant to breach; the goal of Wikipedia is to be a free encyclopedia, and non-commercial images and articles are contrary to that goal. Finally, judging how much fair use is allowed is a tough call to make. An argument could be made that one solitary image of an ident encompasses a majority (or even 100%) of the ident's content, as frame-by-frame, little change occurs in many idents (particularly early 1950's/1960's still idents).

Because Wikiwoohoo has offered to rewrite the articles after the new year, I won't delete the articles at this time. What I'm doing instead is removing the images for the time being, until the entire article can be re-written. If it's not done within a reasonable amount of time (three weeks or so), I'll delete them entirely. Ral315 (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ITV Idents and Presentation

ITV Idents and Presentation (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I do this with a heavy heart, but these ident pages fail WP:FAIR with the large number of irrelevant images to the articles, WP:NOT#DIR and WP:NOT#IINFO. My greatest concern is with the large number of images on all of these pages, which could land Wikipedia in a lot of bother, as they are not covered by fair use. Anything that can be should be merged into the relevant channel article, but I think it is the time for all these articles to go. Wikipedia is not TV Ark or The TV Room, which I feel are more appropriate places for ident information and articles like these.

Also included for deletion within this nomination are:

  • Delete as per nom Bwithh 22:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - pretty much agree with the nominator, although maybe it's worth removing all the images, and then merging all the articles together into one single article? Jayden54 22:31, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - There are a lot of images but they should come under fair use - they're all relevant to information given on the page, they're all low-res still images and as the BBC and E4 don't sell their idents its impossible to cause them any financial loss. I disagree with the idea that there are more appropriate places for this information. This is an encylopedia of knowledge. We can't remove information from it just because people can find it somewhere else, what's the point in that? ~~ Peteb16
  • Comment - some of these images (e.g. Image:Itv-beach.jpg) are hardly low res. I have reservations as to the legality of the current use, but I am not sure on the legal standing, if anyone can confirm the legal status my vote becomes delete. However, I do think some action is needed, I cant see the point of images such as Image:ITVNC Ceased broadcasting.jpg and I think these articles in many cases would be better folded into the channel they are talking about e.g. ITV1 stuff goes to ITV1 Pit-yacker 00:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - regarding WP:FAIR policy, the articles fail section 3, 5 and 8. Clicking on some random images within the articles show that many of them lack a source and fair use rationale information required to comply with fair use polcy and law. --tgheretford (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't agree that the articles fail those sections at all. Section 3 - The pictures are there for illustrative purposes, to illustrate the idents. Are you seriously suggesting that someone might pirate a video sequence from one still of it? Would you prefer that, rather than having an image to illustrate each ident, that the articles carried descriptive paragraphs? "A picture is worth a thousand words".
Section 5 - This is a matter of opinion. Personally, I think these articles are encyclopaedic.
Section 8 - The images are not decorative - they "identify the subject of the article" in the most literal sense! The articles document the various series of idents, and as such, I feel that they make a very significant contribution to it. As for the absence of a fair use rationale on the images, that's not a reason to delete the articles, that's a reason to add the rationale to the image pages. Vashti 09:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep all as per above. I suggest that one still from each ident is far below the legal threshold for fair use - isn't it something like 4% or 10% of the total? The images illustrate the content of the articles and are not just lists of pictures, nor do they replace the channel's use of idents. There is no free alternative, the material is previously published, and I do consider these summaries to be encyclopaedic and of historical interest. Copyright law of the United Kingdom states "s29.—(1) Fair dealing with a literary, dramatic, musical … for the purposes of research for a non-commercial purpose does not infringe any copyright in the work provided it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement …" - Wikipedia is surely non-commercial research? The application of policy in the original AFD seems to be extremely peripheral, as you really have to stretch to get these pages to meet any of them. Vashti 00:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment For Wikipedians unfamiliar with British network television, since the style of a range of different striking images/animations/scenes for idents instead than one or two standard idents was pioneered by BBC 2 in the 1990s (which oddly barely gets a mention in these pages), this has been a common ident pattern for network TV channels in the UK. These ident schemes (effectively a form of advertising) can be expected to change substantially every few years. Bwithh 04:55, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Don't Delete as per Vashti's statement--David Straub 12:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Please don't delete. I diagree strongly with this nomination on the grounds that since a lot of work to include correct facts has gone on, the articles are no longer simply collections of images. The separate articles regarding BBC One idents document was has effectively become a part of British culture. To delete these would be incorrect, certainly The TV Room to name one presentation website does a similar job to the BBC television idents article, but in my opinion, the article is better; it goes into much more detail and the images help to illustrate the facts put out, rather than simply being collections of similar images. I woul very much recommend the articles are not deleted, but if necessary, the amount of images trimmed and more relevant text added. Wikiwoohoo 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
On another note, articles on the BBC channels have had ident images removed since they are explained within the BBC television idents article. Rather than delete we should pool resources to improve the articles. I've started doing my bit by adding fair use rationales to images. I don't think it's necessary to delete articles which can otherwise be improved. Wikiwoohoo 22:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep ITV Idents and Presentation, unlike the BBC ident articles the images shown are mostly captures by myself, and are not taken from other websites, so therefore are not found elsewhere on the web. On the ground of there being other sites in existences like 'The TV Room' or 'TV Ark', these sites are run by small teams or individuals and thus are not particularly frequently updated. Theses sites are also at time unstable and have long periods of downtime. Aidsoo 20:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - per nomination. --Marknew 22:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I agree with Jayden54's and Wikiwoohoo's suggestion, that maybe the articles can be merged (I would prefer into the specific channel articles, they shouldn't exceed article size recommendations). In regards to the number of images, I wish to quote (this really only applies to some of the BBC nominated articles) from Category:Images used from The TV Room and The TV Room Plus:
“ It must be made clear that permission has granted by the owner of these sites for images to be used on Wikipedia but for a limited amount to be used per article. ”
Just something to bear in mind. If something good has come out of this nom, it has got people talking and maybe the content of the articles can be kept somewhere with a minimal number of fair use images to keep within policy (in my opinion) and the GFDL which Wikipedia must adhere to. --tgheretford (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The editor of The TV Room who I contacted meant just his images when used within articles but yes, the amount of images should be trimmed. Perhaps this nomination could be postponed, at least until some changes were made to the articles? Would that be possible? Wikiwoohoo 18:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I could withdraw the nomination whilst changes are made, and have it closed as a "keep and cleanup" decision as per WP:DPR. As the above shows no-consensus in the decision (in my opinion) and as I am not an administrator, I can't close the nomination (as per Wikipedia:Deletion process#Non-administrators closing discussions), but I could work towards a compromise in a "keep and cleanup" decision and withdraw the nomination. However, I may renominate them in the future if they haven't improved, as per my nomination. I'm sure you would do a good job cleaning up the articles. --tgheretford (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
The 'keep and cleanup' decision is ideal and eventually what I was thinking. If you could do that then it would be fantastic, and I will double my efforts in improving the articles! :) Wikiwoohoo 19:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Provide a link to "The TV Room" instead. NotMuchToSay 21:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all. It's not simply a matter of station cruft, it's a matter of nice big pretty pictures cruft. Officially, of course, FAIR is breached -- although unofficially these pages look like a geocities site, not an encyclopedia. The JPStalk to me 11:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've made a start at reducing the number of images within BBC television idents and changing the layout. However, I will be away from Wikipedia over Christmas and into the new year so would it be possible to for a decision on the fate of these articles to be carried out in the new year once I am back and improvements are completed? Wikiwoohoo 20:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - sadly not. As per deletion policy and WP:GD, discussion is usually kept open for five days before being closed (unless it is closed early for a reason). --tgheretford (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and strong cleanup, these are notable enough but do need to be cleaned up badly. --///Jrothwell (talk)/// 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and strong cleanup, as per Jrothwell's statement. Television presentation should be given a mention on Wikipedia (I have edited some of the BBC articles myself), but admittedly the articles are extensive and probably do not come under "fair use". I suggest that a single page each is kept for the BBC and ITV, but with far fewer images, used as examples to illustrate rather than galleries of data. Silver Nemesis 21:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep- These pages are a form of commercial for a TV station, and are featured heavily on its respective television stations (before every broadcast). Keep all. Arbiteroftruth 23:35, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, cleanup if necessary. A lot of work has gone into these and are notable articles. It would be wrong to delete them because they're encyclopedic. Last time I checked, this was an encyclopedia. Cipher (Yell) 16:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep, improve if necessary. The current text, images and links I find quite valueable. It would be a waste to delete them. Feel free to improve them instead.
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.