Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ritchie.pdf
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.
This file was initially tagged by Jcb as no source (No source since) Sanandros (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Why does this file need a source?--Sanandros (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Every file needs to be correctly sourced. This file also does have some other problems. In the first place the license does not apply. This is not a federal government work. So file could be tagged as 'missing permission' as well. Also this file seems out of scope. Jcb (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Keep@Jcb: What are you talking about? It is a document of the US Court system, and is the finding of facts of the judge (ipso facto "work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties") It should be bleeding obvious how to document the work, and these sorts of works should never end up here in these circumstances. Re scope ... ummm, many works of the US court system are here and utilised at both enWP and enWS, maybe a reappraisal of that statement. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- The "source" would be the court it self, it may be not PD-USGov but defently PD-verdict. And I think the Ritchie case is within scope because the gouverment for the first time admits it was using drugs and other wikis could quote out of the case.--Sanandros (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Feel free to correct the license if you can find a valid one. The current license clearly states: "This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision." - so at the moment the file has no valid license, which is a demanding deletion reason. Jcb (talk) 15:31, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- The "source" would be the court it self, it may be not PD-USGov but defently PD-verdict. And I think the Ritchie case is within scope because the gouverment for the first time admits it was using drugs and other wikis could quote out of the case.--Sanandros (talk) 23:07, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
- Every file needs to be correctly sourced. This file also does have some other problems. In the first place the license does not apply. This is not a federal government work. So file could be tagged as 'missing permission' as well. Also this file seems out of scope. Jcb (talk) 22:36, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
Comment - Wouldn't this file be better moved to wikisource? It's not a "media file" in the sense normally used by Commons. (Besides that, United States district courts are federal entities, so that {{PD-US-Gov}} seems quite appropriate.) --Latebird (talk) 20:37, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
- The license was changed and the current license seems fine. But IMHO it's still out of Commons scope. Jcb (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Deleted: I see no reason why we should be keeping decisions of US courts -- they are easily available from other sources. . Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)