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: This image was kept. This one's controversial, so I'll try to cover all points. Concerns about "undue weight" are concerns for material in an article -- there is no image policy reason why an image can't be used in multiple articles, so long as it has valid rationales for each use. The rationales were a legitimate problem, but have since been fixed. "Reliable sources" is a concern for sourcing facts on Wikipedia, not from the providence of images. (No one claims the image was faked, for example.) If it doesn't belong in a given article, and if there is consensus on that article's talk page to remove it, then do so, and if the image is an orphan it can be tagged for that reason. But it seems to me to pass WP:NFCC#8 in all three uses, and that seems to be the consensus here as well.

On a more personal note, I'd just like to say that the outcome and political results of keeping this image have not affected my interpretation. As a pacifist who has attended many anti-war protests, I certainly don't want anti-war protesters to be cast in a negative light. But I can't twist the NFCC policy just because I don't like the outcome. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | contribs).

• I know this deletion request is going to be controversial. Still, the fact remains that this image doesn't even come close to meeting various Wikipedia policies.
• It is being included in no fewer than three articles (New anti-Semitism, Anti-globalization and anti-Semitism, and Zombietime). This clearly violates our policies against undue weight. Why should three different articles prominently feature this non-notable piece of anonymous fringe artwork?
• It comes from an unreliable source — "Zombietime," a pseudonymous right-wing blog.
• WP:FURG specifically requires a separate rationale for each page on which the image is used. However, no such rationales are currently included. Instead there is a single blanket rationale which does not in any way address why the image must be used on all three pages.
• The rationale itself is flawed. For instance, it claims that "the perceived ambiguity of the image's message and its alleged authenticity as a political expression mean that it cannot be replicated." First of all, there is no "perceived ambiguity" — everyone who has commented on the image agrees that it is blatantly anti-Semitic. Secondly, that criteria could much more easily be met by free images by Carlos Latuff, who (unlike the anonymous protester) is actually notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, and whose political cartoons have actually been publicly commented on by important figures. The rationale also claims that the image has been "reproduced and commented on by media sources and blogs," but no examples of this are provided, either in the image description or in the articles.
• We can do much better. This image is unencyclopedic and has no place on Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 18:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator's understanding of WP:UNDUE is deeply flawed. The policy is about not giving undue weight to minority viewpoints within a given article. The image does not promote any viewpoint, but documents a fact. WP:RS does not apply to contemporary images, even anonymous Wikipedians can make their own images, so excluding zombie on the basis of reliability is against the policy. Beit Or 19:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, this comment fails to address the fair use problems. Wikipedia doesn't use fair use images where free ones would be adequate, and this is especially the case with the use of this image on New anti-Semitism. I am completely unconvinced that this fair use image is needed on any Wikipedia article. Furthermore, the image subject is completely non-notable. The description page says, "We are using the image to illustrate the attitude of this protester toward Jews and Israel." Why should we care about the "attitude" of this protester? We don't even know who he is! WP:V applies to all areas of Wikipedia. *** Crotalus *** 20:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair use is justified because no free equivalent can be produced: the rally will not happen again. I fail to comprehend the WP:V argument: the image is taken from zombietime website and the link is there, so what's the problem with verifiability? Beit Or 19:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That particular rally itself is not important and not notable. If you want a free image that embodies the kind of pictures and concepts thought to constitute new anti-Semitism, I've already pointed you to several, on Carlos Latuff. And unlike this anonymous poster, Latuff's works have gotten comment and criticism (at least in passing) from important individuals like Norman Finkelstein and Alan Dershowitz. The problems with WP:V exist because Zombietime is not a reliable source. You need to explain why we have to have this particular non-free image and why it has to exist on all three articles specifically. That is what our content policy says. *** Crotalus *** 20:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • latuff is a nobody and his most antisemitic work (most of his work only treads antisemitic iconography rather than display them clearly) abuses copyrights and cannot be used. finklstein pays him, and he did a cartoon of dershovitz masturbating to dead bodies... not really justification for "criticism" on his barely notable work - nothing wrong with the image used, it's even better that it's not attributed to a certain artist/government. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • If Latuff is a nobody, then the anonymous protester in this picture must be a sub-nobody. Latuff's works have been at least mentioned by prominent individuals; this poster never has. No one outside of Wikipedia and Zombietime has ever heard of this poster. We are giving it grossly undue weight by putting it so prominently on 3 different pages. *** Crotalus *** 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Note that this image had previously been listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2006 September 1/Images. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - assuming this really happened and it was really a sign used in an anti-war rally, it is quite notable. Bad stuff happens in this world and we have pictures of bad stuff. Deleting things from Wikipedia simply because they are unpleasant has a serious chilling effect on truth. If the image's use in an article is inappropriate or misapplied, that is a problem for the article and a question of editing the article appropriately, not deleting the image. Wikidemo (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not proposing deletion of this image because it's "unpleasant." I'm proposing deletion because, among other things, it violates our non-free content criteria. It doesn't add significantly to understanding of any of the articles in which it is used, and, especially in new anti-Semitism, it could easily be replaced by free images. Also, I completely disagree with your contention that "assuming this really happened and it was really a sign used in an anti-war rally, it is quite notable." The acts of one isolated anonymous nutcase at one particular anti-war rally are in no way notable. No one has demonstrated notability for this picture in any way. Furthermore, as you point out ("assuming this really happened") we only have Zombietime's word that the image description is accurate. And Zombietime is an unreliable pseudonymous source. *** Crotalus *** 16:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we've been through this several times before. It does add substantively to the understanding of the topic, as it illustrates one key aspect of the article very well. There is plenty of written material - especially related to (my alma mater) San Francisco State that reinforces the point made in the poster. --Leifern (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how Image:AntiWarRallyFeb162003.jpg adds to the article New anti-Semitism in a way that Image:SharonAnti-Christ.gif (or any of Latuff's other free images) do not. Also explain why there is not a separate fair use rationale for each page on which the image is used, as is specifically required by our image use policy. The arguments to keep this image amount to special pleading, and they come from the same group of people (with the exception, as far as I can tell, of Wikidemo) who all happen to hold the same POV on Israel and Judaism-related articles. *** Crotalus *** 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are countless caricatures - just look up ones published in Norwegian newspapers - that are positively dripping with the kind of antisemitism that would make Julius Streicher proud. This image is notable for its confluence of different styles, and for the fact that it depicts its use in a rally. As for your special pleading and cabal theories, you're rather proving the point the article is making. --Leifern (talk) 18:03, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • POV-pushing takes place on hundreds, if not thousands, of different subjects on Wikipedia. Judaism-related subjects are no different. I'm opposed to any POV-pushing whether the subject is Scientology, Judaism, satanic ritual abuse, Randianism, monetarism, or anything else. And the inclusion of this picture is clearly an example of undue weight and POV-pushing. *** Crotalus *** 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Antisemitism is not Judaism. Your putting Judaism in the same line with Scientology, satanic ritual abuse, and Randianism is telling. Beit Or 20:42, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The image is quite distinct and it represents a new political idea which is somewhat difficult to express in some kind of logical wordy construct (it's much more emotional). I would add that just looking at the image makes me squirm - that tells me that this image communicates its viewpoint effectively in a way that words simply cannot. Additionally I disagree that its point of view is very minor. In certain countries its point of view is quite strong (middle east for example). Indeed if Samuel Huntington's 'The Clash of Civilizations' is correct I dare say that this viewpoint will proliferate. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 19:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how the free images of Carlos Latuff lack similar emotional impact. Also, explain why "emotional impact" is an appropriate objective in an encyclopedia article. As for your arguments regarding the Middle East, it's a non sequitur, as this image isn't from the Middle East and can't be reasonably taken as representing Middle East views. To the contrary, it appears to reflect a marginal white racist Christian Identity viewpoint. *** Crotalus *** 20:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would respectfully disagree with your characterization that it's only marginal white racists who see Jews this way. Indeed on the Wikipedia article on new antisemitism which this poster helps to depict there is a whole section on The far right and Islamism. If you look at some of cartoon shown in PA daily Al Hayat Al Jadeeda [1] or Iranian television [2] you see very similar depictions. As to the emotional impact - the key point is what does the image do? Is it merely a depiction of some person or idea or does it become something more, the encapsulation of the idea and the means of convincing people of its validity. The emotional strength of the posters and the fact that they succeed quite well in their propagandistic purpose illustrates that these ideas are only properly conveyed when conveyed as images. Without images many extreme ideas would be difficult if not impossible to convey. To really understand this extreme ideology one has to see these images. Consequently it is eminently appropriate to include the images in an encyclopedia. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 20:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying that these articles should have no images. I'm saying that the use of this particular fair use image is inappropriate, when there are better, free images available. Our fair use policy specifically requires that when we have a choice between free images and fair use images, the free images must take precedence and the fair use images must be deleted. Policy also says that fair use rationales must be specifically provided for each article in which the image is used, which this image's description page does not do. Furthermore, as I said, if you want to illustrate Arab/Middle East anti-Semitism, then you should use an image that actually comes from the Middle East — not an image waved at a random demonstration in San Francisco by an unknown American protester. *** Crotalus *** 21:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- See extensive recent discussions at Talk:New antisemitism... AnonMoos (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've believed for quite some time that we can do better than this image; more to the point, Zombietime is not a credible source. CJCurrie (talk) 02:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• super duper strong keep - perfect front image for the subject. not attributed to any particular hate-artist or government so it holds no mal/intent at someone in particular. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I stopped editing this subject because I was tired of this sort of underhanded bullshit. For those who are not familiar with the backround here, this is just the latest in a long tine of bizarre tactics that a groups of editors have come up with to try to get this image removed. Once again the reasoning does not make any sense. The last attempt that I paid attention to was when they actually tried to claim that it wasn't fair use because we didn't contact the original creator of the poster! Thats right, apparently a picture from a public rally cannot be used unless you have permission of every single person shown in it, funny. Now they are claiming that since the license holder of the picture isn't a reliable source, the picture is out. Are you kidding? Its a picture, we aren't using them as a source. Here is a quiz, where do you think most pictures on wikipedia come from? A. The New York Times or B. People (primarily wikipedia editors) that we know nothing about and would not qualify as a reliable source?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 15:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't seem to be familiar with copyright law or Wikipedia copyright policy. We do not need permission to take photos of a person in a public space. However, if we take a picture of artwork, like this poster, then the picture is a derivative work of the artwork. There are exceptions if the artwork is only incidental (like if you took a photo of a person with a small picture frame on the wall behind them), but in this case, the copyrighted artwork is over 90% of the photo and is clearly the central feature. Thus it can only be used under a claim of fair use, and we can't do that when there are alternate free images available. Furthermore, while it is true that most Wikipedia photos are uploaded by pseudonymous users (though some people do use their real names), in most cases it is not controversial what is shown in the picture. If someone uploads a photo of a lion from the local zoo, anyone can easily tell by looking that this is what is indeed portrayed. In this case, we have to take into account that the photo comes from a POV source whose specific goal is to discredit liberalism and antiwar demonstrations by smearing them with charges of anti-Semitism. We can't trust their objectivity on this matter. They have forfeited any assumption of good faith by proclaiming their bad faith on their website. *** Crotalus *** 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Crotalus, you keep saying that this image can "easily" be replaced by others, but then you also say that this image is problematic because it may "smear" liberalism and antiwar demonstrations; and as a result you will only accept images that don't support one important point that the proponents of NAS claim, namely that antisemitism is tolerated if not promoted within the context of "liberal" and "antiwar" activism. This argument, if anything, illustrates rather well why this image is needed. --Leifern (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Leaving aside the fact that Wikipedia isn't supposed to verify or refute the argument you're describing, I don't believe that one idiot crashing an anti-war parade illustrates much of anything. Btw, it might be worth noting that most of the "keep" votes have come from editors who have contributed to one side of the New antisemitism debate at one time or another. CJCurrie (talk) 00:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't argue that Wikipedia was supposed to verify or refute anything, only that Crotalus's arguments plainly did (inadvertently) support one side of the argument. How do you know that this person "crashed" the demonstration? You have as much basis for assuming this as I have for assuming that anyone who showed up with a poster that said "The Golan is Ours" would be beaten up. As for your speculations about voting patterns, they just weaken your position. Respond to the comments rather than this roundabout ad hominem stuff. --Leifern (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uhh, Nice bluff crotalus but apparently I am much more familiar with copyright law than you are because in pictures of a public rally you don't need to have permission from whoever created individual posters to show them. I even consulted a lawyer to be sure. Again, nice bluff, I might even of believed you knew what you are talking about if I didn't know any better.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 00:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please read the Wikimedia Commons policy page on derivative works. In the United States, there is no freedom of panorama, so photos of copyrighted artwork (except buildings) taken in a public place are still subject to the artist's copyright. Even those countries that do have freedom of panorama generally only apply this to three-dimensional objects like statues, and only if they are "permanently installed," neither of which is the case here. This policy page was created over a period of years by people who know what they're talking about. Your claim to have discussed the issue with a lawyer is irrelevant because it is unverifiable. Again, if someone took a wide-angle photo of a protest, then the protest itself (and not the signs) would be the central feature and the final status of the photo might be different. But this picture is clearly a derivative work of the poster. It is intended to be so. The entire point of the photo is to show this disgusting poster, which takes up over 90% of the image space. It's a derivative work, plain and simple. If you disagree, feel free to ask someone in the Wikimedia Foundation. Their policy on this matter is clear. *** Crotalus *** 01:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can keep spouting out jargon but you simply are wrong both on the matter of American law and what the position of the wikimedia foundation is. It was fairly obvious why I was mentioned the lawyer consultation, and as you well know I clearly wasn't trying to use that as a source. I think it is time for you to cut your losses and move on.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I cited specific Wikimedia policies justifying my interpretation. You have not cited any reliable source at all. I do not intend to "move on" and give in to POV-pushers who want to keep an unfree image on the grounds of WP:ILIKEIT or WP:USEFUL. That has happened far too often. I've seen it in a dozen different places: in the face of a "little group of willful men, representing no opinion but their own" good faith editors give up and go away. Well, I'm not going away. I'm going to beat back POV-pushing with a stick for as long as I can. Deal with it. *** Crotalus *** 11:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Wow, beating them back with a stick huh? By the way, just mentioning policies is not enough, you also have to be correct about them.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Beit Or, Leifern, Custodiet and others. 6SJ7 (talk) 15:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the fair use rational for its use in each article seems valid. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 23:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable and we have free (and/or better) pictures to replace it with. That the image is used for well poisoning rather than improving articles is also a factor to take into consideration. // Liftarn (talk)

Umm, none of that is criteria for deletion.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use is an argument for deletion and the missuse of the image adds weight. // Liftarn (talk)

• This poster was produced for a rally. The people publicizing it were trying to make a political point and want it to be photographed. They very notion of demonstrating means you want to be noticed. That implies permission to use it. So there really is no issue with this poster.

• Assuming most of the image is of the poster that is photographed, the copyright will remain with the poster maker not the photographer. So if we get another photo of another poster will have the same potential fair use issue. People don’t paint a GFDL or creative commons sign on their political posters before they attend a demonstration. If you still don't go for this argument ask yourselves why are the AP and Reuters both not in copyright violation every time they photograph a poster where the poster takes up the majority of the image? See here[3] and here [4].

• This is a classic case of fair use (if fair use is even needed). The creator of the poster is not interested in commercial gain. He/she just wants to get out some message.

• As to the issue of ‘an unreliable source’ – that too does not stand up to scrutiny. We have an image of a poster taken by someone at a demonstration. The whole reason for not using ‘an unreliable source’ is to make sure that it is not false or distorted. We are not using Zombietime’s opinion or written commentary. They took a photo. Do we think they made it up with Photoshop. I think not. They pressed a button on a camera – that is all. We do not need worry about their feelings about the photograph unless we think it’s forged. (By the way it’s not that hard to figure out if a photo has been altered or forged anyway.) This is an example of quoting a guideline with policy x based on reason y when reason y does not apply. If the raison d'être does not apply in a particular case it it is silly to apply the policy. Custodiet ipsos custodes talk 23:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - a documentary evidence of what deniers would like to sweep under the rug. We've been through this. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please spare us the melodrama of "denial" accusations. We're talking about whether or not this image is appropriate for the project, not whether or not anti-Semitism exists. CJCurrie (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm uneasy about the copyright status of this image. There are actually two copyright issues to be considered: zombietime's copyright over the photo, and the anonymous demonstrator's copyright over the poster shown in the photo. I note that the image page says "The copyright holder's name is available on request." Does anyone know who the copyright holder of the poster is? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that is whose name is available upon request. The photographer, Zombietime, hides his/her identity very carefully. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:54, 22 December 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: Deleted by East718. Non-admin closure. Icestorm815 (talk) 02:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ElisabethSchwarzkopf.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NewYork1956 (notify | contribs).

• Removal requested by uploader. NewYork1956 (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Image has been purloined from Britannica Online Encyclopedia and the copyright is with Baron—Hulton Archive/Getty Images. Uploader requested deletion only after plagiarism was exposed. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 08:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: NewYork1956 attempted to remove the above comment in this edit [5]

Note: NewYork1956 purposely removed NunquamDormio's comment from here as that user has nothing AT ALL to do with my request to have this image removed. Would ANY administrator who reads this please remove this damn image?!?

It has everything do with your request. It was only after I showed that the image has been purloined from Britannica Online Encyclopedia and the copyright is with Baron—Hulton Archive/Getty Images that the uploader requested deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nunquam Dormio (talk • contribs) 10:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clear copyright violation. Brad Potzenik (talk) 17:17, 19 December 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: Deleted, per consensus. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 04:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WorshipThisBitch3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aditya Kabir (notify | contribs).

• This image does not significantly increase readers' understanding, as would be required by WP:NFCC#8. Without this image, readers would easily be able to understand the fact explained in article. NAHID 20:19, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per rationale above. Owen (talk) 21:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The uploader just sent a message to my talk page directing me here, not sure why, I think it should be deleted too, agree with sentiments above. Sue Wallace (talk) 22:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as stated by Sue Wallace (I also got a message directing me here). Tabercil (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader here. Just a clarification. I posted the request to number of people on the fair use project and the pornography project to get a group of experts to take look. It is difficult to judge things that you did on your own. Better that good people judges it. I abstain from making any comment otherwise. I'd rather have no view about this. You can vote or alternatively let me know your views. Thanks for responding. Very much. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - agree with nom the image doesn't add significantly to the reader's understanding article. Addhoc (talk) 22:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - if the image was displayed and described in a way similar to Jazmin#Early_life_and_early_career, then it we could use it. Unless you managed to get that, which I don't see it happening for this article, we have to delete the photo. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 23:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The article itself has problems, but the reason for proposing deletion is misplaced. We routinely have DVD covers, film posters, etc., used for identification purposes in articles about the work in question. We reuse those images if it is an iconic, seminal, career-defining, etc., role for the actor, director, or studio in question. Inherently images like this do increase the reader's understanding of the subject. If this were not a porn film there would be no question. The only thing unusual here is that it's exhibitionistic. It's not erotic (sexually charged) or pornographic - whatever the film itself may show, this is merely cover art that advertises that the film contains nudity and presumably simulated or real sex acts; women's breasts are part of their bodies; pornography is a loosely defined term that apples to showing the actual sex acts. I do have a question of why this particular image is used and what it has to do with the film. But assuming it is either the primary image used in film promos, or the primary publicity shot for the actress in question, it makes sense. Without this image, I certainly have a less complete understanding of the actress in question. Wikidemo (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the deletion is based on the fact that it is a porn image; as I pointed out before, there is already a cover of her displayed on it, showing at least one of the works she was in. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 00:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral - I tend to agree with Zscout370 in that the image isn't presented as well as the first image in the article. However, I think the image is still important for identification purposes, as stated by Wikidemo. Still, the first image is presented in a very interesting and notable light, in that it showed "the first Bangladeshi on a formally released porn movie cover". Thus, I cannot make a decision :( Cheers, ( arky ) 03:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zscout.--Doc^g 08:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is not about the DVD, it's about the person, and the person is adequately illustrated. The DVD itself is not notable, as she has starred in hundreds. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete DVD is not discussed in the article, yet WP:NFC says Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary) I see no critical commentary of the DVD so delete. ( + cover art can't be used to identify the person depicted). Also the pornography project normally avoids posting nude pictures, they have a guideline saying so. Finally the description page violates criterion 10a by not attributing the copyright holder. Jackaranga (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline examples are an inclusive, not exclusive, list. That is a good point, though - the "cover art" example doesn't enable the image use if the article does not talk about either the image itself or the DVD it's used on. A justification would have to be found elsewhere or better yet the text would have to be expanded to explain what the image is doing there. If it's one of hundreds of DVDs she's done then it's not notable. If it's the first, most important, etc., there's some sense in using it but the article should reference that. This article isn't my baby but anyone who wants to keep the image should heed that. Finally, if the porn project wishes to remove a nude image I have no objection at all to it being removed as an editorial decision. I've been treating this as a non-free use issue, and if the result is to keep it should be without prejudice to anyone removing it for any other reason.Wikidemo (talk) 20:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's both, and the issues are entwined. As an editorial decision, if the image were free, we might well include the image of the DVD even if it were no more notable than any other DVD she was in. Because why not? As a non-free image, though, the standard of NFCC#8 refers to the article, affected by all the editorial decisions that make the article what it is. I think we all agree that there are some cases wherein it passes NFCC#8 to include a DVD-cover-image in the article on the subject, and some cases where fails NFCC#8 -- if the DVD were the subject of a major subsection of the article whose importance was sourced, no one (or almost no one) would object. But since the editorial decision is that this DVD is not important enough to warrant mentioning in the article at all, that editorial decision affects how NFCC#8 applies here. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree with all the above deletion reasons. And yet me being a horny individual, tells me no! But I say yes delete. Lighthead ^þ 20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She may be a porn actress but it is not essential to show a mildy pornographic picture to illustrate the fact. This encyclopedia is looked at by children. Brad Potzenik (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - The image does not have a proper rationale to be kept. If it is to be used for the actress prominently featured on the cover, it breaks WP:NONFREE, as it is humanly possible to replace it with a free version. --w^{L<speak·check>} 22:09, 20 December 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.

Image was speedily deleted shortly after I nominated it. Non-admin closure. Cosmo0 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Andrew denicola.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andrewdenicola123 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. No encyclopedic value. Excuse for vanity piece. Cosmo0 (talk) 23:21, 16 December 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.