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 keep. --Core desat 03:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Galleries of money[edit]

These articles have been nominated 3 times for deletion in 2006; the previous discussion missed an important point. Unlike flags, banknotes and coins are not used to identify countries, these large gallery of fair use media are not an acceptable fair use; all of the images seem to exist in the corresponding country currency article so these are unnecessary galleries of FU material and should be deleted. Delete --Peta 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. All of the images do not exist in the corresponding country currency articles (so far, I've just checked Albania and Australia). -- Black Falcon 00:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Albania has the space in its article; but no one added the images. Australia has an article on each of its notes. --Peta 00:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - My apologies, you are right. I will make a more detailed comment upon examining the previous AfDs and WP:FUC. -- Black Falcon 01:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for reasons mentioned in the previous three AFDs. Sorry Peta, but I fail to see anything you've introduced that has changed the discussion, the images of banknotes are to identify banknotes. The subjects are the banknotes themselves, not the issuing country. Fair use rights should be asserted. hateless 00:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Explain to me how use in these galleries meets any of the WP:FUC --Peta 00:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I would suggest the burden of proof is on the accuser. Besides, ((money)) seems to indicate banknotes may or may not be copyrighted depending on the laws of the issuing state. It seems wasteful to debate the merits of the category when individual factors should be considered. hateless 00:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Can someone provide links to the previous AfD nominations? - Peregrine Fisher 00:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep all The meet all the criteria: 1/ no free equiv is likely to be available. 2/Nobody could produce a counterfeit from these thumbnails 3/Only 1 image each is used 4/ he items are published, in whatever sense it may mean for currency 5/ he info. is encyclopedic 6/there arent any medium-specific requirements 7/They are used in an article 8/ they illustrate the subject 9/ they are in article namespace 10/the items are attributed and fair used claimed. DGG 01:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and partition

First the previous nominations are

Below are all 2006-10-18

Beside the 4 points (usefulness, policy, format, cost) I gave in previous AfD, I'd like to raise some new perspective.

Partition and caption

It is work in progress, examples include Gallery of Belarusian banknotes and Gallery of Kyrgyz banknotes. They meet the requirement of gallery. And there are even templates for captioning them: Template:Numismatic banknote gallery caption and Template:Numismatic coin gallery caption. What is taking me so long? I am the only one doing it. There are duplicate images, some not exactly identical. Forking off a national gallery requires looking up data from catalog for captions. I have real life responsibility too.

Fair use

In some cases, like the Belarusian banknotes and Kyrgyz banknotes examples I just gave, the images not entitled for copyright according to their laws. Even when the image is really fair use, just refer to DGG's comment. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 01:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an extension of Banknote, per the precedent of Gallery of sovereign-state flags, the fair use rationale provided by User:DGG, and the six resaons identified by User:Chochopk. -- Black Falcon 02:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are being used to people can identify that they are real money. Is fair use since the images not not massive resolution.--Dacium 04:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Improve, don't delete. - Peregrine Fisher 04:22, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep pending green-light for fair-use image usage in this form, as per the arguments of Black Falcon and ChoChoPK. -- saberwyn 10:47, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As a numismatist myself, these articles would be very helpful in determining the country of origin of an unknown coin. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant !votes on an afd have no bering on the copyright status of an article. Once we have asertained the copyright status of the images action will be taken. you can't !vote yourself an exception to copyright.Geni 17:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Although its a little long its an important list, this could be made even better if it had a litle history and/or info about the notes for each country.Telly addict 17:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A lot of this discussion seems to be missing the point. The question raised here seems to be - is this really fair use, or is copyright being violated? They can be useful, interesting, encyclopaedic, etc., but if copyright is being violated, they need to go. No actual opinion as I'm not well-versed enough with such things to determine the status of these images. GassyGuy 19:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment With all due respect, I disagree. If fair use were the primary concern, then the choice of action would be to show the image, or to provide a text link from the gallery. This is an AfD, that means the choice of action is to delete the whole article, or to keep it (and possibly to edit it). If we really want to discuss fair use, then as I said before, some images are not even entitled for copyright according to their national laws. For other images, see DGG's comment. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 23:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Currently fine and good potential. Dfrg.msc 22:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I believe something almost identical can be created by putting the images into categories. I know I've seen categories of Fair Use images where they all show up on one page somewhere. - Peregrine Fisher 23:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep There is no policy based reason to delete this. And since when are images of federal currency from different countries copyrighted? If issues exist with a given image, nuke the image, not a set of articles. - Denny 23:37, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Us is about the only country where the goverment releases it's work into the public domain.Geni 04:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Template:PD-RO-exempt
Template:NZ-Currency
Template:PD-AM-exempt
Template:PD-KG-exempt

And more... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chochopk (talk • contribs) 05:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Keep going you've got another 61 countires yet.Geni 10:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I need to enumerate that for 61 countries? I don't. Here is a series of logical deduction on why it is not necessary, and why I gave these 4 examples

As I said before, fair use is not the primary issue here. This is an AfD, it discusses the article as a whole, not individual images.
When Denny raised the issue of copyright, and you, Geni, said the U.S. is about the only country doing so and so, the focus has already diverged from the main focus of the AfD.
Nevertheless, your statement is false regardless what the focus is. I must correct that so that other readers are well informed. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 00:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fair use is the main issue. See if the images are free this kind of thing goes to commons. 4 is a very small number of countries and in any case the NZ one at least is a no derivatives lisence (I assume it in some way comes from uk style crown copyright) which these days is an automtic delete. See the astrisked section here.Geni 04:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If fair use were the primary issue, then we should discuss the images case by case, or at least, country by country. The result would be to keep, remove the inclusion of the images, or convert to text links, like Image:Example.png. This is an AfD. Therefore, we are discussing whether to keep, or delete the entire article. Those two are different. --ChoChoPK (球球PK) (talk | contrib) 06:09, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge into banknote. Just H^{editor review} 23:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all for reasons which have already been discussed previously, I'm not sure why this needs to be challenged. (jarbarf) 00:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-Gallery meets the fair use rational. --TeckWiz ^ParlateContribs_@ 00:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all seems encyclopedic enough; if there's a copyvio suspected send it to the copyvio folks, but I assume that because WP's servers are in the US, that US fair use rules will apply and the biggest gist is whether the use if commercial or displaces the market for the original; now if all these countries started trading images of their coins and bills instead of the real ones perhaps that's an issue, but hasn't made the news that I've heard of. Carlossuarez46 06:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikimedia Commons which allows these types of galleries. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 13:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have taken the liberty to deal with the fair use photos and removed them from the galleries. Honestly, as what Messedrocker said, we can link to the Commons galleries to Wikipedia using ((Commons)). That is all these pages are, galleries. Fair use cannot be used at galleries at all and fair use cannot be sent to the Commons, so expect to have some of the images to be deleted within due course. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 03:36, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons that have been given so far. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 03:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above Jo e I 05:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think any questions of legal concerns should be referred to an attorney employed by the Wikipedia Foundation. There doesn't seem to be much question that information on the banknotes is encyclopedic, portray in galleries is just a style issue, but legal concerns are another matter, which require professional information. FrozenPurpleCube 05:19, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.