Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 March 8

Image:AnonymousDemotivator.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

This image was recently retained at a result of an IFD discussion, at which there was a consensus that the image was acceptable pursuant to our fair use policy and guidelines, an outcome which there was no consensus to overturn at the previous deletion review discussion. Wasting no time, Xaosflux removed the image from Anonymous (group) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) less than an hour after the closure of the prior deletion review discussion, then deleted it scarcely one minute later as an "orphaned fair-use" image. Wikipedia operates on the basis of consensus, not unilateral deletionism. John254 22:06, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

• overturn/undelete Yeah, that's not good. Appears to be a direct attempt to get around the consensus. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. Wow... Nice to know anyone even bothered to mention this to me... </sarcasm>. Some admins I had a great deal of respect for lost a whole lot of that respect in my book today. IronGargoyle (talk) 00:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• What was done by Xaosflux was wrong. I restored the image per the Mar. 1 deletion review. If the discussion needs to be taken further, it needs to go through the proper dispute resolution process. -Nv8200p talk 01:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• I think Xaosflux was misled by a (IMO) bogus CSD tag that was placed on the image Mar. 8 and dated Mar. 3 -Nv8200p talk 05:04, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• I concur. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn the deletion by Xaoflux (which was done) and seek furthur consensus through discussion. Without commenting on the image, I am, quite frankly, disappointed by Xaoflux's conduct orphaning and immediately deleting the image after an XFD just concluded on it. It certainly didn't fall under any criteria for CSD. CSD does not trump XFD. If an XFD takes place and it is kept, then a discussion must take place to delete the image, not judgement by a single user. — Κaiba 12:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note This is not a !vote of endorsement to keep the image, but simply an overturn !vote because I believe the process which it was deleted was improper. I have no opinion on the image itself and that is why my above comment also reflects to continue discussing it until a consensus is formed. — Κaiba 15:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - in big letters: will perpetually fail WP:NFCC#10a because we can never know who holds the copyright. I seriously can't believe people want to keep images that are blatant violations of our Non-free content criteria. Will ^(talk) 15:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  Please note that the administrator who closed the prior deletion review discussion found that the image was compliant with WP:NFCC#10a:

  NFCC10a demands source and copyright holder. A source was found (seemingly midway through the debate). Please note that WP:NFCC does not require that this source be linked to. A specific description of where this source can be found in some other media may be acceptable as well (although this is not relevant as a source was found that could be linked to...again, the undercurrent and implication of where the first source for the image was, has likely colored the discussion). The copyright holder is anonymous (or Anonymous).[1]

  John254 16:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn deletion, without prejudice on whether the image should actually be retained or not. I was not aware of this review, although I have contested the deletion separately at an ANI discussion an ANI discussion (permanent link). The issue, as has been correctly observed by several editors above, is that the system should not be gamed to suppress consensus because of a single editor's agenda. Ayla (talk) 15:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and keep. After re-reading the relevant policies and discussions, I have come to agree that the WP:NFCC#10a issue is addressed by the fact that the copyright holder of the image is either Anonymous (the group) or anonymous (undisclosed). Given the nature of the group, it is more than likely that such would also be the "copyright holder" for any alternative logos. Ayla (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFCC#10a. Our non-free content criteria are not up for debate here. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹnoɟʇs(st47) 15:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment again. As I clarified on my page (to which Sceptre has decided to conspicuously ignore, uncivilly shout down opposition, and use blatantly misleading speedy deletion tags to game the system--all due to his conflict of interest), works that are explicitly created anonymously are copyrighted--this is clear to most parties I'm sure. As such, for explicitly anonymous works, that anonymous individual (or group) is explicitly the copyright holder (and we don't know who they are any better or worse than any of the many pseudonymous editors of Wikipedia). It's not that we don't know the provenance of the image (cf. some random picture without source on the internet). It was quite obviously created by a member of Anonymous. A little good faith and common sense on that point would be excellent. There's a difference between "we don't know" and "it was deliberate that we not know". If there is to be further discussion on this point, fine. I welcome it. There was no consensus in the discussion, and no irrefutable policy points, and that's why I closed it as such. The discussion was languishing for days. I wonder if it was such an open-and-shut case why no one speedy-closed it as delete before me. If there emerges a consensus that the policy points are irrefutable, then delete the image. But there needs to be a clarification in the NFCC for cases where an explicitly anyonymous copyright holder cannot be identified as the given copyright holder of a given image. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

  The point is, with Wikipedia, we can know who uploaded it (example, we can differentiate between you and I with uploads). With 4chan, you can't. Nearly everyone, especially on /b/, posts as "Anonymous". We don't know which "Anonymous" uploaded it, whether it was 123.45.67.89 or 98.76.124.3. Will ^(talk) 17:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn and relist - who owns the copyright is unclear, and I'm still not convinced this is a logo. Addhoc (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn this is abserd, and at least the 5th dispute I have seen that is WP:GAME against the Anonymous/Project C (I really can't spell it) that has occured since the wiki creation...Involving editors whos interests in the project are apperant disruption of the articles themselves and a complete contempt of consesus. it also is in direct conflict with the spirit of the rules that are beeing quoted. The Non-Free image rules are created to keep from stealing someones work without giving them credit. If it is imposable to find a spicific individual, and no one will be able to validly claim that it is her/his work, no one has any actual claim on the image (orgonizational or otherwise)...?!?Coffeepusher (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Irrelevant. The image has no copyright source given, and will be eligible for WP:CSD#I4 in a week. What? Apparently some administrator unfamiliar with our image copyright policies closed an IfD for this image as no consensus, making it ineligible for speedy. In that case, delete. There is no copyright source given, plain and simple. "It can be obtained from Anonymous" does not a copyright source make. I can "obtain" pictures from Flikr, but that doesn't make Flikr the copyright holder. It is impossible to identify the copyright holder for this image. Administrators should familiarize themselves with our most basic image use guidelines before closing discussions at IfD. ➪HiDrNick! 17:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
  • **Cough** I hardly think that Nv8200p would qualify as unexperienced when it comes to image guidelines. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: No. The IfD was closed as keep; the review was closed as no consensus. Given the discussion at the image talk page, I believe HiDrNick was addressing the "inexperienced admin" comment at you, IronGargoyle. Just to clarify. Ayla (talk) 18:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Yep, I know perfectly well who he was addressing it to. But if hasty comments with mistakes illustrate that the commenters have failed to examine all the facts and discussion in the case (including my expanded reasoning above), well then that says something about the arguments. I read and re-read the DRV, IfD, and NFCC 10a before closing the discussion, and I stand by my interpretation. IronGargoyle (talk) 18:11, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Well if people are calling IG an inexperienced admin... I mean, just wow. I don't know what to say about that. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
        • I thought the same thing, especially since I'd seen this closure. But, considering that an editor on this thread suggested that Shii should have been banned, I'm not being surprised anymore. Ayla (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
          • First off, I did not say anything about an "inexperienced admin" that people keep brandishing about in quotation marks, so please don't misquote me. I said the closers involved to date were "unfamiliar with our image copyright policies", which a statement I can stand behind given that this image hasn't been deleted already for lacking a source. The basis of confusion here seems to be the idea that "The copyright holder is anonymous (or Anonymous)". This is bogus. Some person, somewhere created this image. It has a copyright and we cannot reproduce it freely. No one is making PD claims here. We do not host unfree images unless we identify the copyright holder on the image description page. Plain and simple. Anonymous (the group) does not hold copyright to the image, the copyright is held by the person who created the image. It's unclear that it's even possible for a nebulous group of people to hold the copyright of image at all; even still, in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary, we have to assume that the copyright to the image is owned by its creator, who cannot possibibly be identified. This is like trying to find the copyright owner of "mustard man" or "special olympics kid running" type images. It's just some crap that someone posted to a forum somewhere, and unless you yourself made the image and can prove it, you shouldn't be uploading it to Wikipedia. The image source (where you found the image) and the image copyright holder (who owns the copyright to the image) are sometimes different things, which is why we have different CSD templates to identify the problems. Until someone identifies the copyright source of this image it cannot be used under our WP:NFCC. ➪HiDrNick! 21:30, 9 March 2008

If the claim that we must identify the copyright holder of all fair use images by his/her real name were actually true, then we would need to delete Image:Anonymous Scientology 9 by David Shankbone.JPG as a non-free content policy violation as well, because it depicts copyrighted posters created by unidentifiable protesters -- indeed the policy violation would be made even more egregious by the fact that David Shankbone has uploaded the image under the GFDL despite the fact that it contains fair use components. For that matter, we would need to delete Image:Nice body art.jpg, because we cannot identify the artist who applied the paint to the model. Extensive wikilawyering over our non-free content policy is likely to lead to highly objectionable fair use enforcement that many contributors will find worthy of the shortcut WP:FU. Instead, I suggest that we recognize that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy:

Wikipedia is not a moot court, and rules are not the purpose of the community. Instruction creep should be avoided. A perceived procedural error made in posting anything, such as an idea or nomination, is not grounds for invalidating that post. Follow the spirit, not the letter, of any rules, policies and guidelines if you feel they conflict. If the rules prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, you should ignore them. Disagreements should be resolved through consensus-based discussion, rather than through tightly sticking to rules and procedures.

John254 22:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The problem, of course, with the unilateral deletion of this image is not so much that it was procedurally bad, as that it was done in blatant disregard for consensus. After the image was retained as a result of an IFD discussion and the prior deletion review, to unilaterally seek the speedy deletion of the image without so much as notifying IronGargoyle, the administrator who closed the prior DRV discussion, is downright insulting to IronGargoyle, and, more generally, to the community as a whole, whose wishes were thwarted. John254 22:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Well said, John254, I agree perfectly. Ayla (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete unless clear, unambiguous information on the source and license can be found, which I seriously doubt it will be. This is a free-content encyclopedia. krimpet✽ 17:34, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[2] is the source of the image. While the image is not freely licensed, the argument that the image must therefore be deleted to protect Wikipedia's status as a free-content encyclopedia proves too much: the deletion of any fair use image could be justified on these grounds, as fair use images are, by definition, not licensed for Wikipedia's use. Since, per our current fair use policy and guidelines, at least some fair use images are acceptable, the proper response to a disagreement with all fair use images would be to discuss an amendment to the policy, not to seek to delete any fair use image which lacks "clear, unambiguous information on the... license". John254 21:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reason I stated in the first IfD, which was improperly closed. No obtainable copyright source. HiDrNick pretty well explains it. Lara❤Love 17:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the source of this image is [3]. John254 21:09, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Amended to copyright source. Lara❤Love 05:26, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NFCC criteria 1 (if it illustrates a concept related to the group and not a logo, a free equivelent may be produced), criteria 8 (the image does not add significanty to the article, promotional material of this sort doesn't really help the reader understand the group), criteria 10a (no source is given and the source is not likely to be found), criteria 4 (no evidence that the image has been legally published outside of Wikipedia). Guest9999 (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The image is irreplaceable, as it is necessary to describe the type of propaganda employed by Anonymous. To quote from the image caption, the image depicts

A satirical motivational poster, displaying a tagline highlighting the pervasive black comedy of the Anonymous subculture:
"Anonymous: Because none of us are as cruel as all of us".

Any free alternative produced by Wikipedia contributors in an attempt to represent this phenomenon would necessarily be inauthentic. Furthermore, [4] provides evidence of both legal publication outside of Wikipedia and of the source of the image. John254 21:33, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Explain how it passes criteria 4 and 10a, then. Will ^(talk) 23:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Asked and answered -- please see my comments above. John254 00:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Keep. This demotivator pretty much perfectly describes the personality of the *chan boards.Stormfin (talk) 23:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: This shows the massive gaping flaw in Wikipedia policy. This is an image produced by a loose group that falls under the vague ideology of anonymous. Anything produced by this community will and indeed is expected to be edited, changed, saved and redistributed. To me, this is obviously the same as having no copyright license attached. Of course, to the blinkered view fostered by WP Policy 'it *must* have a copyright. Which it doesn't. So we end up here. Again and again and again.

The online world plays by a different set of rules to the real one, and if Wikipedia doesn't realise this soon then it might as well give up covering online communities and websites.

• My vote would be KEEP. It is a fairly used image with NO copyright conditions reasonably attatched to it, reasonably used for the illustration of the group in question. 82.32.195.193 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  No it's according to the law that work has automatic copyright protection, without the need for copyright notices or such like. Perhaps you'd like to get copyright law changed to suit your view of the way the world should be. --81.104.39.63 (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:NFCC#10a - the copyright holder cannot be identified. WP:NFCC isn't randomly optional for some images, and as the creator of the image cannot be identified, it doesn't matter what it's of. Ale_Jrb^talk 07:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and keep This image is irreplacable and fair use, as per John254, IronGargoyle's comments in the previous DRV closure, and my comments in the IfD and previous DRV. The community has spoken - twice - and this bureaucratic silliness needs to stop here. Z00r (talk) 07:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn; from what I've been reading on this whole situation the deletion was out-of-process. Note that I am not going to say anything about the picture's viability as 4chan and I are antagonistic towards each other on Wikipedia (largely due to SIHULM). At the very least Relist the IfD or reinstate any applicable CSD tags if necessary on the slim chance that someone can trace the creator, then delete it after those criterion if a source has not been found. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v :L5 Tediz Strong)} 07:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and whack those who think we need the real name of the creator with a trout. Pen names, stage names and art-names are perfectly acceptable for identifying copyright holders. In fact, many artists use them precisely because they do not want their real name identified or associated with the work in question. GRBerry 16:45, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  Exactly what I was trying to explain in my close. Thank you. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  I never said we needed the real name of the creator, we need to be able to identify the creator. For example, if I uploaded a wholly new picture, and released it under the GFDL, "Sceptre on en.wikipedia.org" would be enough for attribution. But you can't say "Anonymous on 4chan", because 99% of posters there are anonymous. If you can show the precise post where the author says "I created this image to represent us" (not any upload, but the first one - the "fucking peppers" and "longcat fight" ones normally get a few uploads per week), then that's enough for the "copyright holder" portion of 10a. That's the problem with memes - it's very hard to see where they started. Will ^(talk) 17:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  You actually said "because we can never know who holds the copyright" [emphasis in original]. That is a demand to know the real name. GRBerry 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  /b/ has a record of over 100,000 per day. There is at least 50,000,000 posts to sort through to find that image. If you checked two images per second, with no breaks, it would take a person eleven months to find the source. That's without factoring in bandwidth costs, electricity costs, and the possibility it was originally posted on 7chan. I'm pretty sure that falls in the region of "never". Will ^(talk) 17:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  You're right. Most of the stuff on 4chan falls under the "we don't know" type of anonymity. The present case, however, is the more deliberate type of "we were meant not to know" anonymity. Common sense says that it was made by a deliberately anonymous member of the group. Akin to the stage name that GRBerry refers to. IronGargoyle (talk) 21:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  It is not uncommon for a single pseudonym to be used by many different authors. For example, the federalist papers were written by several authors all under the pseudonym publius. Z00r (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  Excellent point. If we delete this because the exact author cannot be found, we would be obliged to delete a lot of important material released under art names, pen names, etc. Such a massive project of deletion would damage WP considerably. Z00r (talk) 19:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've been trying to stay away from this, not wanting drama, but here's my $0.02 on it. I ran in to this on CSD for the first time ever, and agreed that it should be speedily deleted. Not wanting to leave a redlink, I cleaned it out of the article, with editorial comments that I didn't think it really belonged there at all. After that, I deleted it, noting that it was an orphan because I cleaned it up; the CSD I used was fair-use vio. I did notice that there was a talk page, and noted the deletion reason on it at that time [5]. I do NOT in any way contest the reversal of my speedy, and had there been any sort of {{Oldifdfull}} tag on the talk page, would have delisted the CSD and referred the nominator to other channels, or more likely skipped it. As far as a DRV !vote goes, relist, but for those that are inclined to use DRV as IFD2, then delete (This group doesn't appear to have an official organization, much less an official logo, and if they do then the group should be asserting the copyright status of their work (the logo).) — xaosflux ^Talk 01:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  Clarification requested: You mention the lack of "officialness" as a reason for deletion. Are you saying this in terms of fair use considerations, or in terms of importance to the article? Thanks. Z00r (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  Some of both, the group does not appear to be organized in such a manner as to have selected any logo, if the logo is the work of the group and/or licensed to the group then they should be able to assert the copyright status of it. You can't just take someone else's copyrighted work, use it as the logo for your entity and assert fair use. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

  The fair use status of the image is a complicated issue since this is such an unusual situation. However, the importance to the article is straightforward. Anonymous underwent considerable demographic changes during Project Chanology - a substantial portion of the Chanology Anonymous protesters were not associated with Anonymous before Chanology started, and probably won't be involved after Chanology ends. They only joined to protest Scientology and don't represent the general Anonymous group. This is one of the main reasons why a separate article was created for Anonymous (group) instead of making it a subsection in the Project Chanology article. To use images of Chanology protesters in place of this image would severely misrepresent the group. Specifically, Anonymous has a history and culture of black humor, and those who have watched Anonymous evolve over the years agree that this image nearly perfectly represents the "spirit" of the original group. That is why this image is so closely associated with Anonymous, both by outsiders and within the group itself. This image is used by members of Anonymous to identify the group in a wide variety of settings including posters, fliers, picket signs, forums, and so forth. While the "officialness" of the logo is intentionally unknowable, it is their de facto flag/banner/logo, as judged by how much it is used, and the way in which it is used. Taking all of this into account, it is difficult to see how an article could accurately represent Anonymous without including the image. Z00r (talk) 11:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You forgot to mention how often it is used in videos. Some examples: [6] (Chanology related) [7] (Non-chanology related). Also, this is further used in websites.--Cast (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep/overturn deletion. Valid fair use - the source is clearly "Anonymous (group)". Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

  Since when is an anonymous "cultural phenomenon" (pro-article-ers' words, not mine) a source? Will ^(talk) 15:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I'm detecting a bit of cherry picking in terms of how you describe the group. I have also referred to Anonymous as a cultural phenomenon, but I also recognize that is partially that and partially a subculture, a tactic, and a group, depending on context. In the case of who could be a source and copyright holder for this logo, it is clearly referring to Anonymous as a group. You have yourself long referred to them as a group (of "17 year old virgins", was it?) so why are you changing your tune now?--Cast (talk) 01:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

That's the point I'm trying to make. "Not a group" was used to get the article kept, but the opposite is being used to get the image kept. You can only have one of the other. Will ^(talk) 09:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Except it's obvious that's the point your making, and I was myself pointing out the fallacy of it. You can have it both ways, and given the nature of the group/culture/social phenomenon, you should. Anonymous is a lot more nuanced than you're giving it credit. A website created by Anonymous has recently been made, in which is noted a description of what Anonymous is, listing at least two of several of the descriptions I've been applying to it. "Anonymous is a cultural phenomenon which began on internet image boards. [...] We are a collection of individuals united by ideas" – Anonymous, Who is Anonymous? whyweprotest.net

Note the added emphasis. Anonymous itself recognizes the multiple aspects of its existence. Yes, this is a group, yes, this is a logo for this group, and yes, this is also a cultural phenomenon on the internet which has created its own subculture within a greater internet culture.--Cast (talk) 02:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: If the closure is no consensus, please specify whether the image may be tagged for speedy deletion (again) in consideration of this image talk page discussion. Thanks. Ayla (talk) 15:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep is my vote; this image is quite famous, I suppose, it's been widely used on the web in reference to Anonymous and their recent anti-CoS protests; so, whether or not the author is known, I believe it falls in the range of fair use, since it is used for informative purposes only. -- Stormwatch (talk) 00:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Suggestion: How about replacing the image with the new logo from the Insurgency Wiki? The Insurgency Wiki releases all content under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0, which is still considered as a non-free license on Wikipedia. However, since the image is explicitly marked as a logo, it would qualify as fair use per WP:LOGO and, additionally, as an image with iconic status (consider its pervasion on several Anon wikis and press coverages). Opinions? Ayla (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how reliable that information can be when taking into considerion that their main page symbol is a copyrighted pokemon character. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 17:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding, it still qualifies as fair use under WP:LOGO. Several other wikis (for example, Anonymous Lobby Against Scientology Campaign and Anonymous Toronto) use the said image as the official site logo. Ayla (talk) 18:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Forget it, the proposed new image would still be susceptible to the opposition given in this review. Ayla (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Overturn. This was way out of line, and GRBerry is absolutely right in his comments above. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:26, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep/Overturn Deletion. Fair Use must not be erroded. Someone owns the copyright, but that doesn't matter. Fair use exists, and this is CLEARLY an example of fair use. Pro-Copyright Extremists would have us believe that anything copyrighted is unusable. This simply isn't true. Fieari (talk) 03:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Who's the "someone", then? The NFCC makes it clear s/he needs to be identified (as I've said, a link to the original post in 4chan's archives will suffice) Will ^(talk) 09:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Did it occur to you that the group is named "Anonymous" for a reason? There are compelling arguments to believe that the creator intentionally made it impossible for himself/herself to be ever identified. Ayla (talk) 11:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Again, find the original post and I'm okay with using that as a copyright source. Will ^(talk) 12:17, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  WP:NFCC#10a does not demand the original post, only the copyright holder. The original post, even if found, would serve no purpose in identifying the copyright holder since posts are made anonymously, not pseudonymously; thus, the poster has no "identity" beyond that single post. Ayla (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

  Exactly... If you go by the logic of needing to find the "original" post to satisfy NFCC 10a, you'd need to find the first McDonalds ad from 1940 to use their logo as fair use. IronGargoyle (talk) 17:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep as per above and fair-use rationale. The Myotis (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
• Overturn and list at XfD. I believe it is replaceable, since the anon suit symbol isn't actually standardized, it's just a general concept. However, since so many people feel that it isn't replaceable, while I disagree with them, that's a situation that should be handled in an XfD. We do so because there might be things we haven't considered, or heck, I might be wrong in my own evaluation completely (thought I highly doubt it). -- Ned Scott 08:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• And a free-license replica would be "authentic", too. There's more /b/tards around Wikipedia than you might think ;) -- Ned Scott 08:36, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• On second thought, I'll just change to neutral for now. Policy is pretty clear about having a source and about stating who owns the copyright. Then again, it's likely that we will have (and might already have) images from unknown sources that are notable in themselves, that would justify a fair-use claim. I wouldn't call this close incorrect, in that case, but I would still recommend another IfD. -- Ned Scott 08:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• Any free-license replica created by a /b/tard would quite likely be posted anonymously, leaving us in the same situation. "Policy is pretty clear about having a source and about stating who owns the copyright": Do you mean that works intentionally posted anonymously can never be used? Ayla (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• If the author chooses to contribute the image under a free licensee, but does not wish to identify themselves, they are able to do so. We've been doing this for text contributions for years. However, my point was that a Wikipedian could make the image, since a good number of us are also "anonymous" (zomg, broke rules 1 and 2). -- Ned Scott 05:43, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• A simple retracing would not constitute a new copyright, as discussed here: Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images, so such a work would face the same challenges as the current image. Z00r (talk) 07:04, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• A good thing I didn't suggest that. Obviously, the image would be different, but contain the typical suit/mannequin/no-image-available theme. This particular suit is no more an icon/logo for anonymous than the thousands of other suit icons that have been posted in the past. -- Ned Scott 09:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think that is true. The current suit is pretty distinctive and widely used in its particular form. Also, if one of us made it, then it would be inauthentic. It would be just something that a random wikipedian made up, as opposed to the actual logo being used. Z00r (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• It's one of many images used. None of them are official or really a "logo" for anonymous. All that is important is the basic theme. -- Ned Scott 10:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

• Keep, fair use rationale. --Sjappé (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep per aboves and fair use rationale. Spencer^T♦C 18:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I would submit that the majority of images on Wikipedia which list a copyright holder and permission to use it have never been scrutinized. Only in the case of a copyright holder stepping up and claiming violation would eyes turn to it. Therefore could not any anonymous person, such as myself, step up and state, "I created this. I give full permission to do so." As for the claim that the image is not related to understanding the story, that's near patent nonsense. 71.110.137.60 (talk) 20:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that someone isn't going to call us out on their copyright violation doesn't make something ok. Furthermore, the point of our strict copyright policy isn't due to concern about copyright infringements as much as it is because we want the end result to be as free-use as possible. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Working Class Rock Star (film) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (restore|cache|AfD)

Listed on official wire services - Yahoo!, New York Times, Variety, Fancast - links available - http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/452606/Working-Class-Rock-Star/overview, http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=chart_film_prod_d&dept=Film&recordid=1117786664, http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1809990129/info, http://www.fancast.com/movies/Working-Class-Rock-Star/141279/main, trailer/one sheet available on homepage - www.workingclassrockstar.com clearly prove existence - release date pending, but in 2008 Unstableground 18:20, 8 March 2008

• Pretty old debate here. And the AfD allows for recreation if it now meets WP:N standards. From what the links above, it looks like there's plenty to show notability. Endorse deletion, since the previous version is a year old and was crystal ballery, but feel free to create a new one. If an admin speedies it under WP:CSD#G4, then it'd be a good idea to bring it back here. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 00:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion. Write a new article using the new sources (nothing is stopping you) and history can be restored. --Dhartung | Talk 03:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)