Uploaded by Scrumshus (notify | contribs). Magazine cover only being used in an article about the Rock Band depicted in the cover, but the article doesn't mention the magazine at all.- Abu Badali 16:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. It is blurry. It's not so bad, one must admit - I can actually tell the kind of mask the guy's got from it, so no, it's not that badly off. However, I was considering having it deleted myself, so honestly I don't mind. If it's decided that the image will be deleted, you might also consider Image:Woodsball squad 01.JPG as well, as that was taken at pretty much the same distance and is just about as blurry. ~ Maximilli, 21:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would someone explain to me why this picture should be deleted? It's a simple explanatory sketch that helps with the articles firestop and penetrant. What appears to be the problem? --Achim 04:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, it doesn't say who created the image or where it came from. For another, it's not being used in any articles. – Quadell(talk) (random) 14:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, image from the web-site of the organization chaired by the subject of the article. Fits the {{Publicity}} tag exactly. --Irpen 21:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The {{Publicity}} tag is a redirect to the {{Promotional}} tag, that says the image is something used to promote a "work or product in the media" (this person is neither a "work" nor a "product"). It also says that it should only be used "where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it". Unless we have some special reason to believe this picture in unrepeatable, it should be deleted. --Abu Badali 21:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - we have a policy that the free image of your friendly university professor is easy to obtain so the fair use should never be used for them, on the other hand the image of Bin Laden, while he alive is very difficult to arrange a photo-session with, so we can use fair use images of him. In this regard minor xSoviet officials are closer to Bin Laden than to the friendly University professors. Wikipedians in Tbilisi are very rare, most of them do not have digital cameras. The officials avoid photographing. Most people there believe that by putting an image online they already made it public domain, the idea of GFDL and Creative Commons is very foreign for them, so they tend to consider it a form of a scam. In short obtaining free photos maybe difficult and embracing. I did it a few times for notable subjects, but not for this Papava guy. Nobody would hurt if the article would have a far use image. Alex Bakharev 09:40, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it would be difficult to find and photograph the subject, but it would not be impossible. WP:FUC #1 requires that "No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" and "if the subject of the photograph still exists, a free photograph could be taken, even though it may be difficult" (emphasis in original). Jimbo has said that even if it would take ten years to replace the non-free image with a free one, if it's possible then we shouldn't use the non-free one. – Quadell(talk) (random) 14:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by KnoxSGT (notify | contribs). OR CV Modifying copyrighted material does not may it yours to submit PD ccwaters 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I, the uploader, was unaware of these clauses pertaining to the fair use conventions. As such, I believe the image should be deleted. I would like to thank Howchang for intimating me. --Antorjal 02:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
