Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 20

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 August 20)
< August 19 August 21 >

August 20 edit

Image:Freelbeforedrunkdriving.jpg edit

Image:Freelbeforedrunkdriving.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stopprop (notify | contribs).
  • Claims public domain, but no information on photographer given. Also, given the filename this might be intended as an attack on the subject, who was indeed charged with drunk driving. While that fact is relevant to the article, I don't know that including an image about it is really appropriate. W.marsh 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Public domain because photographer was a private citizen who happened across Freel at the bar (my friend). The photographer was asked kindly to take the photo and complied, however keeping a copy for himself. Maybe the photo should be retitled because it could be possibly libelous. Also I think that Freel's wikipedia page should be re-done to the outline of other baseball players example:Cole Hamels. stopprop 20:50, 20 August 2007
Image deleted. The image cannot be claimed to be in the public domain without a release from the photographer. -Nv8200p talk 00:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Z!D 07.jpg edit

Image:Z!D 07.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zahid89 (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopedic. Orphaned. Appears that the only use for this image was for a vanity article. fuzzy510 00:01, 20 August 2007 (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. 
Keep, nomination withdrawn, no one in favour of deletion. WilyD 14:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TOS-Crew0.jpg edit

Image:TOS-Crew0.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dalt (notify | contribs).
  • Source is listed as a screenshot, but there is no indication of what this is a screenshot of. Looks more like a cast photo. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At least is a screenshot according to Trek Fansite StarTrek.com, hopefully someone can pop in a DVD to confirm. It is a very good shot.--Knulclunk 02:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, the image page says this is a screenshot from "I, Mudd". I don't know how I missed that. Assuming good faith and withdrawing nom. Videmus Omnia Talk 02:38, 20 August 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.


Image:L 61a5afd6db9715166631f9959a6ee2ab.gif edit

Image:L 61a5afd6db9715166631f9959a6ee2ab.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rap dogg89 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned and Unencyclopedic. Of no real use here. fuzzy510 02:19, 20 August 2007 (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 discussion was:

Image:Jerry_Goldsmith-Star_Trek_Voyager-Opening_theme.ogg edit

Image:Jerry_Goldsmith-Star_Trek_Voyager-Opening_theme.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Beyond silence (notify | contribs).
Why, what do you thing a good lenght? --Beyond silence 03:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
30 seconds, or 10% of length, whichever is shorter, per Wikipedia:Music samples. Videmus Omnia Talk 04:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cut it to 30 sec. Thanks --Beyond silence 00:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The proper thing to do is tag the file with {{fairusereduce}}. And is the original really five minutes long? If not, it needs to be cut shorter or tagged with {{fairusereduce}}. 17Drew 16:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I finally figured out Audacity. According to this, the original was 2:20, so I've reduced the sample to about 12 seconds. This is now compliant, nom withdrawn. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could the closing admin please delete the old noncompliant revisions? Videmus Omnia Talk 17:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All previous versions deleted. -Nv8200p talk 15:32, 26 August 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 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. 
Speedy delete author request - please consider {{db-author}} in the future. WilyD 14:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:India_subdivisions_flood_hit_between_July_26_and_August_15_2007.png edit

Image:India_subdivisions_flood_hit_between_July_26_and_August_15_2007.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Anameofmyveryown (notify | contribs).
  • Reason 1: This image - obsoleted by this image. Reason 2: Image no longer being updated and hence uncyclopedic. Reason 3: Image now orphaned. Deletion abbreviations: OB,UE,OR. I am the creator and uploader of both images. Anameofmyveryown 04:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have not placed a message on the uploader's talk page because I *am* the uploader. Presumably that is OK. Anameofmyveryown 04:18, 20 August 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.


Image:Angry.JPG edit

Image:Angry.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Screech123 (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader claims that this image was his own creation (uploaded under GFDL-self), however, it's obvious he didn't create this, as it is included in the copyrighted program Windows Live Messenger. –sebi 03:47, 20 August 2007 (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 discussion was:

Image:Dean.jpg edit

Image:Dean.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deanang (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopedic, low res, generic filename, the user in this picture has not edited since September 2005 Coredesat 04:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep used on User:Deanang - it's a photo of the guy that's constantly overwritten - Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? WilyD 14:12, 20 August 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:FYSIWALOL by jujimufu.gif edit

Image:FYSIWALOL by jujimufu.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jujimufu (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned and unencyclopedic. I don't even know what the heck this is supposed to illustrate. fuzzy510 04:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just an fyi - it's Finding Your Saying Interesting Without Actually Laughing Out Loud! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodekeeper (talk • contribs) 11:13, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hatespeech.jpg edit

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

Image:Helicopter.jpg edit

Image:Helicopter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Helicopter59 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, and there's no real place to use it, anyway. There's no indication as to what kind of helicopter it is, so it can't be used for illustration that way, and the girl in front of the chopper doesn't make it a very good choice. fuzzy510 05:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt even linked into any articles. Should be erased for sure, plus i doubt the girl's parents would want that picture on wikipedia, since she is obviously underage. --Stopprop 00:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:High contrastcopyright.png edit

Image:High contrastcopyright.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Geni (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned. Upload description even says that it was just uploaded to test something, which makes me believe pretty strongly that it'll never be used. fuzzy510 05:05, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hélou.jpg edit

Image:Hélou.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Davidcannon (notify | contribs).
  • Why is it under public domain? OsamaK 05:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lebanese copyright on photos expires 50 years after production - if it's from '56 or earlier it'd be copyrighted, but given when he was president, it seems more likely it was produced in the 1960s - anyone have any insight? Think he might be 43 or younger in that photo? WilyD 13:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Collegeofsocialstudies.jpg edit

Image:Collegeofsocialstudies.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jdwatson (notify | contribs).
  • Orphan image- Sebvdv 06:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DAT.JPG edit

Image:DAT.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#Image:DAT.JPG listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Unencyclopedic- Sebvdv 06:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Big font debug screenshot.png edit

Image:Big font debug screenshot.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Titoxd (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Can't figure out what it is useful for.- Sebvdv 06:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As the title says, it was for debugging an issue with MediaWiki. It has outlived its usefulness. Titoxd(?!? - cool stuff) 19:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AGP keys diagram.png edit

Image:AGP keys diagram.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Windkin (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Can be replaced by Image:AGP & AGP Pro Keying.svg- Sebvdv 06:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goku HighRes.png edit

Image:Goku HighRes.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by UzEE (notify | contribs).
    • Copyright violation, derivative work. User copied a copyrighted character from a manga/anime series and claimed the image as their own against all existing copyright laws.- Kariteh 13:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • All I would like to say is that I made the Image myself. Its not copied. I can provide the source files. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 19:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant "copied" in the sense that it's a copyrighted character. The rights of the owner (Toriyama, Toei Animation or whoever) still apply whether you take a screenshot, a photo, or even when you redraw the character; the rights are not just on the media but also on the design itself. Kariteh 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • So is there any way it can be improved? I mean a Fair-Use Rationale? UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 05:34, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think there's really a way. It would actually be better (and more precise from an encyclopedic viewpoint) to use an original copyrighted image than to create a derivative work (see Squall Leonhart maybe for a good example). The only instances where derivative works are (more or less) accepted is when the design is very generic, like with the mushroom icon that the WikiProject Nintendo uses. Kariteh 08:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • So you are saying that it would still not help if I change the license information to a copyrighted image. I can provide a fair-use rationale with that. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 00:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • It would be better to use a "real" original image of Goku. A fan-made one isn't precise enough since it's not the original. Kariteh 09:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Ok, thanks for the feedback. I guess it would be better to use the original. UzEE (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xia class submarine.jpg edit

Image:Xia class submarine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dziban303 (notify | contribs).
  • Fair use rationale is not nearly detailed enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Is no verification that this is the submarine in question - could be almost anything. John Smith's 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jin class.jpg edit

Image:Jin class.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hallo84 (notify | contribs).
  • Fair use rationale is not nearly detailed enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Source is not accessible, as requires registration and appears to be a forum so is not reliable enough to verify this is the submarine in question - could be a fake. Also is not historic at all - looks fairly recent. John Smith's 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jl1.jpg edit

Image:Jl1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hallo84 (notify | contribs).
  • Fair use rationale is not nearly detailed enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Source is not accessible, as requires registration and appears to be a forum so is not reliable enough to verify the content. Also is not historic at all - looks fairly recent. John Smith's 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JL2.jpg edit

Image:JL2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hallo84 (notify | contribs).
  • Fair use rationale is not nearly detailed enough for Wikipedia's purposes. Source is not accessible, as requires registration and appears to be a forum so is not reliable enough to verify the content. Also is not historic at all - looks fairly recent. John Smith's 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Weston_city_of_toronto_113.jpg edit

Image:Weston_city_of_toronto_113.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Weston ontario (notify | contribs).

Image:Kansas House of Representatives.jpg edit

Image:Kansas House of Representatives.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Miles530 (notify | contribs).
  • Obvious copyvio of http://www.kansastravel.org/kansasstatecapitol.htm; photo originally carried a "This work has been released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide" tag, but there is no evidence of such, and someone apparently affiliated with the original source of the website has protested and removed the tag. Nyttend 16:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless the person who posted this picture defends his post, it should be deleted.

--Stopprop 00:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as copyvio (and thanks for spotting this). Carcharoth 02:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lol odex.jpg edit

Image:Lol odex.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Question2 (notify | contribs).
  • Bad file name. Content has not yet been verified as an Odex production. Odex Article is an on-going event and may experience controversy. Cocoma 16:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feel free to buy the VCD and verify if you are so concerned that its a conspiracy to discredit Odex. Question2 01:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such VCD in the market by odex, its a poh kim production. go look at your VCD box again.Tueac 05:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a passerby with no strong feelings about this Odex debacle, I've nonetheless noted that Tueac seems to have a pro-Odex inclination on Talk:Odex and elsewhere, and am inclined to take his claims with a grain of salt. I'd really like to see solid proof from either side that this image is or is not what it claims to be, such as an official list of Odex releases or a photo of the VCD cover; I was unable to locate such proof myself using Google. If the standard Wikipedia protocol is to automatically delete a suspicious image like this, though, I have no complaints. -Seventh Holy Scripture 05:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not Odex inclined but just want the correct information to be present. about the proof of Poh kim being the sole distro of Initial D, here [1] Although this is the Stage 4 rather than the stage 2 and not the VCD cover but there are other example of Poh kim' earlier covers like this [2] with a Poh Kim Logo on the top left side. Other than that and the Odex logo on the back, they almost have the same cover... when compared to this [3]Note: Last picture taken at a Poh kim retail store with Poh kim price tag... Tueac 07:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if the filename is fixed with an appropriate one, and content has been verified a production of Odex. Cocoma 14:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tv_guide_50_greatest.jpg edit

Image:Tv_guide_50_greatest.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zanimum (notify | contribs).
  • Non-notable magazine cover being used to decorate the Spock article. Delete per WP:NFCC#8. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cover is arguably notable--special issue of leading magazine in the medium on "TV's 50 Greatest Characters." Per the image's fair use rationale, "This image is used to illustrate the impact of a fictional character on modern culture." The image serves that valuable purpose very well.—DCGeist 07:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, patent NFCC#8 violation. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Er...given that judgment of NFCC#8 is entirely subjective, how can any supposed violation of it be "patent"? Maybe a delete argument longer than three words would help clarify your position.—DCGeist 06:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Heinlein-Number-of-the-Beast.jpg edit

Image:Heinlein-Number-of-the-Beast.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bogdangiusca (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free book cover decorating the Parallel universe (fiction) article. Not necessary to reader understanding, delete per WP:NFCC#8. Videmus Omnia Talk 17:55, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Book is discussed in detail in article as significant example of a certain type of fictional parallel universe. Image is valuable to reader's understanding of the topic.—DCGeist 07:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The book is discussed (in three sentences*), the cover isn't: how does the book cover aid understanding of those few sentences? --Calton | Talk 13:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • *The three sentences: "Robert A. Heinlein, in The Number of the Beast, postulated a six-dimensional universe. In addition to the three spatial dimensions, he invoked symmetry to add two new temporal dimensions, so there would be two sets of three. Like the fourth dimension of H. G. Wells’ time traveler, these extra dimensions can be traveled by persons using the right equipment."

Image:DailyShowClinton.jpg edit

Image:DailyShowClinton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tertiary7 (notify | contribs).
  • Primary reason: the image doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the article (fails WP:NFCC #8). In the article Bill Clinton it is used as decoration, the television program is not critically discussed or even mentioned in the text. In the article The Daily Show it is used as decoration, the interview is not critically discussed in the text. Secundary reason: no unique fair use rationale with clear purpose of use description for each use of the image. Ilse@ 20:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Some comments to the nomination. – Ilse@ 07:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per action taken I have moved the image in the article on The Daily Show to a more appropriate position, expanded the caption to show exactly when this interview took place, and greatly expanded the discussion of the interview in the article to show the significance of the event illustrated by this image. I have also revised and expanded the fair use rationale to make clear its purpose on The Daily Show (not sure how to deal with syntax of this rationale box to alter box header, but specificity of rationale is clear in box's main text).—DCGeist 18:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The image does not contain any significant information that is not already in the text, it is merely decoration (fails WP:NFCC #8). – Ilse@ 07:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per DCGeist action- thank you Astuishin (talk) 18:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image deleted. Image was of no significance to the article and merely decorative. Fails WP:NFCC #8. -Nv8200p talk 00:36, 29 August 2007 (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.

Image:Neville_Chamberlain2.jpg edit

Image:Neville_Chamberlain2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mintguy (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-free image that doesn't help on the undestanding of the topics of any of the 6 articles it's used in. Also, no source. Abu badali (talk) 21:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep What absolute nonsense! - This is an extremely notable historic image. Chamberlain came back from Munich after signing Munich agreement and as he stood there at Heston Aerodrome he waved the document in the air for all to see stating "This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine.... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again." (see http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Neville_Chamberlain) - a document that proved to be worthless, and he was much mocked for it! Jooler 23:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep I reject the stated rationale that the image is unnecessary. I believe it, as a historical image, does add significantly to the articles in which it is used. Some effort should be made to resolve the sourcing problem. Silly rabbit 00:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep (Striking for now, given the developments outlined below Carcharoth 17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)) - one of the most historic images of the 20th century. Abu, the "doesn't help on the understanding" part of this nomination is utterly incomprehensible. You do have a point with the sourcing concerns, but that should be easily addressed. Now, let me ask you again (as I have in the past), do you even understand what the term "historic image" means? I am seriously thinking of framing this nomination and putting it on the wall as a prime example of an unthinking, careless nomination. If this is the normal standard of your nominations, please, please, please consider refraining from nominating historical images, as nominations like this do no more than show that you have no feel for what is historic or not. So let me ask you directly: Will you voluntarily agree to not nominate historical images? Carcharoth 02:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • historic event vs historical image: Which one of the 5 articles using the image discuss the image's significance? Answering to your question, my understanding of "historical images" is that they are images that have importance and influence, and they are not to be confused with images depicting historical and important events. --Abu badali (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Neville Chamberlain and Peace for our time, as Nyttend says below. Read the whole of the articles. The latter one is centred on what happened in this image. As for historical images, they are images of events from history. Historic images (which are different from historical images) are images that are notable for the history they show. Iconic images are images that become notable in themselves. Or something like that. Carcharoth 03:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The image is completely decorative in Peace for our time. In Neville Chamberlain, it illustrates some information that doesn't needs to be illustrated. Please, understand that our policy on non-free content only allow us to use non-free material when it would be difficult to discuss the subject without a non-free image. This is cleary not tge case here. --Abu badali (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Remind me again why articles have to discuss the image and not the event. Point three of the WMF Licensing policy resolution says: "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events..." - it says right there that non-free image can be used to illustrate historically significant events, not that the pictures themselves have to be notable. Again, can I ask you to stop nominating historical images until clarification can be obtained on this issue, maybe from the Foundation's counsel? Carcharoth 14:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: per Abu badali's definition, this is a historical image: the picture itself is famous. The situation depicted is historic, and the picture itself is famous. This image is an extremely valuable resource to illustrate several articles, especially Neville Chamberlain and Peace for our time. Nyttend 03:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If the picture itself is famous, the picture should be discussed in some article. But currently, it's only being used as a convenient illustration for the event depicted. I agree with you that it's a "valuable resource" for us, but as non-free material, we refuse to use it unless it's completely necessary for the undertanding of the topic. --Abu badali (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I point you to point three of the WMF Licensing policy resolution, which says: "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate historically significant events..." I interpret this as recognising that illustrative images are often necessary for the understanding of articles on historically significant events. Please stop nominating historical images until clarification can be obtained on this issue, maybe from the Foundation's counsel. Carcharoth 14:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    We illustrate things (like historical events) when an illustration is necessary for the understanding the discussion about that thing, not when it's convenient. --Abu badali (talk) 15:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - very famous historical image. Raul654 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you write an article or section about this image? I volunteer to write the fair use rationale for that. Otherwise, we can't simply say "this image is famous, let's ignore its copyright". --Abu badali (talk) 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is one of the most infamous moments in history. The image shows Chamberlain literally waving a useless piece of paper that he was convinced would ensure the peace of the world. Eh? you're saying there has to be an article about the image itself, rather than the event that the image documents? Crazy. Jooler 20:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Abu, it took me only a few minutes of reading around the articles the image is in to find the following quotes, some in the articles, some in the photo captions (you do recognise that the photo captions in the article are the logical place to look for supporting text, right?). I also discovered that none of the articles have the "image being considered for deletion" tag. Shouldn't you have put those tags on the articles? Anyway, the quotes:
        • Appeasement of Hitler: (from the photo caption): "Chamberlain holds the paper containing the resolution to commit to peaceful methods signed by both Hitler and himself on his return from Germany at Croydon Airport in September 1938. He said: My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time." - is that satisfactory?
        • Munich Agreement: The photo has the same caption, and in addition we have in the article: "Chamberlain received an ecstatic reception upon his return to Britain. At Heston Aerodrome, west of London, he made the now famous "Peace for our time" speech and waved the agreement to a delighted crowd." - is that satisfactory?
        • Anschluss: the use of the image here was not appropriate, so I removed it. Linking to Munich Agreement is enough.
        • Neville Chamberlain: the same photo caption is repeated, but the article text is not well organised and should say more about the picture and this iconic moment for which Chamberlain is still remembered. Instead, it directs the reader towards the Appeasement of Hitler and Munich Agreement articles. Something from those articles needs to be brought back into this one to justify the use of the image, and I've now done this. Is that satisfactory?
        • Peace for our time: this article is in pretty poor shape. If it can be cleaned up and expanded, the picture would be perfect for the article. I'm removing it for now, though.
        • Heston Aerodrome: it is debatable whether this article needs the picture of Chamberlain. Much more useful would be a picture of the actual aerodrome itself. I'm thus removing the picture from this article. The links outwards to the articles containing the image are enough.
      • Conclusions: there is sufficient supporting text in the articles Neville Chamberlain, Munich Agreement, and Appeasement of Hitler to justify the non-free use of this image in those articles. Abu, you said you would volunteer to write a non free use rationale for this image. If the above satisifies you, please write the rationale stating why the image is being used in those three articles, and then we can close this discussion. Carcharoth 20:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Either you fail to understand the difference between a notable image and an image of a notable event, or you fail to understand the importance of such difference to a fair use claim. --Abu badali (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • No. You fail to understand how Template:Non-free historic image was and is still intended to be used. It in no way stipulates that the image itself needs to be notable, only that the event needs to be notable. The Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy contradicts what you say. You are getting this wrong. Please understand this. Carcharoth 12:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way - no-one, that is no-one, has agreed with Abu on this debate yet. I suspect that this image is iconic enough that it could eventually get its own article.
  • Actually, our articles are a bit misleading. It seems he made the "peace for our time" speech later that day outside 10 Downing Street. The microphones in the Heston aerodrome pic (you can see the plane in the background) suggest he did make a speech there, but the more reliable sources say he simply read out the agreement at Heston. See these three sources: [4], [5], and [6]. Carcharoth 20:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chambelain read out the text of his silly bit of paper on at least two occasions that day. The first was at Heston Aerodrome - See http://www.numberten.gov.uk/output/Page12475.asp - you can also see a newsreel footage of the event (after registering) at http://www.movietone.com/ and verify the transcript on the No.10 site is correct. It was here at Heston that he said " ... the settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I has another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine (waves paper to the crowd - receiving loud cheers and "Hear Hears"). Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you ...". Later that day he stood outside of No.10 and again read from the document and it was at the end of that speech that he uses the iconic words "peace for our time" - however although separated in time and space the two events are part of the same meta-moment in history. Jooler 21:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incidentally this very image that we are discussing is used on the the above 10 Downing Street website at http://www.numberten.gov.uk/output/Page135.asp and so may comes under the terms of Crown Copyright Jooler 21:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to put it clear and save you all some time: We don't get to use a non-free picture of an event just because the event was important, period. This is terrible news for those wanting to build a beautiful eye-catching website, but it makes complete sense when your goal is to build a free encyclopedia. --Abu badali (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Very true. That's why we have fair use criteria, which this image fulfills. Nyttend 01:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Abu, stop a moment and think why everyone who has participated in this debate has recognised that this picture is a classic "historic fair use" image. You appear to have a blind spot about historic images. Have you ever studied history at all? Carcharoth 09:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unless the source and copyright-holder is determined, this image fails NFCC #10. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It would help if you responded to the rest of the debate as well, as if a source is found (you did notice that this very debate has provided a source, didn't you? I won't bother to point this out, as you can see this for yourself by reading the debate) and the copyright-holder is determined (not always possible with historical images), then your objection becomes pointless. Simply coming into a debate and switching the discussion from NFCC#8 to NFCC#10 is not helpful. Discussing NFCC#10 as well as NFCC#8 would be helpful. Carcharoth 15:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • A simple Google Image search reveals lots of sources that could be used to replace this image. None of them credit anyone. Would you like to hazard a guess as to why that is? How many newspapers published that image? You know as well as I do that NFCC#10 fails to distinguish between modern images where copyright status is missing (but could and should be provided) and historical images where copyright status is uncertain because the records are not complete, or never existed. It is simply ridiculous to hold 70 year old images to the same standards of record-keeping as modern images. Carcharoth 15:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There is also a possible source given on the talk page: Image talk:Neville Chamberlain2.jpg: "One printing of this photo in Harold James' Europe Reborn lists the copyright as © Getty Images/Hulton Archive." Hence a little bit of research reveals: "The photographic archive of Picture Post became an important historical documentary resource, and was set up by Sir Edward G. Hulton as a semi-independent operation called Hulton Picture Library. It was bought by the BBC in 1958 and incorporated into the Radio Times photo archive, which was then sold to Brian Deutsch in 1988. The Hulton Deutsch Collection was bought for £8.6m by Getty Images in 1996, and Getty has retained the Hulton Picture Library as a featured resource within its large holdings." Picture Post began in 1938, so it looks like this was the start of the journey of this iconic image. Does this address your NFCC#10 concerns, Quadell? Carcharoth 22:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • And a brief search of the Getty website (editorial section) reveals that there are 14 images when searching for "Chamberlain" and "Heston" (some from earlier in 1938). The image we are concerned with here is Getty image number 2668142. I'll add the full details in a minute when I've finished my other post. Carcharoth 22:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Here are the details:

              "Title: Munich Pact; Image #: 2668142; License type: Rights-managed; Photographer: Central Press/Stringer; Collection: Hulton Archive; Source: Hulton Archive; Credit: Getty Images; Date created: 30 Sep 1938; Copyright: 2007 Getty Images."

              So what does tell us about the debate here? Carcharoth 00:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • I hate to bring bad news, but what it tell us is that this image also violates (the far less "subjective") WP:NFCC#2. --Abu badali (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Oh, I realise that. I'm fairly sure that the image will need to be deleted now, and intend to strike my earlier comments in the light of this new evidence. I am just checking a few things first, particularly with regards to how image libraries handle images like this. What I am concerned about is how this brings the 'free' mission and the 'encyclopedic' mission into direct conflict. As regards the debate, I find it worrying that no-one seemed to have bothered to check the image talk page where the clue for this information was provided back in June 2006. I only spotted it late on in the debate. I think we should all resolve to look around a bit more during these debates and do more in depth searches, rather than arguing over subjective criteria like NFCC#8 (I presume from your italicizing of 'subjective' that you now agree that NFCC#8 is a rather subjective criteria?). It really only took me a few minutes to track this down after spotting that clue. In the worst-case scenario, the debate over NFCC#8 (significance for article) might have obscured the NFCC#10 (sourcing and copyright) concerns (and thanks to Quadell for re-focusing the debate on that), and I would never have uncovered the NFCC#2 (commercial use) concerns. Don't take this the wrong way, but maybe you could do a bit more research as well before nominating pictures? I still believe (and the debate here supports this) that your NFCC#8 concerns were misplaced. If you had managed to uncover the NFCC#2 concerns then the debate could have been a lot less dramatic! :-) Anyway, as I said, I just want to check one or two things out, and then I'll move to delete. What do you think? Also, what do you think in particular about my point that we all need to investigate more thoroughly and with more care? This debate got acrimonious at times, and I'd like to think we can all learn from this and work together in the future. Carcharoth 16:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Absolutely bizarre rationale used in bringing this to IfD in the first place.—DCGeist 07:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I am now leaning towards delete, though I have posted a note here to try and get more opinions on this. Carcharoth 17:37, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the image was legally published in the United States within 30 days of its first publication abroad (as seems likely) and if the first US publication did not comply with US formalities on copyright (as seems reasonably likely) or if its copyright registration was not renewed (as seems reasonably likely) then it should be in the public domain in the United States. Haukur 10:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure I fully understood that, but I understood enough to restore my keep statement above, and in any case, the discussion elsewhere that I linked to above has persuaded me that for a limited set of iconic historical images, Wikipedia should not let NFCC#2 over-ride educational fair use. I believe that excluding this image damages the encyclopedia. We should be telling our readers about these iconic and historic moments and showing them these educational images, not stripping them out with a long-term goal of furthering the free content mission. Carcharoth 12:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I'm not saying it definitely is in the public domain in the US. My guess is that it probably is but it would be very hard for us to prove. Then again, I'm not a lawyer. Haukur 17:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, let us show respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2). Abu's comment "this image is famous, let's ignore its copyright" summarizes it well. Kjetil r 08:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear, when do you think this image will fall out of copyright? If the photographer is 'Stringer', then it would be 70 years after his death, absent copyright renewal, but lack of identification and records mean it would be difficult to work out who this "Stringer" is. If, on the other hand, 'stringer' refers to a stringer who worked for Central Press, then I'm unclear whether "anonymous author" applies, in which case it falls out of copyright in the EU 70 years after publication, which is next year (2008). I've looked into this a bit further, and found the following about the Getty historical images archive:

      "The Hulton Getty Picture Collection (formerly the Hulton Deutsch Archive) scarcely needs an introduction. Based in London, this collection is universally acknowledged as the greastest library of photojournalism in the world. The collection comprises in excess of 15 million photographs, prints and engravings, including the work of such famous names as Keystone, Picture Post, Fox and Central Press. More recently, the HGPC became responsible for the management of Mirror Syndication International and for the digital archiving of the Reuters News Picture Service; it has published several CD-ROMs covering evocative images of a selection of decades from the twentieth century. HGPC is also co-operating in RACE project called MEDIATOR, which involves the production of a digital newspaper. From its vast archival collection, the HGPC is contributing 15,000 images for the main HELIX database and another 7,000 images for a module covering the Social and Political History of Britain from 1859 to the present day (SPHB)."[7]

      This and other image libraries perform a valuable service in archiving and preserving historical images, and a lot of works goes into finding, restoring and scanning old images, but I'd really like more guidance on when the images fall out of copyright, or whether historical archives can and do renew the copyrights? Note that even when images have fallen out of copyright, the image libraries will still mark them as copyright and carry on selling them. This image may still be copyright, but the mere presence of a historical image on an image library's website shouldn't lead to automatic cries of NFCC#2 (respect commercial opportunities). For a start, low-resolution images impact commercial opportunities to a very small extent. Image libraries provide extremely high-resolution scans for print purposes, and they do need to recover the money from that service they provide. It would make sense to settle this question once and for all, so I'm going to raise it (again) over at WT:NFC. Carcharoth 10:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It ain't so much the life of the author as the publication date and compliance with US copyright formalities - check out the Hirtle chart Haukur 23:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update - I've said all I can on this image, I think. I've now added all the details above and a non free use rationale to the image. I recognise that the decision may still be to delete the image, but I still feel uncomfortable about how NFCC#2 can detract from presenting iconic images like this. The information on the image page is the beginnings of an article on the image (both a more detailed description of the image, and of the history of the image). I am copying that to my userspace (give me another 5 minutes or so), so if the decision is to delete, then that information at least won't be lost, and can be put into the relevant articles at leisure. If and when this image ever becomes free, or we can definitely confirm it as such, I intend to nominate it as a featured picture. Carcharoth 12:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, guys, look. There is a Great Debate to be had about historical photographs and fair use but this is not it. This isn't Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. This is a regular photo from a press conference by a British prime minister. The place was crawling with photographers. If we can't establish that this particular photograph is in the public domain then let's just use some other photograph from the same event. Here's one at the Imperial War Museum: [8] It's an "Official photograph" by a "Ministry of Information official photographer" which means it was Crown Copyright and (tada!) now in the public domain. The IWM only offers it in a relatively low resolution online but I'm sure you can find it printed in a book somewhere and scan it in. And if not then we can just pay whatever extortionist rate the IWM charges for high resolution versions. Heck, I'll even pitch in. Haukur 23:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. Thanks for finding that. I'd forgotten that there would have been official photographers there as well. The close-up shot is probably more famous, but I'd be happy with this one as a replacement, so if we can get that one, delete this one under NFCC#1. Carcharoth 01:03, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've sent in an order for a high-res print. Seems it may not cost so much. I'll keep you informed. Haukur 09:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with regret. Carcharoth's great work in sleuthing out the image's source has identified NFCC#2 problems, and I think this image should be deleted as a NFCC#2 violation. (It now passes NFCC#2, and in my opinion this image also passes NFCC#8, but the NFCC#2 issue is rather in surmountable.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What about the NFCC#1 issue? Would other, free, pictures of Chamberlain at this event be preferable to the famous one shown here? Is this one famous enough to justify using it instead of the free one Haukur mentions above? PS. I think you meant to say "it now passes NFCC#10", not "it now passes NFCC#2". Finally, when something is deleted for NFCC#2 concerns, is it not worth considering when it will fall out of copyright? Would Getty be required to divulge enough information that we (or anyone) can ascertain when it falls out of copyright? If we can't determine when the copyright expires, what is to stop the commercial company making money out of the image forever? Carcharoth 18:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing else goes public domain in the U.S. until 2019 as of now thanks to the Copyright Term Extension Act. -Nv8200p talk 01:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted per violating Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#2 and possibility of a free content replacement. Garion96 (talk) 18:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know the discussion has closed, but just one quick update. I discovered that Commons already have a copy of the free-pic that Haukur referred to above. See Image:MunichAgreement .jpg. I've now used that image to replace the non-free picture (discussed above) in the three articles it was used in. See here, here and here. Since it's free, I've put it back into the articles Peace for our time and Heston Aerodrome. Let this be a lesson to us all to search Commons for a free alternative before having long debates like this! :-) Carcharoth 00:02, 1 September 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.



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 discussion was:

Image:1heldeplatz.jpg edit

Image:1heldeplatz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Themanwithoutapast (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-free image, seems to show some event, but the image doens't seem to be necessary for the article's comprehension Abu badali (talk) 21:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Vital image of crucial event discussed in detail in article text. The only problem here is that the image has appeared in the part of the article. I will move it to its proper position immediately.—DCGeist 08:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm pretty sure that this is PD as the image would not have had copyright renewed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nodekeeper (talk • contribs) 11:06, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - it shows German legions in the Heldenplatz in Vienna on the day when hundreds of thousands of Austrians came to hear Hitler proclaim the Anschluss (the union of Germany and Austria). "Seems to show some event"? This is a notable and historic event. We have every right to use this image to convey the history being presented in the article. Old images are important for the understanding of historical articles. Mere text does not do enough. Carcharoth 12:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleted. No obvious violation, and many believe this passes NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:40, 30 August 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 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 discussion was:

Image:GiuseppeTucci.jpg edit

Image:GiuseppeTucci.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ernst_Stavro_Blofeld (notify | contribs).
  • No evidence that this image was published before 1923 Abu badali (talk) 21:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In fact, that it was taken in the 1930s is very strong evidence it wasn't published before 1923. And yet it's public domain anyhow! Remarkable! I suggest keep here because the nominator offers no rationale whatsoever for deleting the image. WilyD 14:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I miss the sarcasm but when Abu nominated the image it had the {{PD-US}} tag on, so he had quite a good rationale in fact to nominate the image for deletion. Garion96 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Image is in the public domain. Kariteh 14:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If the image was first published in India, then it's PD. If it was first published in the UK or the U.S., then it's still under copyright. Does anyone know where it was first published? – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nominator should have withdrawn this as soon as glaring and essential error in nomination rationale was pointed out.—DCGeist 08:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unless proven it was first published in India. I couldn't find that info on the source page. Garion96 (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless we can establish that it was in the public domain in India on January 1, 1996. Haukur 08:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia version deleted. The image is on the Commons so it is an issue for that forum now. -Nv8200p talk 00:58, 29 August 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 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 discussion was:

Image:Toni_Sailer_1957.jpg edit

Image:Toni_Sailer_1957.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KF (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image showing an athlete for which there are free images available. No fair use rationale, and source information is "scanned from an old magazine". Abu badali (talk) 21:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepDelete delete delete. Free images available? How do you get them? Just get into your time machine and go back to the 50s? The image shows Toni Sailer, an icon in the world of skiing 50 years ago, doing exactly what he was famous for, and that is how people remember him. I don't think it can be replaced (that's the fair use rationale). Yes, scanned from an old magazine. I don't have any source. <KF> 21:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be speedy-deleted per uploader request now. --Abu badali (talk) 22:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes pleeeease, speedy delete, speedy delete! <KF> 22:32, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I suspect KF is being sarcastic here, Abu. Please let the discussion finish and don't speedy delete it. Carcharoth 03:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unsourced and replaceable. You get a free picture of him by taking a picture of him. 17Drew 21:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Drew, Sailer was active decades before you were born. What would be the point of taking a picture of an old man? <KF> 21:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is that a rhetorical question? The article already uses a picture of him from three years ago (which is placed at the top of the article, unlike this one). This image does not contribute any encyclopedic information; the fact that he skiied is already contained in the first sentence and is pretty easy to understand without a picture. 17Drew 21:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why would that be a rhetorical question? Of course it isn't. Believe me, skiing in 2007 is something very different from skiing in 1957. What Sailer looked like back then—that's the encyclopaedic information contained in the image. But please delete it if it makes you happy. I usually find my happiness elsewhere. <KF> 22:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - KF, please don't ask for deletion just because you are upset that it has been nominated. There is every reason to keep this image and none to delete. It helps the reader understand what the article is talking about. There is ample precedent for keeping pictures that show what people looked liked at the moment they achieved their fame, as opposed to current pictures of them as an old person. Carcharoth 02:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Rationale as above. A picture of an athlete at his peak is not replaceable by an image of an old man in a chair eating soup. Jooler 07:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    And why do we need to show a picture of an athlete at his peak? --Abu badali (talk) 11:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay if that's your rationale perhaps you think that we can get away with a picture of The World Trade Centre as it is now to illustrate that article? Jooler 20:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    A question which, carried ad absurdum, would read: Why do we need to show pictures at all? Why do we need a free online encyclopaedia? Why do we need encyclopaedias at all? <KF> 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of the article is that Toni Sailor was a famous skiier. A picture of him now does not allow the reader to visually identify the topic of the article, which is "famous skiier". Carcharoth 14:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If anyone can figure out which magazine this is from, we can almost certainly show's it's actually public domain. Magazines rarely renewed their copyrights (since they were topical). WilyD 16:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep For reasons clearly articulated above, for common sense, for the spirit and mission of Wikipedia, for the love of pete. Come back from the ledge, KF, we're with you.—DCGeist 07:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The people who support keeping the image have not addressed the fact that the image is unsourced. 17Drew 18:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might be because Abu overloaded his nomination statement. He made the claim "athlete for which there are free images available" - when the discussion above has shown that at least some people support the idea that it is better to have a non free picture of an athlete during their career, rather than a free picture of them when they have retired. If Abu had simply said "source information is "scanned from an old magazine"", then the discussion would have focused on that. It should have anyway, but hopefully Abu will realise that just "no source" will usually be enough to get an image deleted. The "no fair use rationale" bit is also more of a "fix it" issue, rather than an IfD issue. If a rationale is provided at the end of an IfD debate, it confuses things as people aren't given a chance to change their stance. Far better to nominate just on the "no source" bit. If KF could try and remember the magazine, that might help. As has been pointed out, it might even be a free image. If people are serious about the "free content" mission, they should make every effort they can to find out which magazine this was published in. Carcharoth 19:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm almost certain it was published in Bunte. <KF> 13:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. No source.-Nv8200p talk 02:09, 29 August 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Csu_poster.jpg edit

Image:Csu_poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Acne m (notify | contribs).
  • a band poster, not discussed in the article, and it contributes no encyclopedic information (at all) – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cubby_cropp.jpg edit

Image:Cubby_cropp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Machocarioca (notify | contribs).
  • Only used in an article that barely mentions him – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gwen-Stefani-4-In-The-Morning-407004.jpg edit

Image:Gwen-Stefani-4-In-The-Morning-407004.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Explode24 (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 discussion was:

Image:Mock&Horn.jpg edit

Image:Mock&Horn.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KF (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image showing politicians at an event, unnecessary for the understanding of the topics of the 5 articles it's used in. Abu badali (talk) 22:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for Christ's sake. A historic moment in European history. A fair use rationale has been provided, the source is given. What more do you want? <KF> 22:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That the moment was historic doesn't implies that the reader needs illustration to understand the discussion. --Abu badali (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we know who the copyright-holder is? If we don't we can't use the image for NFCC #10 reasons. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Crucial image. Strong fair use rationale.—DCGeist 07:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for a different reason. The image is not fully sourced since the source provided does not appear to be the copyright holder. 17Drew 16:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Says who? Drew, if you want (and why shouldn't you), you may choose between a number of "copyright holders": Bernhard J. Holzner (just scroll down a bit), Demokratieforum Schloss Weitra, dpa (dpa = Deutsche Presse-Agentur), www.romaniaiworld.com & WorldViewer Inc. (see the very end of the article for copyright information), apa / Robert Jäger (just scroll to the right; apa = Austria Presse Agentur), etc. etc. There may have been individual photographers present (the images are not all 100% identical), but, as I said above, certainly also television cameras. The low resolution and the blurred features of the currently used image suggest it is a screenshot (ORF? CNN? Any other station?). I still believe that we shouldn't remove a historic image just because the "source" cannot be identified. I've taken it from the website I mentioned in the image description page, and that's it. Not our problem, is it? <KF> 22:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. The image source should be more specific, but mainly the image fails NFCC #8 in the articles it is used in. Text can more then adequately relay what happened without copping this non-free press image. -Nv8200p talk 00:53, 29 August 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 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 discussion was:

Image:Cheers_cast_photo.jpg edit

Image:Cheers_cast_photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Staxringold (notify | contribs).
  • High-res non-free photo of a TV show cast. Replaceable by free images of the actors portrayed. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a low-res version for use on the article Cheers only. Oh, and 532×720 is low-res for all practical purposes. It doesn't meet Wikipedia's definition of low-res, but calling this 'high-res' is silly. High-res would be something like three times the size of this picture. Replacement by free pics of the actors involved would not show the cast, and more to the point, it would not show them at the time when they were acting in the show. For the oldest person in the world, you don't use a free pic of when they were a child. Similarly, for an article on a TV show, you show the cast at the time of the show, not years later, and for musicians who have retired, you show them as they were when they were playing, not as they are now. Taken to its logical conclusion, you get silly cases like: if someone took a free picture of someone in extreme old age just before they died, then we would forever have to use that free picture, and not be able to use non free images from when they were active at the peak of their career. Do you see how silly that would be? Wikipedia would actually be using misleading and irrelevant images. We would become a laughing stock because "the rules" had been interpreted to over-ride the encyclopedic part of the mission, and we would be proudly using free pictures that would have the readers puzzled: "Why use this image? It doesn't tell me anything. It's free? Oh, that's nice, but it still doesn't add anything to the article. What about a pic of him skiing?" Carcharoth 03:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Essential encyclopedic image of TV show cast. There really shouldn't be any question at all about these.—DCGeist 07:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In one sense I do not believe in discussing editorial content on this page. But this image looks like a very bad scan. I have seen pictures at a lower res that look better and less grainy. -Nodekeeper 11:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Image meets the criteria for a promotional image. I removed the image from the Kirstie Alley article so the image is only used to identify the subject - Cheers. Individual images of the actors would not fulfill the same purpose as showing the ensemble of fictional characters in context. The image is not high resolution at 78 KB. -Nv8200p talk 01:50, 29 August 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_August_20&oldid=1138514429"