Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 July 31

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 July 31)
< July 30 August 1 >

July 31 edit

Image:SED.jpg edit

Image:SED.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kwertii (notify | contribs).

Image:RVlake-small.JPG edit

Image:RVlake-small.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Seth Ilys (notify | contribs).
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was 

- Delete - While it is certainly PD if before 1923 (and possibly after that if the copyright not renewed) it is clear from the below that there is no evidence that this is prior to 1923. Some good research but consensus seems that we cannot prove this as PD with the current information, with any degree of confidence - Peripitus (Talk) 12:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NormaTalmadge publicity picture.jpg edit

Image:NormaTalmadge publicity picture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:NormaTalmadge publicity picture.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).
  • No evidence of publication date, too hard to judge from her appearance whether this is pre-1923. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
True, but could it meet fair use criteria? --Ipoellet (talk) 14:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, because we have plenty of free images of her (see gallery on commons). Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read through the research done below that shows this image is most likely PD? S. Dean Jameson 20:47, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I don't think it establishes the copyright status with sufficient firmness. We have many images of Norma Talmadge that we know are free, so it doesn't make sense to keep this unsourced image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I disagree that we don't have "sufficient firmness" about copyright status (based upon my extensive research into it), but I understand your point. S. Dean Jameson 21:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It appears from this that the image is from a postcard. That Flickr image is "all rights reserved", but that doesn't matter, if the underlying image is PD. I'd say then that we hold off on deleting until we can determine the date on the image. S. Dean Jameson 18:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • From this, it appears that the photographer G.L. Manuel (listed in the lower left corner of the Flickr image linked above) was active from ~1920-1935. So there's perhaps more of a chance that this isn't PD than that it is. S. Dean Jameson 18:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still looking into this. Further investigation reveals that the photographer was chiefly active from 1911-1931(5?), per this from the Harvard University library. S. Dean Jameson 18:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've looked into this all I can, and I have to conclude this is slightly more likely to be in the public domain than not to be, based upon the photographs from this Stanford University page, and the auxillary pages that go with it. If I had to guess, I'd say it's from the late-10s ore early 20s), as this was the height of her fame as a silent talk star, and when she would have been most likely to be featured on postcards such as the one from which this image originated. Thus, I say we tentatively keep this image, unless it's definitively found that it was taken after 1923. S. Dean Jameson 18:37, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I also base this opinion on the fact that the postcards released while she was with UA have a small "United Artists" imprint in the lower right corner. This one does not. She went to UA sometime after 1924, so that also lends further credence to my deduction that it was probably late teens early 20s. S. Dean Jameson 18:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is highly likely this publicity shot of Norma Talmadge was taken (and published) when she was in her twenties, i.e., before 1923. Manuel would have taken this prior to her move to Hollywood in 1922.JGHowes talk - 19:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The point about the move to Hollywood is a good one, and something that hadn't occurred to me. It definitely adds more weight to my research. S. Dean Jameson 19:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How do you know Manuel took this before she moved to Hollywood? Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:03, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. S. Dean Jameson has done some really good investigative work here - I'm impressed. That said, the Wikipedia image use policy requires to prove that an image is in the public domain to use it, not just be pretty sure. Since we don't know it's PD, I suggest we console ourselves with Calliopejen1's point that there already are a nice number of free images of Ms. Talmadge available. --Ipoellet (talk) 06:20, 5 August 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Hannah.JPG edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep 

—Wknight94 (talk) 02:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Hannah.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Azrael disorder (notify | contribs).
  • Unused, unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think that perhaps this should be speedy kept/withdrawn? I've reworked the article, and added this image to it. S. Dean Jameson 13:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for clarifying this, but do we have enough information about the copyright status? Is it plausible to assume that the uploader is the copyright holder? If, as you say in the article, the photo was taken "during an interview", the copyright holder would most likely be the media publisher for which the interview was made, wouldn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I deduced that from the tape recorder sitting there, which probably violates WP:OR. As for the provenance of the photograph, I think that based upon the quality of it, it looks like it is likely a good-faith upload. It seems to be the type of picture one might snap at a cattle call interview session when you realize, "What the hell?!? That's HANNAH TAN!" What's your take on it? S. Dean Jameson 17:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Judging from quality and composition, likely to have been taken by uploader. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Appears to be a genuine upload with no evidence of a copyvio. — BQZip01 — talk 02:09, 7 August 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Hayleys house! 013.jpg edit

Image:Hayleys house! 013.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rahh cookie monster (notify | contribs).
  • Unused, unencyclopedic. —Bkell (talk) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SFU-ID-picture-01.jpg edit

Image:SFU-ID-picture-01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hose11 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 17:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SGGW_Wikipedia.jpg edit

Image:SGGW_Wikipedia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sggw (notify | contribs).
  • Old uploaded scan of a document; Orphaned; It maybe Unencyclopedic. OsamaK 17:51, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SH2.jpg edit

Image:SH2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shakim (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 17:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SHAHIN_2007.jpg edit

Image:SHAHIN_2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Majafor (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 18:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SGPandalai.jpg edit

Image:SGPandalai.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ram25 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 18:01, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SHAKEEB_SHUWEB.JPG edit

Image:SHAKEEB_SHUWEB.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shakeeb_shuweb (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 18:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SGD.jpg edit

Image:SGD.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Champino (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned; Looks like a personal image. OsamaK 18:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SGA_2007-2008_Board_Members.jpg edit

Image:SGA_2007-2008_Board_Members.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NSDahl92 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 18:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SItting,_sepia.JPG edit

Image:SItting,_sepia.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Harryhall (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 18:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SJAY.jpg edit

Image:SJAY.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rajiv.journalist (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned personal image. OsamaK 18:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ruprecht.jpg edit

Image:Ruprecht.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cfrobel (notify | contribs).

Image:Minsk-Crest.png edit

Image:Minsk-Crest.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alex756 (notify | contribs).

Image:SGA-Governor_painted.JPG edit

Image:SGA-Governor_painted.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sirkevinalot (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned; Low quality; Unencyclopedic personal image. OsamaK 18:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SGI_emblem.jpg edit

Image:SGI_emblem.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andrew_Kidman (notify | contribs).

Image:Poland-dioceses.jpg edit

Image:Poland-dioceses.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kpalion (notify | contribs).

Image:Maung_Aye_001.gif edit

Image:Maung_Aye_001.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kwantonge (notify | contribs).
  • No descriptio nand useless in current state. Possibly a copyright violation. Uploader has extensive copyright violations. Rettetast (talk) 20:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was 

- Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 12:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg edit

Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rlevse (notify | contribs).
  • A generic group photograph of a children's band does not count as a "unique historic image" (that tag is only for images like Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima). The specific event in question here (a children's group posing for a photoshot) is trivial and obviously not a subject of encyclopedic discussion; the photograph as such isn't either (of course); nothing in the article requires this image to be understood. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:08, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep This is a unique and rare photo of Japanese-American Scouts in the internment camps during WWII--such as Manzanar and Granada War Relocation Center. It depicts their life inside the camps and loyalty to America. It is in an article on the camp this photo was taken in. It does not fail NFCC#8 as it is a unique, rare, and significant representation of the personal and cultural life of the detainees. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, as this was taken in WWII and in the USA images from 1923 through 1977, published without a copyright notice are in the public domain, it may be PD. I've contacted the state of Colorado about this. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. NFCC#8 is very nebulous, and a terrible reason for trying to delete such an interesting and historic image. I'm not sure how to interpret "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding", but I know we shouldn't be trying to delete images based solely on one editor's interpretation of that rationale. S. Dean Jameson 22:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • With only the information currently available, this image fails our requirement that the copyright holder be attributed - we have no idea where this image came from. I suggest deferring a decision until Rlevse hears back from Colorado on an actual source for the image. --B (talk) 02:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to [1], "these photographs were kindly donated to the Colorado State Archives by the Denver Central Optimists Club". That means they were probably in the private possession of that club and not published at the time of their creation. PD would be unlikely in that case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:41, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above reasons, and to stick it to the deletionists on general principle. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "and to stick it to the deletionists on general principle" is not something I can find in our non-free content policy. --B (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as {{Non-free historic image}}. The subject of life inside Japanese-American internment camps during WWII is one of intense historic interest in the U.S. in recent years. This image provides a unique insight for the encyclopedia reader interested in the topic to scrutinize the group's facial expressions and mood, uniforming, and display of patriotism during a period of overt discrimination far more effectively than mere prose alone could convey. JGHowes talk - 19:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As long as those visual details are not analysed in the article, there's nothing demonstrating that they are significant. Groups of pre-teenage boys usually make funny faces when photographed. So, that's an historically significant detail here? You'll need a better explanation. All the rest (uniforms, "display of patriotism" - I suppose you mean the flag in the background - et cetera) can all obviously be covered by text. "Mere prose can't convey it" is, in 95% of all cases, just a cheap excuse for lazy writing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      There's really no need to be snarky. He expressed his view that mere text can't replace the image, which clearly disagrees with your view. Disagreeing with your take on the image doesn't make Howes wrong. Nor does it give you the right to insult people who use that rationale. S. Dean Jameson 20:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've done some work on improving the article, including referring to the photograph directly, sectioning it for readability, and moving the photograph to a point where its contents are mentioned in the text. This should be more than enough to satisfy any lingering NFCC concerns. S. Dean Jameson 20:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice work, but merely mentioning an image is not the same as discussing and analysing it. You still have to answer: What visual information in the image is necessary for understanding the rest of the article, over and above the textual information that "there was a boy scouts group and they had a band"? NFCC #1 is very explicit in demanding that text-alone coverage needs to be seriously examined as an alternative. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I didn't think it would be enough, but at least I tried to meet you halfway. S. Dean Jameson 21:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I've added explicit analysis of the image to the article. That should be enough, I would think. S. Dean Jameson 21:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it wasn't for the unfortunate fact that the analysis is OR... and that the text (if it's accepted as legitimate) indeed makes the image unnecessary, because it adequately describes the relevant fact in a way that is quite easy to understand without the image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          I'm finished discussing this. You've set up a "heads you win, tells I lose" scenario, and I just don't wish to play that game. I've been trying to improve the article, and find an acceptable way for you to have it included. You're making it abundantly clear you're not interested in that. Regards, S. Dean Jameson 21:13, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • "That game" is called NFCC. That's how it works, sorry. The solution would have been a text that contains sourced, non-trivial discussion of some visual aspect of the image, making clear that the visual information is interesting and important, but where the visual information is still so complex that the text, while referring to it, can't capture it in full. It doesn't work here because the image just doesn't contain such information. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:23, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, you're playing a game whereby no one could possibly satisfy your interpretation of that NFCC language. Others disagree with your interpretation, which is why this image is on its way to being kept. S. Dean Jameson 21:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've improved the article (and image placement) further. I've removed what FPaS was concerned about regarding WP:OR, and tried to word it in a way that a reasonable person would find that it satisfies NFCC. S. Dean Jameson 21:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect's attitude is really going downhill. These snarky condescending comments need to stop now. Sumoeagle179 (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The argument that this image violates NFCC#8 is dubious at best. The issue of life inside the internment camps is a critical part of the story of Japanese Americans during WW2. This picture does an excellent job of conveying the effort at normality made by the internees - if you think about the context, its very pedestrianness is what makes this picture striking. It is germane to the article, significantly enhances it, and would be a loss to readers if it weren't there. This is all that NFCC#8 requires, not that the article include sourced commentary about that specific photograph. However, I am satisfied that this picture probably isn't PD, so the PD tag needs to be changed and a FUR added. ==Ipoellet (talk) 05:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Historical, irreplaceable, conveys important information. I think this is a very good use of fair use. The fact that an American flag is in the backgrounds shows that it is indeed illustrating the text of the article in a very important way. Chillum 13:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that we don't know what that "very important way" is. Really, what does the American flag mean? Who put it there? Who made the boys pose in front of it? Did they often do it, or only once? Did they love that flag, or did they hate it? We don't know. Do their faces tell us something about it, as somebody else implied? Maybe, maybe not. We couldn't even start discussing these things without engaging in wildly speculative WP:OR. If we can't say these things without committing OR, we can't invoke an alleged need to show them as a rationale for using the image either. The only responsible sourced statement we can make is still: there was a scouting group with a band. The image either just replicates this simple statement, in which case it's useless and replaceable; or it serves to carry some unsourced insinuation over and above this simple statement, in which case it is actively harmful. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:23, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nom would have us believe this is simply a photo of some children's band, like the kind I could take by heading down the street later today. So I was surprised to see by looking at the image that it is indeed a unique, historic image. The nominator also seems to have some WP:OWN issues in this discussion. There is no need to respond to every single point if you have nothing new to add. --C S (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We could replace this with one of many similar free images, e.g. junior high art class, dry goods store, family in barracks, boy scout memorial day parade (all PD-USGov). This specific image is not necessary to understand what everyday life was like in the camps. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was 

- Keep - some of the NFCC#8 issue has been decided with at least a marginal commentary on the photo in the article. Whether or not this meets the entire of the requirements is at issue here. Consensus below is that the image does, whether measured by rough consensus or a nose count. To those getting rather wound up below on the status of this image...I suggest good coffee for the young, Glenfiddich for the not. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png edit

Image:CrystalCityGirlScoutsDrama.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 718 Bot (notify | contribs).
  • Image of a children's theatre performance in 1943, claimed as "unique historic photograph". The event depicted is non-notable and not the object of encyclopedic discussion in the article; neither is the photograph as such. The article for which it is claimed (Girl Scouts of the USA) doesn't mention either the event nor the photograph; nothing in the article requires the image to be understood. Purely decorative, fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:20, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a unique and rare photo of Japanese-American Scouts in the internment camps during WWII--such as Manzanar and Granada War Relocation Center. It depicts their life inside the camps and loyalty to America. It is in an article about Girl Scouts, which these young girls are. It does not fail NFCC#8 as it is a unique, rare, and significant representation of the personal and cultural life of the detainees. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:27, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, as this was taken in WWII and in the USA images from 1923 through 1977, published without a copyright notice are in the public domain, it may be PD. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to the archival record, the image is "loaned" to the archive by the private individual who took it in 1943. That means it was most likely not published at the time of its creation, so PD probably doesn't apply. The image belongs to that lady; it becomes fair use if and when the creative work of that lady, as such, is the subject of encyclopedic analysis in our article. Which, of course, it is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per my rationale above, and Rlevse's points about the photograph's significance. S. Dean Jameson 22:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This might be encyclopedic for an article like Girl Scouting in the United States during World War II, but there are any number of free images that could illustrate the actual article in which it appears. Also, we don't need to see a photo of these girls to know that they existed. What do people gain from seeing this picture specifically? They look just how I imagined they might. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an example of a free image that would go perfectly well in the history section to replace this one, see this portrait of the founder of the girl scouts - clearly much more significant in the history of girl scouting than the image in dispute here. Calliopejen1 (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a great image, and I've done some work on the article to find a spot for it. However, it does not "replace" the old image in any appreciable way. The fact that there were still GS troops even in internment camps is notable, mentioned in the article, and illustrated by that photograph in a way not replaceable by a free image (at least that I can find). S. Dean Jameson 18:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per above reasons, and to stick it to the deletionists on general principle. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 07:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rlevse as unique, non-reproducible historic image depicting life inside Japanese-American internment camps during WWII, thereby having encyclopedic value in and of itself. JGHowes talk - 20:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is only used in a general article on the Girl Scouts though! There are likely a million other free images that could illustrate the main article perfectly well. "Depicting life inside Japanese-American internment camps during WWII" is not a necessary component of the article Girl Scouts of America. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's strange that UT Institute of Texan Cultures at San Antonio would be interested in archiving this photo, huh? It's almost as if they think this is one of those, you know, unique historical photographs? --C S (talk) 01:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being an interesting photo is simply not enough. If we went by your logic, we could mirror every historic photograph ever published anywhere. We could plaster every historical article with dozens of them. Which is clearly incompatible with our basic policy, which is that non-free images must be minimized and can only be used within narrow limits. It therefore must be exceptionally interesting to qualify for us. The special role of scouting in the Japanese internment camps is not even a topic in the article in question. Plus, you still seem not to realise that according to NFCC#1, we must seriously consider text-only treatment as an alternative. Which means, you have to answer precisely which visual detail of the image is so important to the article that the article couldn't be understood without it. As long as this question isn't answered, this image cannot be kept. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it can be kept. Your insistence on intepreting NFCC in the strictest possible way does not mean that you can delete properly reviewed images with a strong consensus to keep. S. Dean Jameson 20:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion that this image violates NFCC#1 simply doesn't hold water - it is just not as easy to convey the import of most images in words as some people seem to think. There is a wealth of details in this image that would be impossible to put into words and still have an encyclopedia-worthy article - the artistic style of the sets, the quality of the facility afforded to these girls in a concentration camp, the age range of the girls, their costumes, their postures, and a whole bunch of stuff I'm willing to bet that I (for one) am not picking up on. --Ipoellet (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've added prose to the "History" section that should further strengthen the Fair Use claim of this important, historical photograph. S. Dean Jameson 20:58, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I call immediate bad-faith removal on future perfect who removed Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg to orphan it after it survived his call for deletion above. Should he do this when this image also survives, I will call for an admin. Discussion at User_talk:Peripitus#Image:GranadaBoyScoutBand.jpg Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 13:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marginal keep. Calliopejen is correct that the use of this non-free image in Girl Scouts of the USA is not all that critical to the reader's understanding of that topic. However, S. Dean Jameson's edits to that article at least offer a fig leaf for keeping the image. Meanwhile, some articles that don't exist yet, such as Girl Scouting in the United States during World War II or Crystal City internment camp, would offer much sounder reasons to retain it under NFCC#8. --Ipoellet (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You must be kidding. We don't hide behind fig-leaves. If you agree it is "not all that critical", you must advocate deletion, unless you are a vandal trying to sabotage the project's mission. This is a blatantly bad-faith, disruptive vote. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      Just because he disagrees with you does not give you the right to insinuate that he might be "a vandal trying to sabotage the project's mission" or to claim that his is a "blatantly bad-faith, disruptive vote." That is so far outside the pale of reasonable debate as to be completely shocking. S.D.Jameson 23:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've now created the article as a stub at Crystal City Internment Camp. If I may make a suggestion, I think we should work on working up this article, and including the photograph in it, when appropriate. This is as opposed to leveling angry accusations, or outright deleting the photograph. S.D.Jameson 00:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment: By the way, has anybody thought of doing the decent thing and contacting the old lady who owns the image, and ask for a free release? She is presumably still alive, as she's "loaning" it to the archive. That's what any decent professional historian would do – and would be required to do – if he wanted to publish the image, for any purpose comparable to ours. No professional US historian, be their purpose ever so "educational" and "non-profit", would dare to invoke fair use in such a case. It simply isn't. Such images are only ever republished by permission of their owners. That lady has very generously made her private images available to scholarship, surely under the condition that she can control if and where they get redistributed. That's always part of the agreement you make with an archive in such cases. For us to sneakily invoke fair use, on a more than shadowy interpretation of the law, in order to cheat her out of her rights of control, is in fact highly unfair and detrimental to her way of making free knowledge available to the world (which is different from ours, but no less important). Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:31, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Publication in the sense that I believe you mean - for example in a book available for sale - jettisons its right to fair use because it qualifies as commercial use (the "for sale" part). Because Wikipedia is not a commercial use, the comparison doesn't really work. But, regardless, I'm interested to hear what others think of contacting the copyright holder. --Ipoellet (talk) 07:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The requirement of asking permission, in real life, also goes for publications that are non-commercial, for instance free course handouts for educational use that an academic teacher might publish on his website. According to best-practice guidelines published by American universities, such a teacher would only be on the safe side if he kept his course handouts available to a restricted circle of students of a particular class, and for a limited period of time. Everything above that is venturing into a grey area where "fair use" is, at least, uncertain and untested. As long as there is no clear "transformative" component to the use of the material, which in our case is clearly lacking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:34, 11 August 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:RodColeman.jpg edit

Image:RodColeman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PGPirate (notify | contribs).
  • photoshopped orphan photo. Originally was on the Rod Coleman article. This isnt Rod Coleman. It is someones head on mini-me's body. PGPirate 21:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same image on Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 20:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:London Bridge Jubilee Platforms.JPG edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Commons shine-through 

—Wknight94 (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:London Bridge Jubilee Platforms.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zverzia (notify | contribs).
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:P-Transmorfose-acent.jpg edit

Image:P-Transmorfose-acent.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vladyk (notify | contribs).

Image:P_prop.jpg edit

Image:P_prop.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sananda_chatterjee (notify | contribs).
Delete Same reason. Xeltran (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P_man.jpg edit

Image:P_man.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by An@vrin (notify | contribs).
Delete Same reason. Xeltran (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P1010253.JPG edit

Image:P1010253.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mohit.virendra@gmail.com (notify | contribs).
Delete Same reason. Xeltran (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P1010029.JPG edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Already deleted, Commons shine-through 

—Wknight94 (talk) 02:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:P1010029.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lorboy (notify | contribs).
Delete Same reason. Xeltran (talk) 12:56, 3 August 2008 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:P1010001bmCowen.JPG edit

Image:P1010001bmCowen.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Othellovector (notify | contribs).

Image:P1010001bmCowen.JPG edit

Image:P1010001bmCowen.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Othellovector (notify | contribs).

Image:P1000625.JPG edit

Image:P1000625.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jasonv91789 (notify | contribs).

Image:P1000281.JPG edit

Image:P1000281.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rebilag (notify | contribs).

Image:P1000214.JPG edit

Image:P1000214.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deedeeyoung (notify | contribs).

Image:P1000135.JPG edit

Image:P1000135.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jcraven9123 (notify | contribs).

Image:P1010720.JPG edit

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Already deleted, Commons shine-through 

—Wknight94 (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:P1010720.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chaulagain (notify | contribs).
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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:P1030483.JPG edit

Image:P1030483.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kenklonkol (notify | contribs).

Image:P1030272.JPG edit

Image:P1030272.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hahahassan (notify | contribs).

Image:P1020543.JPG edit

Image:P1020543.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ziggyfx (notify | contribs).

Image:P1020278.JPG edit

Image:P1020278.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fcfhkmelb (notify | contribs).

Image:P1020704.JPG edit

Image:P1020704.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Captainkoolhead (notify | contribs).

Image:P1010740.JPG edit

Image:P1010740.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mckpaul66 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (we have plenty of photos of machu picchu without a family posing in the foreground) Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:53, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P1050294.JPG edit

Image:P1050294.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ambreen221 (notify | contribs).

Image:TPRetreat.jpg edit

Image:TPRetreat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ambreen221 (notify | contribs).

Image:P1040124.JPG edit

Image:P1040124.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Svchandorkar (notify | contribs).

Image:P1030670.jpg edit

Image:P1030670.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adlib311 (notify | contribs).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_July_31&oldid=1143899670"