Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 July 13

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 13)
< July 12 July 14 >

July 13 edit

Image:Japanese Battleship Kii.gif edit

Image:Japanese Battleship Kii.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by SFX_1 (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:Duff_Goldman_of_Charm_City_Cakes.jpg edit

Image:Duff_Goldman_of_Charm_City_Cakes.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Junglecat (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of a living person that is used just to show what the person looks like. Violates WP:NFCC #1 as it can be replaced by a free image. The subject makes frequent public appearences. Nv8200p talk 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please hold for a bit - I think this photo should have had a Share Alike 2.5 attribute given to it. I was given the photo by Mary Alice who works at Charm City Cakes via email. I asked for a photo I could release into public domain. She sent what you see and the key point was that it should have "Courtesy of Extended Image Photography" as credit for the photo. I'm sure my tagging of the photo was incorrect as I was trying to keep it on the "safe" side and tag it as copyrighted. My old computer crashed and the hard drive is now a external drive with an adapter. I'll see if I can retrieve the email and can forward to an admin. Worst case I could email Mary Alice again. I'll see what I can do. Thanks. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds like {{attribution}}. I change the license to that. Please change it if this is not the correct license. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:01, 18 July 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:DreamTicketsFinal.jpg edit

Image:DreamTicketsFinal.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mgoldstein89 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphan image. Pages that did use this logo were removed via CSD. — Mdwyer 01:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Guards TRF.PNG edit

Image:Guards TRF.PNG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Hammersfan (notify | contribs).

Image:Zuma_Dogg.jpg edit

Image:Zuma_Dogg.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Me2me (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, was only used in article deleted for lack of notability.  But|seriously|folks  05:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jennifer dupont.jpg edit

Image:Jennifer dupont.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Oysterhurxley932 (notify | contribs).
  • Since you guys are deletion-crazy with the crowning moments, I expect this won't stand a chance. Guess what? I'm getting vindictive (in other words, fails NFC #1 & #2 — PageantUpdater 06:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:LARF.jpg edit

Image:LARF.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by LathamIH (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 Evil Spartan 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AnnRichards-closeup.jpg edit

Image:AnnRichards-closeup.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Wikid77 (notify | contribs).
  • Copyright violation. Taking a photo of a portrait doesn't grant the photographer rights to that image. Obsolete. By Image:AnnRichards.jpg. Which probably shouldn't be around, either, considering it's nonfree and we have free alternatives, but that's for another deletion nomination. — Rebelguys2 talk 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP as revised: License has been corrected to "Non-free fair use" with detailed rationale, noting, "As a small excerpt from the original portrait, at low resolution, the closeup image does not expose the original portrait to unauthorized complete or high-resolution copying." Also added "References" section, linking full-view of framed portrait (darkened) to document relative small size of excerpt being used in Wikipedia. -Wikid77 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And what does the official state portrait show that Image:AnnRichards 20050210.jpg doesn't already do? -(unsigned: Howcheng 18:50, 13 July 2007)
        • The official state portrait is an iconic image that shows her appearance as Governor of Texas, nearly 15 years younger, with different hairstyle ("Texas big hair" - see Google-search: 1470 gHits) and different wardrobe (business attire). No equivalent free image has been found for her appearance while governor. She was a legendary personality, so I can't begin to explain all the implications, just consider "iconic" as key. Google lists 273,000 gHits about her (10 months after her death). -Wikid77 04:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, but how is the change in appearance significant? And even if you believe it to be so, can you back up those statements with cited sources? Because this is a non-free image, the article has to create a need for it. In other words, if the image weren't there, would the reader have difficulty in understanding the text? If the image is not truly necessary, then it shouldn't be there. howcheng {chat} 06:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia frequently uses non-free images, due to an absence of free alternatives, to illustrate earlier stages in the lives of important figures (see, for example, Image:Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg). This appears to be one such case; the free image we have of Richards, taken in 2005, is not suitable for illustrating her tenure as governor (such as on List of Governors of Texas), since she didn't look like that while governor. Powers T 03:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a common argument, but this is only valid when the appearance of the person at a younger age is significant in some way. I can't think of any good examples off the top my head, however. And it's not like the free image is that much different than the portrait. You might have a better case if she went from having black hair to white hair for example. Again, this image is not critical to understanding the article's text (see WP:NFCC #8). If I'm wrong, please edify me and prepare to back up such statements with cited sources. howcheng {chat} 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The appearance of the person at a younger age is significant because that's how she appeared when she was governor. I can't cite a source for that. I'm making no claims to the images usefulness on the Ann Richards article, but to the List of Governors of Texas article, which I think has different requirements. The purpose of the latter article is to provide information on the governorships, not the people themselves (that's why it lists the dates they were in office, not the dates they were alive). Likewise, any images should be of the governors as they appeared during their terms as governor, not as they might appear X number of years later. It's the same reasoning we use to allow fair-use images of actors in certain iconic roles -- if we're going to identify the people with a picture, it needs to be one relevant to the context. Powers T 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as allowable fair use -- the image of someone in office is not replaceable with an image created many years later. Extreme example: for Shirley Temple, images from her youth are acceptable fair use because an image of her today would not show her as a child star. Free images of public figures which show them not acting in the capacity for which they are known aren't acceptable substitutes for an encyclopedia. An image of the Queen of England in sweatpants jogging is not an image of the Queen. Nor is a long retired governor caught off guard in image of the governor of Texas. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one, delete the other. She's dead. It's not replaceable. The Evil Spartan 23:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa! Who deleted the image citing that this IfD as reason? I don't know what the outcome of this was likely to be, but I know that the admin who deleted it also did not know. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:19, 18 July 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:OHA_Cup_Presentation.jpg edit

Image:OHA_Cup_Presentation.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by DMighton (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free, decorative use, not needed to show that the guy won an award, not usable to illustrate the person – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ON_slogan1.jpg edit

Image:ON_slogan1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by JanLuk (notify | contribs).
  • I think this image could be replaced by a free one. Why would you want to? Well, then, it's also merely decorative. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ogopogo_examiner_mq.jpg edit

Image:Ogopogo_examiner_mq.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Tristam (notify | contribs).
  • Full-page ad. Ads have a good claim for "fair use", legally, but I think its use here is merely decorative. – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1101850107_400.jpg edit

Image:1101850107_400.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by TMC1982 (notify | contribs).
  • Magazine cover used to illustrate person – Quadell (talk) (random) 11:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, needs fair use rationale - The magazine cover is used with commentary of the subject of the cover itself, being that Mr. Ueberroth was Man of the Year. Wouldn't the cover have to be at the top of article to establish that it is used for ID purposes? --CRiyl 00:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In one article, there is exactly one sentence about this TIME magazine issue. In the other, it isn't mentioned at all. NFCC#8 requires that the image contribute substantially to the article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Official_souvenir.jpg edit

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

Image:OliverMandic.png edit

Image:OliverMandic.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Zvonko (notify | contribs).

Image:Wiwi.JPG edit

Image:Wiwi.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Entre-Nos (notify | contribs).
  • Image is a pixel for pixel cropped horizontal flip of Image:Awilda Carbia.jpg. The latter image was originally uploaded by the same uploader as the former image. When the latter image was uploaded, the uploader tried to claim the image was PD because it was published in the U.S. before 1923, an impossibility due to the subject not having been born until 1938. The latter image was updated with a fair use tag (but no source) indicating it to be a promotional photo. Due to our fair use policies on images of living people, the image was removed from the article it was used on. Subsequent to this, User:Entre-Nos uploaded Image:Wiwi.JPG, claiming "It's a portrait of Awilda Carbia digitized by myself, with the persmission of the photographer, Erick Borcherding, a Puerto Rican photographer, and released to public domain. It's a resized small photo" Given the source, I seriously doubt this is the case and this image constitutes a copyright violation. — Durin 13:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Durin. Thank you for your concern, but it's unnecessary. Why do you doubt it's true? Do you have a reason to sustain your statement? It's a totally public domain photo. There's no problem with it. It's not featured in any website. It's in my documents. So, if deleting again the picture is your desire, it's ok. I'll find another one, but believe me, this is a matter of opinion and interpretation. No hassle. I don't like arguments. I just contribute with articles and images in good faith. I donate my knowledge and images for history. It's never been my style to violate. Never crossed my mind. I know there are a lot of spammers and violators, but I'm not one. I appreciate your investigations for the people that deserve it. In my case, it's out of the question. Keep up the good work, and believe me, I'm for real, not a hacker. Best regards.--Entre-Nos 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you truly have permission from the photographer to release it to the public domain, please forward such communication to the OTRS system. Thank you. howcheng {chat} 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both or one Agree with original nominator. I just ran the two through photoshop and overlayed a horizontal flip of one onto the other, they are infact identical there is no way that could occur naturally. Uploaders words do not comfort me either, given their earlier comments claiming it was pre-1923... right... in clearly post 50's clothing... in colour... WikipedianProlific(Talk) 20:01, 15 July 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:Dalek-o-lantern.jpg edit

Image:Dalek-o-lantern.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Blurgle Fragle (notify | contribs).
  • Completing a nomination by an anon. Claimed reason: unencyclopedic. I am neutral.- The Evil Spartan 14:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, extremely unencyclopedic and orhpaned. A personal upload perhaps? Wikipedia is not myspace however. A quick check of the talk page indicates a copyvio of http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/DalekPumpkin. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not a copyvio. We've already been through this. It was released as cc-by-2.0 on the flickr site - click on the image. The Evil Spartan 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh, it's orphaned anyway. howcheng {chat} 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Commons. (I've tagged it as such.) It's not exactly encyclopedic, but it is cute. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept pending Commons move. Also, it's not a copyvio, as the Flickr user runs the other web site. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 18 July 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:Moctobot.jpg edit

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

Image:Beardsley_Belt_Buckle.jpg edit

Image:Beardsley_Belt_Buckle.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Gpscholar (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, likely Copyright violation - while copyright on the original work has expired, it is likely that the copyright on both the belt buckle derivative work and the photo of such are held by studio925, the creator of the belt buckle BigrTex 16:08, 13 July 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:Roker_park_aerial.jpg edit

Image:Roker_park_aerial.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:Elysium 73).
  • A copyright violation of WorldStadia.com, suggest that this image's tag be changed, or a better-quality picture be found (note: This building no longer exists, so is non-replaceable). — 132.199.35.204 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted but I suggest figuring out a way to contact the person who uploaded it to WorldStadia and obtaining a release. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 18 July 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:Artstar_prew.jpg edit

Image:Artstar_prew.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Haraldszeeman (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution), likely Unencyclopedic - uploaded for {{prod}}ed Ondrej Brody BigrTex 17:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:J11Acockpit.jpg edit

Image:J11Acockpit.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Dickhooker (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free poster used in an article to depict the object in the poster, not the poster itself. howcheng {chat} 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Looks like perfect fit for fair use - there is no free image available, and poster itself was designed to promote aircraft. 74.100.217.151 10:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These non/partial-english posters at a low resolution have very little use in the encyclopedia. Its a very technical piece of art but not in any way we can use it. I'm also against unessessarily putting semi-advertising style poster pics into the wiki where its avoidable. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. John Smith's 12:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Season1madtv.jpg edit

Image:Season1madtv.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by DrBat (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of a TV series cast not necessary to the articles it is in. Could be replaced by individual shots of each actor. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It illustrates the original cast members and how they appeared in the first season. --DrBat 18:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • And how is that significant? howcheng {chat} 18:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The fact that they're the original cast? --DrBat 00:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Individual, free images of each actor/actress should then be just as significant. Delete. Anrie 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • As a group? --DrBat 13:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • You could make a collage out of individual actor photos. Is there some reason they need to be shown as an ensemble? howcheng {chat} 16:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P_Dakar.jpg edit

Image:P_Dakar.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Buron444 (notify | contribs).
  • Non-English ad, only used decoratively – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very limited use and advertising. Its use is unessessary. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it's being used to show the advertising surrounding the event. The only way to do that is to show the ad itself, and I'm sure they don't mind the free publicity. -N 19:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spike_t_album_cartoon.JPG edit

Image:Spike_t_album_cartoon.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Howdoustop85 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, questionable public domain release, little context to determine where/if it could be used BigrTex 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prayerbox.JPG edit

Image:Prayerbox.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Howdoustop85 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, Absent uploader, questionable public domain release, not enough context to determine encyclopedic value BigrTex 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P&S.PNG edit

Image:P&S.PNG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by TJJohn12 (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free images of people as dolls. No encyclopedic use. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PJOscar.jpg edit

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

Image:PMRC.jpg edit

Image:PMRC.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Spark (notify | contribs).
  • In the rationale, it is claimed "Not replaceable as 1) a group photo is not likely to be arranged again 2) the women will no longer look as they did in 1985 during the PMRC events". However I think text and free images would replace this image adequately. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm the uploader, actually (Audacity (talk · contribs)). Quadell, text alone clearly cannot replace this image, so I assume you are saying that it could be replaced by four individual photos of the members. Even if individual photos were of equal value, I doubt that they could be obtained for any of the members other than Gore, because Gore is the only one of the women who is notable outside of her role in the PMRC events, and thus photographs of the others are unlikely to be available outside of those taken during the PMRC controversy (I added the second half of that sentence to the rationale). Thus I say Keep. Λυδαcιτγ 20:27, 13 July 2007 (UTC) Howcheng is right; I don't know the copyright holder. Delete. Λυδαcιτγ 20:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Copyright holder is unknown, making this a violation of WP:NFCC #10. howcheng {chat} 17:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The PMRC, most likely. -N 20:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • But is "most likely" good enough? Template:Non-free promotional states that "The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion." Λυδαcιτγ 20:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Text1904.png edit

Image:Text1904.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Homefryes (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.

Image:Packers_v_Steamrollers.jpg edit

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

Kept. Published in 1931 with no copyright notice, so tagging as {{PD-US}}. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 18 July 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:Pagetheremin.jpg edit

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

Image:Pakistan_Association.jpg edit

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

Image:Tearsofsunwillis.jpg edit

Image:Tearsofsunwillis.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Nehrams2020 (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free film screenshot not being used in actor's article without any criticial commentary on the scene being depicted. howcheng {chat} 18:43, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I put the image up for speedy deletion, as the article now makes no mention of the image and the film already has an image of Willis in another scene. --Nehrams2020 23:07, 13 July 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:ImNotSlowingDown.gif edit

Image:ImNotSlowingDown.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Wikid77 (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free book cover. Cover art may not be used for identification only, but must be used within the context of critical commentary about the book. howcheng {chat} 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP since commentary added: Beyond the prior 4 statements about the book (in the article "Ann Richards"), I have added 5 more statements paraphrased from a critical commentary of the book, also footnoting the source reference. -Wikid77 05:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nice job, but do you have anything that comes from a reliable source? I'm sorry, but I don't think texana.texascooking.org really qualifies. Maybe NYT, LAT, WSJ, a publishing trade magazine, or even Texas newspaper? howcheng {chat} 16:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not deleted, image passes NFCC #8, though WP:RS is a valid (separate) issue. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:44, 28 July 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:Bm2_start.gif edit

Image:Bm2_start.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Hucz (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, likely either Copyright violation or Unencyclopedic BigrTex 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MPorrazzo images edit

Nine related images, please see this page. (If I should not have done it that way, please notify me and I will do the work of fixing it.) Tualha (Talk) 19:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chabon.jpg edit

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

Why is this not fair use? I own the photograph—I paid for it. Michael Chabon User:Vanzorn

Why not pretend to be Jonathon Leathum instead?
  • Delete This photo must be speedily deleted. It violates Paramount Pictures copyright. Every photo taken pays a royalty fee to Paramount. This photo from a Star Trek conventions paid a royalty to Paramount. You can make a copy of it for your own use but may not display it for any purpose. The only exception is if you claim fair use and you are using the photo in a news article to convey information or you are a fan club and displaying the information as such.
The problem with the photo is that the person that took the photo of the person and added the person to it, does not have the rights to make a copy either, so you cannot bestow those rights if you do not have them to begin with. I have a good deal of knowledge about how this law and it is applied by Paramount. The only way it could be kept, is by getting a release from Paramount Picture under fair use. They will not allow GDFL get it because someone else could crop the person out of the photo and then use this photo as a free image. Even the stars when they sign at the convention, pay a fee to Paramount for each glossy and there is a copyright notice on each. It is true the notice is missing from this photo but the original that you were added to is copyrighted. Now, if the person were added to the photo with the wax figures, it would be a completely different story. They are on public display. If this person is notable and the article is notable. Call Paramount for a release.

Also, this is not a screen capture from TV. It was actually created by the 35 mm film and then altered. At the convention the new head is added.

This head can be of anyone. Need proof it is actually who it is stated, it is for notability.akc9000 (talk • contribs • count) 09:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:QaF-(US)-cast.jpg edit

Image:QaF-(US)-cast.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Bratboyz (notify | contribs).
  • cast photo, could be replaced by actor photos and text (or screenshots) – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see logic behind nomination but unless we have those individual cast pictures to hand and unless someone is willing to upload them and maintain them then one picture is better than 10 seperate ones. It saves hard drive space and makes it easier to keep an eye on the picture, its caption etc. I dont really see why a deletion would be best. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First of all, hard drive space is not a problem, so that should almost never be the basis of any keep/delete arguments. One image may be easier to maintain etc. but ten separate free images will serve the exact same encyclopedic purpose (to show what the actors look like), so that makes this fail WP:NFCC #1. howcheng {chat} 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:La_health_lauren.jpg edit

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

Image:Lauren_Lorraine_Jones.jpg edit

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

Image:Mark_j.png edit

Image:Mark_j.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Laurenjones (notify | contribs).

Image:Mark_jacobs_director.jpg edit

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

Image:Lauren_jones_high_quality_image.jpg edit

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

Image:Lauren_jones_19.jpg edit

Image:Lauren_jones_19.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Laurenjones (notify | contribs).

Image:Sugababes03.jpg edit

Image:Sugababes03.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Stealthusa (notify | contribs).
  • User has uploaded many unfree images and claimed them as his own. I have no reason or faith to believe this one is also owned by this user. — -N 20:44, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Danai_Varveri2.jpg edit

Image:Danai_Varveri2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mallaccaos (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary unfree image of a free diver free diving. Doens't seem to add any new noteworthy information. Abu badali (talk) 20:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:M-leroy.jpg edit

Image:M-leroy.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Oysterhurxley932 (notify | contribs).

Image:Marina_Papaelia.jpg edit

Image:Marina_Papaelia.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mallaccaos (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-notable unfree image showing a Miss being crowned, used to illustrate the information that she was once crowned. Not much different of the cases throughly discussed in many nominations at June 18 and at a June 29 deletion review Abu badali (talk) 20:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That image would be so much better if she had fangs. – Quadell (talk) (random) 21:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Filipinos.jpg edit

Image:Filipinos.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Christopher_Sundita (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed to be free, but it's a collation containing unfree material. Abu badali (talk) 21:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for reverting your edit, I wasn't assuming good faith, thinking it wasn't serious. But the images in question are all in public domain, so I'm not sure why they're up for deletion. --Chris S. 05:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nevermind. I realized that the Philippine government's public domain images are treated as if they weren't. Forgot about the bruhaha several months ago. I guess it's delete then. Argh. --Chris S. 05:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Philippine government has sucky lawyers. What they legally refer to as "public domain" is, in fact, copyrighted. It's enough to make a wonk's head explode. – Quadell (talk) (random) 23:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CharlesMoskos2.jpg edit

Image:CharlesMoskos2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mallaccaos (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary unfree images showing a man at a microphone. Abu badali (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Katy_Garbi_Live.jpg edit

Image:Katy_Garbi_Live.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by CyprusPlace2b (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary unfree image showing a singer singing. Abu badali (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KaterinaMichalopoulou.jpg edit

Image:KaterinaMichalopoulou.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mallaccaos (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary unfree image showing threee women smiling. It adds no noteworthy information that can't be conveyed by a free alternative Abu badali (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antigone_Costanda4.jpg edit

Image:Antigone_Costanda4.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mallaccaos (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-notable unfree image showing a Miss being crowned, used to illustrate the information that she was once crowned. Not much different of the cases throughly discussed in many nominations at June 18 and at a June 29 deletion review Abu badali (talk) 21:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dakides.jpg edit

Image:Dakides.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mallaccaos (notify | contribs).
  • Magazine cover used to illustrate the article on the person depicted on the cover Abu badali (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marlain.jpg edit

Image:Marlain.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mallaccaos (notify | contribs).
  • Magazine cover used to illustrate the article on the person depicted on the cover Abu badali (talk) 21:37, 13 July 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:Past_Doctors.jpg or Image:Past doctors.jpg edit

One of these needs removed, I feel that only one of these virtually identical images can be justified under fair use — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.249.63 (talk • contribs)

Keep both - while they are undeniably similar, they illustrate different points and are discussed separately in Human Nature (Doctor Who episode). One depicts some of the Doctors only, as seen in the episode itself, while the other shows all ten of them, as briefly shown on the BBC web site, an image that is no longer available there. The less inclusive version is discussed in connection with the episode and a citation on the BBC "Fact File" page, while the other is discussed in connection with the online appearance, the use of all ten Doctors in the prop, and an entry about the fictional object, John Smith's A Journal of Impossible Things, in List of Doctor Who items#J. Neither image adequately illustrates the points being made in connection with the other image, IMO, and in at least one case, the image has been removed once with no replacement at all, despite the presence of a fair use rationale and a clear discussion of the image itself on the affected page. --Karen | Talk | contribs 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both - same as above really. Plus, the fact that the user nominating for deletion didn't sign suggests - but doesn't prove - that they are one of the many IPs who have been revert-warring over the images' inclusion in the article.--Rambutan (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both These are separate yet related images which serve entirely different purposes on the Doctor Who episode article Human Nature (Doctor Who episode): one serves to illustrate the plot, the other is used to further explain an important continuity note (the first depiction of original series Doctors in the revived series).
Moreover, I'd like to register my concern at the nominator's decision to remain anonymous by not signing their nomination, at their failure to have the appropriate notice added to the image page of Image:Past_doctors.jpg and also at their failure to give the uploader of both images, User:Sceptre, due notice at his talk page. In light of the disagreement over the images' use in Human Nature (Doctor Who episode), as evidenced by the article history, this failure to properly follow procedure seems to me like an overly hasty attempt to "win" a content dispute by the shortcut of trying to have an image deleted. Mark H Wilkinson (t, c) 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both as above --OZOO (What?) 11:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per Mark. Will (talk) 12:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least one. The question is not whether they are currently used for two different purposes; the question is whether these same two purposes could be fulfilled with using only one of them. At present, the article is so confusing and poorly written I can't even make heads nor tails of what either of the two purposes is supposed to be anyway. The first, used in the context of the plot summary, is not even referenced by the plot summary, so we don't even learn what role this object plays in the plot. Please explain: what detail is visible in image (1) but not in image (2) that is crucial for purpose A, and what detail is visible in image (2) but not in image (1) that is crucial for purpose B? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually it is referenced, right next to the image; I just checked. The picture is of a notebook called A Journal of Impossible Things, which in the plot is John Smith's first clue that he isn't who he thinks he is, part of a character and story arc that takes place across two episodes. The distinction between the two images may become clearer to you if you take a look at their uses in other articles as well, but basically, the close-up one is a clearer view of the scribbled text and shows which Doctors were actually seen on screen, while the other image is the only version that shows the likenesses of all ten Doctors, an important continuity milestone. Neither image adequately carries the load for the other, as one is notable for what is included and the other notable for what is omitted. I realize this is all a bit confusing from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the show, and perhaps the plot description could be clearer. Nevertheless, it matters. Both images matter. Thanks - I hope that helps! -- Karen | Talk | contribs
Question: in what sense is it significant to the plot that the left half of the page is not shown in picture 1? And if the left half is never actually shown on screen but only in what I assume to be some accompanying fan/advertisement material, then how is it notable? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The close-up version that appeared on screen was specifically referenced on the BBC web site[1] with the visible and partly visible Doctors identified, a subject of erroneous speculation that the citation corrects and the image makes clearer. We can't use the two-page version in describing the plot because it didn't appear on screen, but the fact that the BBC showed that version on the web site gives it weight as to what the physical prop and fictional journal looked like, opening the door for saying that the Journal, as depicted in the larger image, had all the Doctors, the only new visual reference to some of them since the series was revived in 2005. For a show that has had few explicit references to its 1963-1997 continuity during this period, the image is highly significant.--Karen | Talk | contribs
Sorry, I'm utterly at a loss at understanding how anything of all this is even remotely of encyclopedic interest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, one more try before I throw up my hands and say I'm afraid I can't help you. Between them, these two images say to the viewer, "You know all that stuff about the lead character from that other show with the same name, the stuff we've mostly avoided mentioning for two years? Well, that was the same character after all." There will always be a temptation to think that something one doesn't find interesting or comprehensible must not be encyclopedic, particularly within the realm of popular culture. But these two images are among the most historically significant in the entire 2005-present series, because they explicitly connect it to the 1963-1989 series and the somewhat controversial 1997 tv movie. There is only one other episode of the show that really does that, and it wasn't a visual reference per se. Until the Eighth Doctor appeared in this fictional notebook, it was possible for fans to say the TV movie never "really" happened in the context of the new show. That is no longer the case. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but:
  1. The episode article really doesn't make any of these points, so it's not obvious why they need illustrating there.
  2. It smacks of WP:OR anyway.
  3. It still doesn't answer why you need it twice. What would be lost if you left out the first image (in the plot section) altogether, and just said in the caption to the second image that "on screen, only the upper part of the right page was actually seen"?
In fact, you still haven't answered my question how this particular fact is of any interest. The plot section doesn't need the illustration, because the plot summary makes no reference to any particular piece of content of those pages - does it matter that the doctor shows that particular page to the nurse and not the next one? Does she react to any of these portraits specifically? As far as I can see until now, the whole point of what faces are shown there revolves on the meta-level of intertextual allusions directed at the audience, but has no relevance at all within the plot itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really should stop trying to explain, as promised. But:
  1. Yes, it does, in the continuity section, over more than one bullet point. It's also discussed in the Doctor (Doctor Who) article and in List of Doctor Who items#J.
  2. There are citations that go with it; it's not particularly OR.
  3. That wouldn't be very accurate. One would have to say, "Only part of the right hand page is seen, from the smudgy necklines of the Fourth, Third and Second Doctors, to the eyelines of the Sixth and Fifth Doctors." That's a long way to go just to avoid using this image, IMO.
  4. Nurse Redfern pages her way through pretty much the whole Journal on screen, borrows it, reads it offscreen, and discusses it in some depth with Smith later. It's true that she doesn't specifically talk about those two pages, but she does help Smith to realize that the Doctor is real, and in the next episode she uses the Journal to discover the consequences if Smith does not "change back." The fact that the particular page is of more significance to the viewer than the character does not lessen the fact that Redfern must come to terms with the existence and nature of the Doctor, in part by reading the journal, and that the two page spread is indeed important from an out-of-universe perspective, which is something articles about fiction are supposed to track.--Karen | Talk | contribs 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you still haven't explained why it's crucial for the reader, in the context of the plot summary, to see which precise parts of which precise pages of the diary is shown or not shown, rather than just getting the information that "Nurse Redfern reads the diary", when all the issues about continuity related to the page with the faces are independent of its immediate role in the plot and are already discussed elsewhere with the help of the other image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per Karen. ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 02:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Past doctors.jpg deleted; Image:Past Doctors.jpg kept. I'm not entirely convinced that either image is necessary, but I will defer editorial judgement on that point to people familiar with the episode. However, two images are clearly not necessary to make the point. Maybe the close-up one makes the point just a little more clearer than the whole book one, but the latter will do just fine by itself. FYI, there's another version of this image at Image:Impossible.jpg, which I removed from Doctor (Doctor Who). howcheng {chat} 17:42, 18 July 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:Throneroomlivescreenshot.jpg edit

Image:Throneroomlivescreenshot.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jgcarter (notify | contribs).
  • Unfree image showing a singer singing, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text Abu badali (talk) 21:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Liveinnyscreenshot.jpg edit

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

Image:Young_Jackie_Chan.jpg edit

Image:Young_Jackie_Chan.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Kylohk (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-free image used to show "to show what Chan looked like at a very young age" (!) Abu badali (talk) 22:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sounds quite important to me, unless you can find a free image of that famous person form that approximate age? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is it important to show what Chan looked like at that approximate age? --Abu badali (talk) 23:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Childhood is an important part of a person's life, childhood photographs are inherently significant. Most biographies published in society have at least one childhood photo of the person in question.--Kylohk 00:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree this photo tells us a tremendous amount about chan. After all, a picture tells a thousand words. It shows us his parents for one, not just what he looked like at a young age. Secondly it shows us he probably had a good upbringing. There are lots of other details it shows that are not worth going into. I see the nominators logic behind the IfD but I think this is very useful, i'd love to see it stay in the article. WikipedianProlific(Talk) 19:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    What he looked like at a young age is not encyclopedic relevant. Most biography articles (Jackie Chan included!) does not discuss how the person looked like at a young age. The "...it shows us he probably had a good upbringing..." is speculation and original search. If we want to say in the article that he had a good upbringing, we need verifiable sources, and not a posed family photo. --Abu badali (talk) 15:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The omission of this image from the article would not impair the reader's understanding in any way (WP:NFCC #8). howcheng {chat} 16:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm.... You say it's not significant, I say it's significant. So, it's now personal opinion now.--Kylohk 00:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not about personal opinion. We have a criteria for defining significance in these cases: The image must be necessary for the article's comprehension. Or put in another way, the article should be that someone reading it without that image, would immediately think "But where can I find a posed picture of a 3 years old Jackie Chan with his parents? I'm really curious now!" --Abu badali (talk) 02:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep Image is related to his childhood or early life, so it's relevant.
  • Delete. Ack Howcheng. Anrie 09:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't matter now, I've replaced that image with a photograph of Jackie Chan performing as a stuntman in Bruce Lee's Fist of Fury. Now, this image doesn't even satisfy criterion 7, since it's not used in any articles.--Kylohk 06:44, 22 July 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:German_Soviet.jpg edit

Image:German_Soviet.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Piotrus (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary unfree image showing Soviet and German officers meeting, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 22:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is the last image of German-Soviet relations during the Soviet invasion of Poland left after removal of several others, and should certainly be left on this project to illustrate related articles. It adds significantly to the article, being a visual proof of an important fact in related articles.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This works well on the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) article. If the caption could mention that it is from this propaganda film, then I am sure that would make the use about the film as well as just an illustration of the events in the article.qp10qp 03:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep image may in fact be PD if produced by the Russians and it shows the historic event in an unrepeatable way. -N 03:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If it's PD, then it should be tagged as such and it doesn't need to be deleted. But as a non-free image, it doesn't help on the understanding of the discussion about the historic event in question in a way that words alone can not. --Abu badali (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This can be considered public domain in the US if it is a captured German news reel, PD if a soviet news reel, besides this is a screenshot of an actual first contact between Soviet and German soldiers on the Bug river, where the Germans agreed to border changes as outlined in the molotov-ribbentrop pact, this is a non replaceable image. Bleh999 07:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Visual reminder that Soviets and Nazis were first allies in the carving up of Eastern Europe. And a vital illustration to the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) article. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. I'm a bit confused, actually, is the problem that the nominator believes the picture does not add value (it certainly does, and if this is an editorial issue, it should be addressed in the appropriate venue); or that the nominator believes that use of the image (captured, in war archives) is not viable under fair use and/or educational purposes? The deletion nomination statement lumps everything together. Thanks! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Explain - Per item #8 of our policy, we don't use non-free images whenever it's legal or convenient. The use of non-free material is not only an editorial decision. The material is only used if it helps in the understanding of the text in a way that words alone can not.
    Not only what's depicted on the image must be notable. The images itself must be notable. The alliance between Soviets and Nazis is notable and must be discussed in the article (as it currently is). But this non-free image doesn't help the understanding of this discussion in a way that words alone can not.
    If it comes out that this image is PD as suggested by N and User:Bleh999, it would be great. As a PD image, using it or not would then become a purely editorial decision. But as non-free content, we can't use it just because it works well. --Abu badali (talk) 18:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image materially reinforces the Soviet-Nazi alliance in a way which mere words do not, and therefore is notable even if not depicting notable personalities. The event of the meeting, morever, is of immense historical importance to Eastern Europe.
     Are you saying because you don't believe the picture adds anything that the use of the image under "fair use" guidelines is being denied (if a non-free, at least commercially, image)? Still trying to clarify that point.
     More importantly, I have contacted the IWM regarding use of images from this part of its collection--their web site discusses image licensing and purchase regarding commerical use as well as in-schoolroom use, but does not discuss other non-commercial use. Rather than interpret British copyright law (which would be difficult to apply as there was no transfer of rights from the original image author to the IWM as far as I'm aware), I thought it was worth simply asking. I'll post again when they respond. Please do not take action to delete prior to then. Thanks for your quick response! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I never said I believe the image adds "anything". I just said that our policy requires far more from a non-free image that simply being "beter than nothing".
Please, remember that a permission to use the image in Wikipedia doesn't makes it any more free. Images licensed to be used by Wikipedia only should still fulfill our non-free content criteria. And this images fails item #8.
"The event of the meeting, morever, is of immense historical importance to Eastern Europe" - Our policy doesn't says we should use non-free images whenever the event depicted is important. We only use such images when they are necessary for the understanding of the discussion about the "important event" in question. --Abu badali (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Comment: Most of the "keep" votes here simply fail to address the concern raised by the nomination. Please, note that it's not sufficient to explain why is this image useful or how important is the event depicted at the image. Unless the image aids in the understanding of some topic in a way that words alone can not, we can't use it. Note that aids in the understanding is not the same as "fits like a glove". We don't use non-free material when it's specially convenient. We use it when we have no alternative. And by alternative we don't mean only an alternative image. It could be the alternative of not using any image at all.
This discussion is not an editorial decision about either or not this image makes some article better. It's about either or not some article needs this image to be understood.
We're not here to build a consensus on either or not this image is useful. We're here to build a consensus on either or not this image violates our policy. But most of the "votes" above are not taking the policy into account. --Abu badali (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I completely believe that the picture is vital in aiding in understanding. There is a lot of dense material in the respective articles. People inevitably scroll through articles looking for items of interest. The picture is the anchor that insures the key point of Soviet-German cooperation is made and not lost.
     You may be aware of the facts in the articles which utilize this image and the picture may seem redundant to you, but I can tell you that for most Americans (and this is an American English encyclopedia), Red Army and Nazi troops together in friendship and alliance has the impact of nothing short of shock value. If such a "wake up call" is not "aiding in understanding," then I don't know what is. Your personal assessment of redundancy gives far too much credit, I believe, to the average reader.
     Thank you for your explanations above, I can confirm to you that my "vote" of Keep takes Wikipedia policy regarding use of non-free images fully into account. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What you describe is not "aid in the understanding or the reader". If the picture is just "the anchor that insures the key point of Soviet-German cooperation is made and not lost", it's almost an navigational aid. To serve just such purpose, we could use free images like a beautiful collation showing Hittler and Stalin with the Soviet and Nazi Flag in the background... or maybe a colored European map... whatever. But I assure you that our policy don't allow the use of non-free images to help the quick-scrolling reader to find information. Anyway, thanks for the policy-related argument. --Abu badali (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway the copyright of this image is a matter of debate, in the UK (the source listed is the imperial war museum) it is free of copyright because of the enemy property act of 1953, and I believe the same applies to the US since the National Archives holds copies of the Wochenschau news reels from WWII Bleh999 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The caption of the picture at Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) now makes it clear that it is from German propaganda newsreel. This means that it is no longer just illustrative but commented on for its own sake. The fact that it is a still also means that its use here does not represent a challenge to the newsreel itself. If the BBC wanted to show the newsreel they wouldn't simply be able to take it from Commons because of this image.qp10qp 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"To serve just such purpose, we could use free images like a beautiful collation showing Hitler and Stalin with the Soviet and Nazi Flag in the background..." completely misses the significance of Soviet and Nazi troops face to face, on the field, in alliance--Poland being the first of the countries of Eastern Europe to be sacrificed to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I'm sorry, but from my perspective, Abu badali, you believe the picture adds nothing significant because you do not appreciate its immense historical significance. You have the right to your editorial opinion. Hopefully the image will turn out to be free use and this debate here on the merits of our opinions re: non-free use a moot point. (added after edit conflict with Qp10qp's response) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're confused when you say this picture has an "immense historical significance". The events it depicts were of immense historical significance, but the picture itself didn't change anything it the history of the world. --Abu badali (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agreed to disagree with you until we ascertained the rights status of the image. But since you insist I'm confused, by your logic the Yalta conference article doesn't need two, if indeed any, images of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin together since that's described in words perfectly well. This image is of equal, if not greater, significance. The specific meeting portrayed--and as proxy for all such meetings along the Nazi-Soviet front as defined by Molotov-Ribbentrop--set into motion the subjugation of Eastern Europe for the next half century.
    I would prefer not to be combative about this, why can't we just wait until we figure out if there's even a problem?
    If you actually mean "pictures which changed the course of history" as your gating criteria, I can only think of two or three that I would consider to be in that league. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Yalta Conference picture is in the public domain. If it were copyright protected, it couldn't be being used in Yalta Conference the way it's used today. That was a wonderful example. --Abu badali (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're making progress in our dialog... supposing these represented the only source of images of the meeting (already described in words) and were not PD, would they still merit remaining in the article according to your criteria?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As the main image, simply to illustrate the topic (i.e: as it's currently being used today), no. But if the image itself had received some awards, or have been commented about by a number of reliable sources, the article could contain a section about the image itself, and a we would be able to make a valid fair use claim. --Abu badali (talk) 15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if not public domain for not being necessary for reader comprehension. Keep otherwise (duh). howcheng {chat} 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If it would infringe copyright, it would have been deleted in 7 days. I think WP has already established a good policy of automatically dismissing everything with improper copyright information. Any new evidence the image brakes some copyright? If not, this discussion is vacuous.:Dc76\talk 16:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it may break a copyright of some practically untraceable Nazi photographer. So you see, on the 'one in a million' chance a heir of this photographer would decide to sue Wikipedia - instead of one of several agencies selling the photo, and one of dozens pages publishing it - we need to delete it. Guess where the term 'copyright paranoia' comes from :) -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The ever-repeated "copyright paranoia" argument is becoming almost a Godwin's Law for deletion discussions. Tell me, Piotrus, who in this whole discussion ever argued that this image should be deleted because it puts Wikipedia in legal risk? You either misunderstanding or misinterpreting the whole argument. --Abu badali (talk) 15:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So we don't know who took the photo, right? Anyways, according to this page, the work would be in the public domain in the US if this work is out of copyright as of 1/1/1996. If that is the case, then tell us proof that it is out of copyright (should it be Poland or Germany?) User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Bleh999 states in this edit that this is a still frame from the German newsreel Die Deutsche Wochenschau, which may possibly be PD-US as being seized wartime property. However, a search on NARA reveals 91 results matching this term. Now I didn't examine every single record, but I picked a few at random (such as [2]) and all of them say "Use Restrictions: Undetermined." To me, that says non-free and ergo it should be deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not deleted. The image description currently says that the images is PD in the U.S. I don't know whether that's true or not. If someone suspects the image is not free, they should list it at WP:PUI. But as tagged, it's keepable. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:47, 28 July 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_July_13&oldid=1143364118"