The policy states "where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted" yet when it comes to nominating a file "it may be" is sufficient to delete an image to "I have a reason to believe its not free because....." there should more onus on the nominator at the very least show that there is a reason for doubt
We already have this principle with URAA nominated images "
Files nominated for deletion due to the URAA should be evaluated carefully, as should be their copyright status under US and local laws. A mere allegation that the URAA applies to a file cannot be the sole reason for deletion. If the end result of copyright evaluation is that there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file under US or local law, the file must be deleted in line with the precautionary principle."
I think a change from the current- Also, arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims:
to
- A mere allegation that the precautionary principle applies is insufficient, likewise arguments that amount to "we can get away with it", such as the following, are against Commons' aims:
--