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

The result of the debate was: - Clearly obvious Keep....perhaps sometimes a bit more common sense ? - Peripitus (Talk) 00:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paterson bridge construction.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nomadtales (notify | contribs).

• Image has no verifiable source, but my taggings were repeatedly removed. This is claimed to be a picture of the construction of a bridge that was inaugurated on 1910. This would mean the image's copyright would be expired today. But, without a verifiable source, we can't really say this picture is really what it says it is. Using unsourced images like this opens a grave precedent. Yes, this image is probably what it says it is, but just like anything else on Wikipedia, we need verifiable sources. Damiens.rf 12:50, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and block user for disruption. This is a very obviously public domain image. This user has had this pointed out to him by myself, Theresa Knott, and numerous other users, but has persisted in repeatedly nominating it for deletion. Rebecca (talk) 13:08, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  You're an admin. If you honestly believe I should be blocked, go on and do it yourself and face the consequences, instead of inciting others to do so. IFD is for discussion about the images, not the editors. Please keep your rant elsewhere. --Damiens.rf 17:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Quality and content of the photograph suggests its age is as stated and hence it is now public domain. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 13:27, 3 November 2008 (UTC)\[reply]

• Keep and block nominator for disruption - per reasons said by Rebecca, and also disruptively nominated this image when it was clearly stated it was in the Public Domain and is a work of the Australian government. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 14:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and block nominator for disruption' per Rebecca and Arnzy. The user has been warned about nominating this again. JRG (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I agree that the image is consistent with the claims as to what it is and, while I haven't been to Paterson in a few months, it does seem to be taken at Paterson. That said, the nominator does have a point in that the image has no source information. I have tagged the image appropriately and notified the uploader, which is really what the nominator should have done before listing here. I believe that the uploader should be given time to provide source information before any deletion is considered as the image does, in my opinion, have historical value. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I explained, I really did that before listing it here[1]. But I was reverted twice by currently blocked user Rebecca [2] [3] and once by Theresa knott [4]. I wish you all teh luck with your tagging. --Damiens.rf 05:23, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, I must have missed that, which is ironic since it's the first thing you said. Going by what's written in Wikipedia:Image use policy, specifically the Requirements section, all images need a source and therefore removal of the tags seems inappropriate. There's nothing to indicate that PD sources are exempt form the inclusion of source information so I'm puzzled as to why two administrators would ignore written policy and remove maintenance tags. I'd be interested to read their reasoning. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No problem. You may ask Theresa right now, but you'll have to wait until Rebecca's edit-warring block expires. --Damiens.rf 12:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Silly nomination of obviously public domain image.--Grahame (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the image is from a NSW Dept of Public Works collection of photos taken in 1909 and 1910. They are available in the State Library of NSW. This image has been scanned in from there. Source added. INTGAFW (talk) 23:01, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: - Delete - without a listed source I have to assume that the BBC was correct is noting this image as an AP press photo. Nothing I can see says that this is an official photo rather than, as seems implicit, a press one from 1960 (possibly in New York). Asserted to fail NFCC#8 and would also, if argued, fail NFCC#1 as like Image:Nikita Khrusjtsjov.jpg we already have free images of him. Though there is assertion below that the image is iconic, there is no assertion in the articles, so there is no benefit to readers - Peripitus (Talk) 08:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Image has no source and it's vague fair use rationale can not justify the use of this image in 6 articles. Damiens.rf 14:53, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but reduce usage. My rationale with references to WP:NFCC: Clauses 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 seem to apply. Clause 1 applies to one of the articles, History of the Soviet Union (1953–1985), as an official depection aids understanding in this context. Clause 3 has not been met - image is not essential in other articles so should be removed from these. Clause 10 - some work required to include copyright holder name, etc., but should be fixable. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 16:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Unusual. —Ed 17 for President _{Vote for Ed} 17:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly irreplaceable historic photo. --Irpen 02:39, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: - Delete - in neither article is the image discussed (per Damiens.rf) - fials NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 09:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Malta Summit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lamato (notify | contribs).

• Time magazine cover used in 2 articles, according to rationale, just because this is a very good and useful photo. Neither the magazine itself nor the photo are notable by themselves (and thus, not mentioned in the article). Instead, the event in the image is notable, and we're using Time's work because it fits our agenda. Damiens.rf 15:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It has long been established that coverage by Time magazine (especially front coverage) is note-worthy with respect to the subject being covered. In the context of the time, the cover is extremely significant, especially with the choice of headline. It is also very suspicious that the nominator chose to say that "we're using Time's work because it fits our agenda", which implies in turn a personal disagreement beyond the policies of wikipedia. 82.36.75.12 (talk) 19:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The Malta Summit article can certainly survive deletion of this image; however, it seems to me that use of this image fits perfectly within acceptable criteria for "fair use". In my view, it "shows the key persons behind the subject of this article, and how the event was depicted to the general public." The image shows the two protagonists, Bush and Gorbachev, while Time's choice of headline illustrates how the Summit was depicted to the general public. lamato^(talk) 20:52, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: - Delete - per WP:NFCC#8 - copyright images used in articles must significantly increase reader's understanding. In general this requires that the image itself be discussed in sourced commentary or that the image is the subject of the article or that the image is in some way required in an irreplaceable fashion for good understanding of the subject....no assertion either in the image, article or below on how this is the case - Peripitus (Talk) 09:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Maharishi Mahesh Yogi 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nima Baghaei (notify | contribs).

• Eye candy Time magazine cove used just to illustrate the phrase "In October 1975, Maharishi was pictured on the front cover of the US magazine Time" Damiens.rf 15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral -- I guess I'm okay either way, but I would think that anyone arguing to delete would need to find fault with the fair-use rationale, rather than just stipulating that it's eye candy. I don't see a problem with articles being attractive. TimidGuy (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is with using non-free content to make articles attractive. --Damiens.rf 16:19, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Good point. TimidGuy (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of the articles in question here, free content seems to be available, and hence this is a valid point. However it must be remembered that an encyclopaedia exists for its readers, which on the whole are unlikely to understand the licensing issue and only see, from their perspective, the destruction of article quality, when no alternative images have been sourced. 82.36.75.12 (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I suggest this photo be added to the Category:Fair use TIME magazine covers. The photo is in reference to the article and relates to the article's statement inferring that he became as influential and as well known to a point that rivaled world leaders that regularly grace the cover of Time magazine. The photo adds context. It is not being used to represent the person's image. It is historically significant marking a chapter in the person's life, and in the cultural life of the USA during the mid-1970's. It supports the biography and helps readers to understand the notability of the biographical topic, during the height of his notability which was over a generation ago. Low resolution photos of magazine covers are considered to be covered under fair use. There is little or no justification to delete. It's a good addition to the article. VictorC (talk) 16:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: - Delete - no arguments below, on the image page or in the article to show how the image meets WP:NFCC#8 - significantly increasing reader's understanding. That it illustrates what it pupports to is the entire point of Time's art dept and a credit to them. We need a compelling reason to host this copyright image - Peripitus (Talk) 09:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Khan cover - Time magazine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fastfission (notify | contribs).

• Eye-candy Time magazine cover used in an article that does not talks about this image nor about this magazine. Damiens.rf 15:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral, tending to weak keep - Many other images seem to exist, however the magazine cover does lend a certain weight to the commentary on his cultural impact, the headline in particular establishes him as being seen as a "dangerous man". Suggest that the article itself is edited to work this information in, and then reconsider delete. 82.36.75.12 (talk) 19:46, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Illustrates very clearly the US reaction to this person. Could be referred to easily in the text. Is not just "eye candy" and using a very-low res cover of a well-known magazine for this purpose is well within the bounds of fair use. Magazine covers are considered pretty safe fair use (low res, doesn't deprive from future income, magazine themselves make them freely available anyway, nobody has ever complained, are a recognized way of showing cultural impact), I'm not sure why you're making a little crusade against them at just this moment. --Fastfission (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: - Delete - helpful, useful or reinforcing another part of the article is not enough here to satisfy the "significantly increase reader's understanding" part of WP:NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 09:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Margaret-1951.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Americasroof (notify | contribs).

• Eye-candy time magazine cover used in an article with just a trivial mention about its publication: "...the February 26, 1951 cover of Time Magazine carried her image with a single musical note floating by her head" Damiens.rf 15:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Her major pop-culture status of the time is reinforced by this cover 82.36.75.12 (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If used to describe the celebrity stirred up by her singing career during her father's time as president of the US it is acceptable fair use and helpful to readers. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was: - Delete' - lack of commentary in any linked article about the image means that it fails NFCC#8. We don't use copyright images to signify other things - that can be covered in text alone. No clear arguments about how this image passes the NFCC requirements and currently it is orphaned - Peripitus (Talk) 01:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Time-eagleton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Americasroof (notify | contribs).

• Eye-candy Time magazine cover image used in an article that makes just a trivial mention of the magazine publication. Damiens.rf 15:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think the Time magazine mention in this article is trivial; and even if that was the case, that doesn't qualify this image as eye-candy. This magazine cover, along with the other one highlights the media coverage from his selection as VP to his resignation. These images signify media coverage in general (Time being very popular) and not the instance of the magazine's media coverage. Saeed Jahed (talk) 08:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the above. I believe this meets the NFCC criteria. There is no other possible way to demonstrate media coverage of Eagleton in his transition from VP nominee to being dumped other than using a copyrighted image or source. One image as representative of all media would be fine and because Time is popular this one would do the job. Let me know if you want the rationale fixed up. INTGAFW (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Fails WP:NFCC#8. There is no commentary in the article that supports the significance of the magazine cover. -Nv8200p talk 03:17, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Eye-candy Time magazine cover image used in an article that makes no mention of the magazine publication. Damiens.rf 15:48, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's in a large section of controversial remarks and actions and media responses to those actions. I am also alarmed by the nominator's apparent targetting of TIME covers with the same generic reasoning each time.Syferus (talk) 21:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And I got alarmed by the amount of unjustifed non-free images I found on that category. Other magazines following. Stay tunned. About your keep argument, what would prevent reader to understand such section while not seeing this image? --Damiens.rf 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Virtually any concept that can be understood from images can also be understood from text. This does not disqualify a non-free images from being used in articles. Covers from magazines such as Time, in most cases (and certainly in this case,) very importantly signify media coverage. Saeed Jahed (talk) 08:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. There was no commentary in the article to support that the image was significant. -Nv8200p talk 02:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Waco siege TIME Magazine cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Smoth 007 (notify | contribs).

• Eye-candy Time magazine cover image used in an article that makes no mention of the magazine publication. Damiens.rf 15:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• This magazine cover shows the perception media at the time of the Waco conflict. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickyrintala (talk • contribs) 02:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC) This Image inaccurately implies that David Koresh is connected to the Seventh Day Adventist church. Mr Koresh' views in no way reflect/reflected the beliefs of the Seventh Day Adventist Church. by user Booksdoc[reply]
• Keep - This magazine cover illustrates a theme in this section of the article which describes public perception of the Branch Davidian tragedy around that time. Unak78 (talk) 02:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can do that without non-free images. This picture is just a decoration for that section. --Damiens.rf 11:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non free image with no fair use rationale given. Fails NFCC#1 and #8 IMO. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 11:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. There is no commentary in the article that makes the image significant to the article. -Nv8200p talk 02:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Eye-candy Time magazine cover image used in an article that makes just a trivial mention of the magazine publication. Damiens.rf 15:52, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the image isn't used as eye-candy, it is used to illustrate the prominence and notoriety that the subject achieved by the incidents in which he was involved, including the cover of Time. It is being used congruent with its license. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe we could somehow convey this same information with freely licensed text only. Let me try: "Charles Whitman was born in 1941"... hmmm, didn't worked. Maybe "Charles Whitman is a prominent Russian writer"... no, no, still not there.... hmmm... what about "Charles Whitman was featured on the cover of Time Magazine". YES! Perfect! Voila! I'm a genius!!! --Damiens.rf 23:55, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep - The magazine cover is discussed in the article and a text of that discussion alone certainly does not convey the idea. Saeed Jahed (talk) 08:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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