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: no consensus. There is no agreement on whether 1) it can be replaced with text 2) it significantly improves readers' understanding. The end decision is on hold, deferred to Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion#No consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1Comp obwSambor inspecDrohobycz Burza3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Halibutt (notify | contribs).

• It is not clear what this image is intended to show. The rationale states that it "Shows Armia Krajowa soldiers training wearing captured German helmets. Shows that the organization was sufficiently well organize to capture equipment, and use the captured equipment in organized training exercises that were photographed." I fail to see how any of this could not be explained in text. The point about German equipment could even be illustrated with free images of said German equipment. J Milburn (talk) 01:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As I tried to explain ad nauseum at User_talk:J_Milburn#Please_stop, this is a good illustration of Polish partisans of Armia Krajowa, useful for several articles (Armia Krajowa, leśni, the unit which is not yet stubbed but likely notable). It is also a rare image showing Polish partisans training with German weapons. As another editor noted in the expanded fur rationale, the image "shows Armia Krajowa soldiers training wearing captured German helmets. Shows that the organization was sufficiently well organize to capture equipment, and use the captured equipment in organized training exercises that were photographed." I also mentioned that the author is uknown, and Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has given us permission to use it; while it is not a free license and to be honest the Ministry is not the copyright holder (they just own, have digitalized and now host the collection it comes from), a chance of us being asked to remove it is smaller than the chance of hell to freeze :) If a free image which illustrates the same issues can be find to replace it, fine, otherwise, I think there can be little argument with keep. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That argument misses the point. The image is only currerently in use on Armia Krajowa, so it has to be determined whether its use there is necessary. It is not the primary image of the subect (we do have free images of that) so the question has to be asked- what does it show? It "shows Armia Krajowa soldiers training wearing captured German helmets. Shows that the organization was sufficiently well organize to capture equipment, and use the captured equipment in organized training exercises that were photographed"? Why is a non-free image required for that? We do not need a non-free imnage to illustrate every point mentioned in the article. Why does that particular point need to be illustrated with a non-free image? J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep - Per User:Piotrus. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Too many imgs about WWII in Poland contested already. --Poeticbent talk 02:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that's based on what policy? Wikipedia:Keep non-free images if a lot of them on your favourite subject have been nominated for deletion? Perhaps a lot are contested because they are being used inappropriately? J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs has given permission to use it, so what's the problem? --Martintg (talk) 07:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is free or non-free. At the moment, it's non-free, so its use must meet our non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "The point about German equipment could even be illustrated with free images of said German equipment" - no it couldn't, and would most likely confuse the reader, by presenting just one aspect pulled out of context and it is the combination - training soldiers + uniforms and distinctive armbands + captured equipment - that illustrates the reason given in the rational. "I fail to see how any of this could not be explained in text" - this is a specious reason as it is true of any image whatsoever.radek (talk) 07:19, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. If the important part of any image could be illustrated by a free image, the free image could be used. Why not show a free image of German equipment in a museum? We don't need the image to show that they did train with the material- we already say that in the text. J Milburn (talk) 11:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because it's not just the captured German equipment - it's the combination between, allow me to repeat - training soldiers + uniforms and distinctive armbands + captured equipment. The sum is greater than its parts and that's why we actually use images (any images) in articles in the first place. And again, the contention that "I fail to see how any of this could not be explained in text" is meaningless since any image can be explained in text in some way (your related comment on Piotrus' talk page said "random photos showing people posing with guns" - sure, and Mona Lisa is just some random lady who might be smiling). Gimme an image an I'll give you a way that it can be explained in text, which, according to your interpretation of [1] would make any image superfluous. I think you're confusing the idea of "Burden of Proof" (who needs to provide the rationale) with "Level of Proof" (what constitutes what Wiki calls "valid rationale") - and in the process making the standards for level of proof/valid rationale (almost) impossible to meet - but that's not the intent of the relevant Wiki policy. The Burden Proof is on those who wish to retain the image, but this burden can be met - and it has been in this case.radek (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this was published before 23 May 1994 without a copyright notice, it can be assumed public domain, as per Template:PD-Poland. Do we have any evidence that it was? J Milburn (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Unfortunately, it's very hard to verify that. We obviously know it was taken before that data and it made its way somehow into the Ministry archives. Anything else... we don't. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - First we don't retain copyrighted content because the chance of the copyright holder complaining is next to nil. Second per WP:NFCC #1, there is a free equivalent to the image; text noting they used captured German arms and trained with them. No picture necessary to convey that meaning. Third The Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, by self admission, does not hold rights to the image. Therefore, their "permission" is as useful as me giving permission for everyone to pirate any software. Fourth Fails WP:NFCC #8; the image isn't referenced by the text. It's not tied to it, and not critical to support the text. All that said, I would agree with keeping the image if it is determined to be public domain. That needs to be proven first, not assumed. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The text does mention the use of captured equipment; however I'd like to ask if anybody can identify and confirm that the weapons on this image are in fact captured German guns? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This image and several others were used in the past under this license till it got deleted. Please see talk, which includes notes that an editor talked with a ministry person and was assured we can use the images. I think we should try to contact the Ministry again and ask for a proper free license, but really, put the copyright paranoia behind us - those images are SAFE to use. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:29, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not copyright paranoia and I resent the use of that term. This image is non-free, and so must meet our NFCC- that's all I have mentioned. J Milburn (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur with J Milburn, and I'll re-iterate what I said above. We don't retain copyrighted content because we think we're safe. We have to have proof. We don't in this case. Contacting the Ministry is useless; they do not have rights to the image, (by their own admission) and therefore can not release rights (they don't have them to release). --Hammersoft (talk) 22:17, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Until such time as you get it in writing that it is ok to use the images under an applicable licence, it is not safe to use the images. All Kremlin images were deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/License tags of russian websites in 2007, but we managed to get explicit permission to licence their stuff under a CC licence. I see absolutely no reason why an exception should be made in the instance of Polish images. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Hammersoft. --Russavia ^Dialogue 06:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - important image.--Jacurek (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is it important? How does the image comply with WP:NFCC? Can you base your keep vote on something in policy? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The compliance of the image with NFCC is already explained in the fur (rationale). You're talking as if the rationale hasn't already been provided.radek (talk) 13:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Hammersoft. This image is not so pertinent to the Armia Krajowa article that it cannot be replaced by a free image or text. Of course, if you can prove it's free, I'd advocate keeping it.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Image can be replaced by sourced text. Fails WP:NFCC#1. Rettetast (talk) 18:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any image can be replaced by sourced text. The point of images is that they illustrate. This is not a reason to delete the image.radek (talk) 17:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually it is, as WP:NFCC #1 clearly shows. Some images can not be replaced by text. Some can. This one can, and very readily. --Hammersoft (talk) 11:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per Piotrus.--Adi (talk) 13:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there is nothing iconic about this photo. There is nothing it depicts that can't be explained in text. The reasons given here for keeping it are not supported by policy. --B (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hammersoft. Image is replaceable by free text and/or does not add substantially to readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Piotrus. The image text should be amended to indicate the results of prior correspondence with the ministry. A picture is worth a thousand words and images are an integral part of encyclopedic content. Every last image in WP and Commons can be replaced with text, that's not an argument for deletion. VЄСRUМВА  ♪  03:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is. Please see the non-free content criteria, which explicitly state that non-free images should not be used if replaceable by text. J Milburn (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the criteria do not say that non-free images should not be used if replaceable by text. They say that they shouldn't be used if they can be adequately replaced by text. The key word in the criteria is "adequately" which leaves room open for interpretation and opinion. Obviously there's quite a number of editors here who feel that the image cannot be adequately replaced by text, and the criteria admit this subjectivity.radek (talk) 23:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're leaving out the second half of the criterion - we only use this image if its absence would be detrimental to the user's understanding of the topic. You couldn't possibly argue that not seeing a random photo of these guys would be detrimental to the user's understanding. There are certain images like the Kent State Shootings and Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima where you couldn't possibly talk about those subjects without the iconic photo. Everyone born in the last 30 years saw both of these photos in their history books. That's the kind of image it's appropriate to use. Some random stock photo of the subject is not appropriate to use. I don't even think we could prevail in court if we were sued for using this photo. We're just using it like free stock photography to avoid paying royalties. We're not offering critical commentary about the photo. We're not doing anything transformative with the photo. It's flagrant copyright violation, regardless of our NFCC policy. --B (talk) 00:12, 19 August 2009 (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; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2ask2.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Guyactive (notify | contribs).

• Low quality screenshot of non-free software and non-free web page. Should be readily replaceable. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:08, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and lack of WP:NFCC compliance. I think Microsoft would have a serious problem with this use of this image.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • While obviously this image does not meet our non-free content criteria, the opinion that Microsoft would have a serious problem with it is incorrect. See [2]. They give permission for their screenshots to be used. That permission is not free enough for our purposes, though. --B (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2009 (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; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Etisalat.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jseng (notify | contribs).

• Low-quality screenshot of non-free web page. Should be readily replaceable. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and lack of WP:NFCC compliance.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:24, 14 August 2009 (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; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eisnereurodisney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SergioGeorgini (notify | contribs).

• This non-free image fails WP:NFCC#8 by failing to improve readers' understanding of the article. There is no requirement whatsoever for a photo of the opening of the park. Stifle (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Image isn't mentioned in the text and is in no way significant. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:20, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Hammersoft.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:25, 14 August 2009 (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; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ART4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ajgarcia (notify | contribs).

• Unused user created artwork, uploader is absent, uploading this in 2007 is the only action ever performed by this acount. Sherool (talk) 15:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:28, 14 August 2009 (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; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AVTS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Avts (notify | contribs).

• Unused photo (article about subject have been deleted multiple times), also not clear that author and uploader is the same person. Sherool (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:30, 14 August 2009 (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; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nostalin.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vecrumba (notify | contribs).

• Obsoleted (File:Nostalin.png). Also, there is no such thing as "Commons image Stalin.png" (the link for it would be Commons:File:Stalin.png if it existed); therefore, permission and license for the source cannot be verified. See also Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 6#File:Nostalin.png.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 16:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There was a file called Stalin.png until 7 August 2008 when it was deleted. Vecrumba uploaded File:Nostalin.png 4 March 2008. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 20:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to that link, the file was deleted for "Quelle stimmt nicht", which is German for "Source is not correct"[3]. So we still have a situation where permission and license for the source cannot be verified.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 21:31, 13 August 2009 (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; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uqpeter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Selwin_wu (notify | contribs).

• For List of University of Queensland people a free image could be used to depict someone else on the list. PhilKnight (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:32, 14 August 2009 (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; deleted by King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:St andrews presbyterian church nabha road.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Anabshams (notify | contribs).

• Doubt it is PD; orphaned ZooFari 18:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:34, 14 August 2009 (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; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toshiba HD-A1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MindTooth (notify | contribs).

• Replaceable non-free use image Ejfetters (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and lack of WP:NFCC compliance.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:36, 14 August 2009 (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; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imaginifer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Samort7 (notify | contribs).

• Image of a copyrightable figurine from [4], no evidence of free license. Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and because http://www.preisvergleich.org/ is "copyright 2009 | preisvergleich.org" and http://www.modellbau-universe.de/ is "© 2005-09 s3data Webdesign Hirschaid - Bamberg | NMC GmbH".   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:45, 14 August 2009 (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: Removed from everywhere but FieraMilano - I have tagged it as fair use. --B (talk) 21:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FieraMilano1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mariokempes (notify | contribs).

• No freedom of panorama in Italy. Modern artwork (Fuksas) 93.42.68.137 (talk) 23:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Even if that's true, we should be able to use it under a claim of fair use in FieraMilano. (The other two uses are decorative.) --B (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless a proper fair use rationale is added. Stifle (talk) 11:35, 20 August 2009 (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.