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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:File; francis ngokumu jpg.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Francis ngokumu (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Last remaining part of a confused collection of soccer-related articles which were deleted as a hoax. The author has been blocked after a trip to WP:ANI, and it's unlikely that this picture will ever be used in an article. Favonian (talk) 10:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Favonian. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reassignment.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jb3 (notify | contribs).

• There is no Wikipedia or legal precedent for items entered into evidence or as court documents are relieved of their copyright. The image itself evidences a 1980 copyright of The Roman Catholic Diocese of Orange. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 01:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete highly questionable copyright status, unused, absent uploader = zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 21:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian freedom pie chart.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fowler&fowler (notify | contribs).

• The image is both unencyclopedic + misleading. Complete WP:OR by uploader, and he counts number of refs in "text-books" - as described in file page and discussions. The OR image is used extensively in talk page discussions to mislead other editors, see various talk pages linking [1]. Also the author and an admin remove OR tag on an obvious OR, [2] and [3].Doorvery far (talk) 03:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also listing file File:India freedom bar chart.jpg, which is nothing but same OR data, but in bar graph format. Doorvery far (talk) 03:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep obviously, as both an archival record related to this RFC, and of continued value to point to new editors who want to push an unsourced and undue POV at the India featured article, as here. Expunging a survey of authoritative academic sources, because one doesn't like what they say is frankly disruptive. Note that the nominator has already argued his point at Talk:India, requested a 30, marked the images as OR, tried to have them speedy deleted, and having not gained consensus at any of those attempts has now nominated them for deletion. In the latest comment on the issue he decries the editors for "living in past referring to paper books", and offers to find web-sources instead (no, I am not making that up! :-) ) Abecedare (talk) 04:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Expunging a survey of authoritative academic sources" doesn't even properly mention how the author counted references to individual subjects/people. I have never seen anybody counting Cntr+F in a page/book and listing them, that is number of occurances(?), which i need to see done anywhere in world other than this image. On top of this he synthesised to get %s, than mentioning gandhi(21), INC(18) etc. as per bar graph. Number of occurrences of a topic signify nothing, and I have seen it nowhere else. Doorvery far (talk) 06:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Abecedare's logic. As a new editor, i find the image and the RFC between Reuben Iys and Fowler are highly educational. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sodabottle (talk • contribs)
• Keep Nomination is a very unambuiguous case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Summarising a count of references and compiling it into a chart for the purose of a long debate cannot be termed as OR. --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How it is not termed OR? He himself counted references, compiled a report himself, and drew a graph that is one and only of its kind on earth. If not OR, show me some ref that shows similar graph. Doorvery far (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The image is used for discussion purposes, not in the article itself. It was also used for the RfC and is part of the archival record. -SpacemanSpiff 17:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Policies that apply to articles and sourcing don't always apply to discussion about the article and sources. WP:OR says (italics are mine) "Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources." Using this policy to attempt to stifle discussion goes against the spirit and letter of WP:OR. Since the images are part of a commonly referenced discussion, they are still important to the discussion and need to be kept. Priyanath ^talk 17:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OR in article or in discussion are very close. The outcome of the discussion results in article content, hence OR is not allowed in disucssions too. Doorvery far (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The chart is not included in an article and its primary use is to illustrate a point that is in use for determining consensus on what to include in the article. As a mere summary of references, it is identical to a textual description of that point (except that a picture is worth a thousand words!). Finally, the nominator appears to be trying to make a point, a bad idea overall. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 00:09, 8 December 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• OR, UE, no target article or encyc use given Skier Dude (talk) 07:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Orphan, and it hurts my eyes... Nuclear Lunch Detected  _Hungry? 08:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hurts my eyes too, but not a reason to delete. No apparent connection to notable group/org/entity. Orphaned. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• OR, unidentified subject Skier Dude (talk) 07:53, 7 December 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RIOTspraypaint.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Riot.GFX (notify | contribs).

• OR, no target article or encyc use given Skier Dude (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-notable art work from non-notable artist. Oprhaned. Uploader gone. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• OR, UE, appears to be merely self-promotion Skier Dude (talk) 08:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete self advertisement, non-notable 'squad', absent uploader. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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: Kept - now sourced via webarchive and apparently PD due to the lack of a copyright notice - Peripitus (Talk) 01:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old Pr baseball game poster.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Not really PD-Old. Image is from 1924. Damiens.rf 13:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The image is a non-repeatable historic event that is associated with the migration of Puerto Ricans to New York. Proper rationale was provided and image is discussed in the article. The "PD-Old" license has been replaces. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is not discussed in the article. The article does not call for such illustration. It's an unnecessary non-free image. --Damiens.rf 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added a rationale for a second article. The Porto Rican Stars, which are illustrated are extensively mentioned i Francisco Coimbre's article and the subject in question is illustrated in it. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The image is still an unnecessary non-free image. Please get acquainted to WP:NFCC#8. We only use non-free material when it's necessary for increasing the understanding of the article. Neither Francisco Coimbre or Puerto Rican migration to New York is harder to understand without an image of an "early poster announcing a baseball game". --Damiens.rf 04:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Caribbean H.Q, proper rationale has been added. --Jmundo (talk) 02:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proper rationale? It's just a copy and paste from Marine's imbecile rationales that contains absurds like "The image is not subject to copyright laws, it is pre- 1925" (what???) and "the image itself is discussed in the article" (when it's not!). --Damiens.rf 04:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning! - You better stop your personal attacks to me. You calling me an "imbecile" is a personal attack and if you continue you to do so you will be blocked from editing. This is the second time that I have warned you on this forum of your childish behavior. For an "imbecile" I have made more positive contributions to Wikipedia then you will ever have. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't called you an imbecile. Don't you act as one. Re-read my comment. --Damiens.rf 05:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes you reap what you sow...:D --Cerejota (talk) 17:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• * Keep - and Damiens, dont insult other users, ,maybe you should re-read your commentEl Johnson (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep PD-old was incorrect, but a new, correct rationale is provided. Nom should have questioned the rationale with the posting editor first before nominating for deletion. That he skipped the customary process for this is further evidence of it being hard to assume good faith in this case.--Cerejota (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And that the original uploader skiped the customary processes of correctly tagging his images is also evidence of bad faith from him? I'm afraid not. Please be fair and AGF for every user, not just the ones that you happen to agree. --Damiens.rf 17:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - rationale is wholly insufficient. The advertisement itself is not particularly notable, and as it consists mostly of text, it is easily replaceable by text and fails NFCC #1. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Both rationales are invalid, as the image is needed in neither article to understand the subject. ÷seresin 23:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The image clearly does not meet the non-free content criteria -- there's nothing particularly significant about this image, and it's not dicussed in either article that's using it. --Carnildo (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Tentative keep, for being almost certainly PD. There's no copyright notice, and since this appears to be a reproduction of a standalone poster or flyer in its entirety, it is highly unlikely there was a copyright notice printed somewhere else but left out in the reproduction. Without one, this is PD according to old US law [4]. – Note that if it wasn't for the PD argument this would be a clear "delete", since the argument for NFCC compliance and the fair use rationale are extremely unconvincing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmmmm, well noticed. This is most probably a case of PD due to lack of copyright notice. --Damiens.rf 16:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - would you reconsider the nomination per "Fut. Perf."? I have also added information to the article regarding said poster and have moved the poster to that section. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marine, what help do you do to Wikipedia by adding the phrase "As evidenced by an early 1924 poster, migrants in New York organized baseball teams which played against each other." to that article? Just to try to justify the use of that poor non-free image?. The article does not need that image nor it needs that phrase of yours. You can mention early baseball games if you want, and as evidence point to some reliable source. There's no need for using this non-free poster. --Damiens.rf 02:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Damiens, do you not remember that the image is clealy PD according to old US law [5] and they you said that this is most probably a case of PD due to lack of copyright notice? Plus the image itself is clearly discussed in the article as required? Come on, right is right. Tony the Marine (talk) 05:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if we can agree this is PD I am sure we can all happily lay this to rest, but apart from that, in terms of the textual commentary, I would agree with Damiens that this would still not work in terms of NFCC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. As a non-free image, it should burn. If someone that understands how to do it determines the copyright was not renewed, it should be tagged as such and it can be used in any article or user page, without the need of any made up commentary. --Damiens.rf 11:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • My understanding is it couldn't even have been renewed, if it had no copyright notice in the beginning. And in a case like this, that assumption seems safe enough to make. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Trusting your expertise here and tagging the image as such. --Damiens.rf 13:06, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dammit. Just noticed the image is not on the source url. Can someone discover where is it from? --Damiens.rf 13:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Fixed through web.archive.org. Even if that had failed, I think we wouldn't necessarily have needed to worry all too much – being a standalone, printed publication, this item could basically count as its own self-descriptive "source" all by itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Not really. Wikipedia would need to rely on some reliable source at least to assert this image is what it's purported to be. That is, I could easily fake a poster of a 1908 cricket game in Photoshop, and spread it through the net. --Damiens.rf 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• That's funny a fake poster. The image was uploaded from here: Puerto Ricans in the United States. Maybe we can give this a rest. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:07, 15 December 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 - There are two opinions expressed below (Caribbean H.Q and Eljohnson15) that do not address the nomination reason in a way that shows how the image meets the NFCC criteria. On a policy basis there is a clear consensus that the image does NOT meet NFCC#8, and the NFCC#3 delete arguments are not sucessfully rebutted - Peripitus (Talk) 02:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oscar Garcia Rivera2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary non-free picture of a politician and some reporter. Damiens.rf 14:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Image of Puerto Rican historical figure and proper rationale within Wikipedia policy has been provided. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That rationale is a joke and as an admin you should know better. --Damiens.rf 19:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The nominator does not seem familiar with WP:NFCI # 8 or WP:CIVIL for that matter. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFCI # 8 clearly says: "As subjects of commentary". This picture is not subject of commentary. Do you understand what it means for a picture to be subject of commentary, don't you? --Damiens.rf 04:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You don't appear to understand that this is fair use? It is illustrating the politician in question being interviewed by a reporter, as commented upon. I do get your point, but it is made in a way that is not helpful or contributes to the encyclopedia. In this particular case, the issue you present is resolved not by removal of the image, but by adding commentary to the caption in the article. All it takes is a little effort, perhaps even less than requesting deletion. Be helpful, not destructive.--Cerejota (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have trouble assuming good faith based on the rationale given. While nominator is technichally correct, the issues presented can be resolved by editing the captions and the article, while still illustrating the articles - a goal of the encyclopedic mission. In other words, the good faith mission of editors is to find good faith rationales for inclusion of non-replaceable non-free images, in particular for biographies and historic events that are greatly enhanced by illustration. That nom made no such effort, and that he has seemingly gone around a number of topic specific articles to do so, calls into question the good faith involved. --Cerejota (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep nominator seems to have a hidden agenda, plus is more willing to delete images instead of improving there rational ext. El Johnson (talk) 17:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one non-free image is sufficient for identification of the article subject. Fails NFCC #3. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There is already a non-free image in the article used for identification. There is zero justification for two. ÷seresin 22:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no agenda by the nominator or anyone else for that matter needed to see that this image is redundant to the one earlier in the article, which should stay. This image is not mentioned in the article and is superfluous to the article. Fails WP:NFCC #8 significance. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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: Kept - - Peripitus (Talk) 02:17, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Oscar Garcia Rivera .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Replaceable image. As an U.S. politician, some official images of this man should be available in the public domain. Damiens.rf 14:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - False claim by nominator. Image is of historic Puerto Rican figure and not-replaceable. Proper rationale within Wikipedia policy was provided and it is a simple, but unproven assumption that just because a person was a U.S. politician, some official images of this man should be available in the public domain. A quick google search reveals that there no other images of said figure:Google image search If so, prove me wrong and please provide one, thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can't find a replaceable image, maybe the nominator can point the way. --Jmundo (talk) 01:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (I guess you mean a "replacement" image). The policy doesn't says we use non-free images when Damiens and Jmundo fail to find a replacement. It says we only use it when a replacement in unlikely to be found or produced. In the case of an American politician, all his official photos are in the public domain (although not all his official photos are on the Internet, lazy boy). --Damiens.rf 01:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Damiens and Jmundo can not find a replacement, because there simply isn't any. Maybe this his official photo and then again maybe not all American politicians have an official photo. You are speculating about an image which really does not have any justifiable reason for deletion. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Nominator is dead wrong here. Antonio Martin (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have trouble assuming good faith based on the rationale given. While nominator is technichally correct, the issues presented can be resolved by editing the captions and the article, while still illustrating the articles - a goal of the encyclopedic mission. In other words, the good faith mission of editors is to find good faith rationales for inclusion of non-replaceable non-free images, in particular for biographies and historic events that are greatly enhanced by illustration. That nom made no such effort, and that he has seemingly gone around a number of topic specific articles to do so, calls into question the good faith involved. In this particular case, an entire wikiproject of dozens of collaborators has not been able, in years, to find a free replacement - and nominator should trust us when we say so. --Cerejota (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Probably replaceable, but I would not remove a non-free image of a deceased subject without having the actual replacement image. However, discontinue use in Puerto Rican migration to New York as a wholly insufficient rationale - we don't need nonfree images to decorate that article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with ESkog on both counts. ÷seresin 22:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December_8#File:Robert M. Isaac.jpg for a similar case. We do delete non-free image of deceased public people because a free image could still be created (while not by taking a new photo, but by releasing an existing one as free or finding an existing free one). --Damiens.rf 12:40, 16 December 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 - I am reading below that we have two issues with this image (apart from the fact that the licence when nominated was clearly incorrect): Firstly the image is inadequately sourced (no details except for the website this copy came from); secondly I feel that the arguments that it increases reader's understanding lack weight and there is nothing that shows how this image significantly increases reader's understanding. I can see nothing that supports El Johnson's assertion or the first part of Antonio Martin's - Peripitus (Talk) 02:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Puerto Ricans arriving by ship.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• I don't believe this image is 100 years old. Also, I could not find the file when following the link provided. Damiens.rf 14:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It is common that some website cease to exsist in the Internet with the passage of time, however good faith uploading of said image must be assumed. Said image is about a historical great migration of group of people to the United States. proper Wikipedia rationale has been provided. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's now an example of unnecessary use of a non-free image. --Damiens.rf 19:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nominator does not seem familiar with WP:NFCI # 8. The image relevant to the topic that is discussed throughout the article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFCI # 8 says the image must be "subject of commentary" and not just "relevant to the topic". Do you really believe you can use any non-free image that is simply relevant to the topic discussed in the article? --Damiens.rf 04:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Image is "subject of commentary" and "relevant to the topic". Read the article. Antonio Martin (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have trouble assuming good faith based on the rationale given. The nominator in this case has not read the article which comments directly on the photograph. The good faith mission of editors is to find good faith rationales for inclusion of non-replaceable non-free images, in particular for biographies and historic events that are greatly enhanced by illustration. That nom made no such effort, and that he has seemingly gone around a number of topic specific articles to do so, calls into question the good faith involved. --Cerejota (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the foto IS subject of commentary El Johnson (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly miss this in the article. Could you quote the passage commenting on the photo for me? --Damiens.rf 18:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Useful photo that appropriately illustrates a statement in the article (that well-to-do Puerto Ricans arrived by ship in the early 1900s). --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 20:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Before commenting on FFDs, you should understand that our criteria for allowable non-free content is more strict than "Useful photo" and "appropriately illustrates a statement in the article". --Damiens.rf 22:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies. I should have spelled out 'useful' and 'appropriately illustrates'. (I figured others above have done a good job but here goes!) The photograph is contextually significant and is encyclopedic and a free equivalent is not available and cannot reasonably be made available. --RegentsPark (sticks and stones) 22:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the subject, so it is an invalid FU. We do not need to see a photograph of people disembarking from a boat to understand that they did—so the image is decorative—and the image itself is not significant. Above assertions of commentary of the image are false. ÷seresin 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clear violation of the non-free content criteria. The event depicted by the image may be significant, but the image itself is not. --Carnildo (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: clear case as per Seresin and Carnildo: this image in itself is neither notable nor unique nor the object of sourced discussion (the discussion is merely about the situation of which the image is a generic illustration, but not the image itself). In addition, it lacks a source, which makes it an obligatory speedy deletion candidate independently of this FFD. Note that a "source" here means not just any odd website that we immediately got the image from, but always the original publication. To comply with NFCC, a source declaration needs to provide enough information to reconstruct the original publication history and copyright status of the image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Image is not mentioned in the article, and there's nothing historically significant in and of itself. We do not need a non-free image to convey that people travelled by ship in this particular era. That's a given. Commercial planes didn't exist. Also concur with Future Perfect; if we can't confirm it's source, and thus not be able to independently confirm its status, it must go. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 - as for the previous image I am unconvinced that the arguments below demonstrate how this image significantly increases reader's understanding. Also there is no adequate rebuttal of the nominator, and others, assertion that it can adequately be replaced with text. It seems clear as well that the assertions that the image is discussed in the article are not supportable. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PRarrivebyplane .gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• This image fails WP:NFCC#8: We don't need to see a picture of people leaving an air-plane to read about Puerto Rican migration to New York. It's just an illustration that gives no more information than the article's own text. Damiens.rf 14:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Image contains proper rationale for usage and yes, it is used to illustrate the impact which air travel had in the historical Great Migration of the people of Puerto Rico to New York and the United States in general. Tony the Marine (talk) 15:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever ever heard about WP:NFCC#8 and how we don't use non-free content for frivolous decoration? --Damiens.rf 19:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - The nominator does not seem familiar with WP:NFCI # 8, "Images with iconic status or historical importance". - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "WP:NFCI # 8 Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.". --Damiens.rf 04:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CHQ. Antonio Martin (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have trouble assuming good faith based on the rationale given. The nominator in this case has not read the article which comments directly on the photograph. The good faith mission of editors is to find good faith rationales for inclusion of non-replaceable non-free images, in particular for biographies and historic events that are greatly enhanced by illustration. That nom made no such effort, and that he has seemingly gone around a number of topic specific articles to do so, calls into question the good faith involved. --Cerejota (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the image IS subject of commentaryEl Johnson (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I honestly miss this in the article. Could you quote the passage commenting on the photo for me? --Damiens.rf 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The image does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the subject, so it is an invalid FU. We do not need to see a photograph of people disembarking from an airplane to understand that they did—so the image is decorative—and the image itself is not significant. Above assertions of commentary of the image are false. ÷seresin 23:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clear violation of the non-free content criteria. "Puerto Rican migration to the US" may be of historic importance, but "a picture of people getting off an airplane" is not. --Carnildo (talk) 23:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Caribbean, this significant image meets NFCI #8.--Jmundo (talk) 12:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Clear Delete, just as the case immediately above – both for lack of a source and for failing NFC#8, per Seresin and Carnildo above. See my comment on the preceding image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and once again, the fact that immigrants arrived by <insert medium> does not need a non-free image to convey that fact. There's nothing specifically historic about this particular image that makes its inclusion here necessary. Fails WP:NFCC #8 as a result, and it's replaceable (failing #1) by text saying immigrants arrived by plane. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kultima3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lindseymr7 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete You forgot to mention the complete absence of any value! Nuclear Lunch Detected  _Hungry? 08:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orphaned as a result of deletion of self-promotional article Starwars: The New Era. No other encyclopedic value. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kultima2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lindseymr7 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orphaned as a result of deletion of self-promotional article Starwars: The New Era. No other encyclopedic value. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kultima1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lindseymr7 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have a camera, I'm in costume, I'll post to WP and ruin StarWars for casual fans everywhere.... (no EV, orphaned) Nuclear Lunch Detected  _Hungry? 08:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orphaned as a result of deletion of self-promotional article Starwars: The New Era. No other encyclopedic value. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1998NMFCpre-season.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lx45803 (notify | contribs).

• Not an "unique historic image", just a funny decorative picture. Damiens.rf 19:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Decorative image removed and tagged for speedy deletion as such. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, probably. This image is actually converted from the .png version of the same name, but I must've forgotten to go through the articles linking to the previous version and point them to the new file. Unfortunately, I tagged the old file for speedy deletion, and now I can't see what linked there. I'll try to hunt down the original article, and see if the image served to identify these people, or some other useful purpose. Lx45803 (talk) 06:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the image has a fair use rationale for a "List of..." article. If the team of that year is notable, then there might be a case for a separate article which could include this image. Its presence on the "List of..." article is decorative and unnecessary to convey meaning, failing WP:NFCC #8 and #1. Further, the use of such images in lists generally fails WP:NFLISTS. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NMFC99premiers.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NimChief (notify | contribs).

• Not an "unique historic image", just a funny decorative picture. Damiens.rf 19:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for sames reasons as File:1998NMFCpre-season.jpg above. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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: keep. Image is under the public domain, licensing corrected to reflect this. — ξ^xplicit 22:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1946NMFC3rdsside.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NimChief (notify | contribs).

• Not an "unique historic image", just a funny decorative picture. Maybe PD according to Australian law, I don't know. Damiens.rf 19:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Copyright expiration in Australia#Public domain photos before 1955, and to the boilerplate on ((PD-Australia)), this image is in the public domain. I've tagged it appropriately. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:16, 8 December 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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DFP graphic card cutted.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Agentbla (notify | contribs).

• Not used. Not useful. Damiens.rf 19:41, 7 December 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 Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BorinquenPost1216.-7.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• No evidence this image was released before 1923 as the licensing tag says. Source information is not verifiable (it seems to be an undocumented Wikipedia-only permission of use). Damiens.rf 19:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection within reason, as uploader i will proceed to delete. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:01, 11 December 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 Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PR Jewish Poster2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Collage of pictures that do not credits the original images. A lot of licensing problems may be hidden. Damiens.rf 19:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' I created poster from images which are PD and found in Wikipedia under subjects article. As sole creator and uploader of the poster, I take full responsibility for all it's content. I and not Wikipedia can be held legally responsible. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This request is not a matter of deletion, it can be fix. No evidence of licensing problems found. --Jmundo (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will happily withdraw the nomination once it's fixed. But it should be deleted if no one does so. --Damiens.rf 04:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the others. If uploader wants to take sole responsibility for the legality/appropriateness of the content, he can pay for webhosting to put it up. As long as it's here, though, it has to follow our policies. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD #F4 unless source information for the images making up the collage is provided. --Carnildo (talk) 23:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Objections against Poster within reason, will proceed to delete. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:15, 9 December 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 Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PR Corsican Poster.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Collage of pictures that do not credits the original images. A lot of licensing problems may be hidden. Damiens.rf 20:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' I created poster from images which are PD and found in Wikipedia under subjects article. As sole creator and uploader of the poster, I take full responsibility for all it's content. I and not Wikipedia can be held legally responsible.Tony the Marine (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know you have to disclose the source images, don't you? --Damiens.rf 20:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an example of a competently made collage, see File:Spanish immigration to Puerto Rico.jpg. --Damiens.rf 20:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As expected, it untrue that the uploader created this posted from PD images as stated. At least the last image is non-free: File:Joe_Negroni2.jpg. And as the uploader, Marine knew that. --Damiens.rf 02:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yikes. If this guy weren't an admin (and therefore was, at least at one time, considered a valuable asset to the project), I'd have blocked him for violating copyrights and lying about it. This is serious, and an administrator should absolutely know better. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I usually get blocked for a lot less... :) Reputation weights a lot here. --Damiens.rf 02:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my reasoning on all the similar "user-created" collages nominated elsewhere this date. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD #F4 unless source information for the images making up the collage is provided. --Carnildo (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Objections against Poster within reason, will proceed to delete. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:16, 9 December 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: Withdrawn. Source problem was fixed

File:Yauco Coffee Plantation.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Image not really found on source Damiens.rf 20:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Do not delete. Another source has been added. This image can be found in The Histoic and Photografic Archive of Puerto Rico. It is dated Sept. 1922 and therefore free of copyright laws since it is pre the Jan. 1, 1923 date. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work! --Damiens.rf 04:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The image predates copyright, I'm not even sure what the issue is here. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:42, 8 December 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 Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PR French Poster2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Collage of pictures that do not credits the original images. A lot of licensing problems may be hidden (for instance, creative commons images can't be relicensed as gfdl, as the uploader did, and almost all licensing require attribution on derivative works, what as not respected here) Damiens.rf 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' I created poster from images which are PD and found in Wikipedia under subjects article. As sole creator and uploader of the poster, I take full responsibility for all it's content. I and not Wikipedia can be held legally responsible. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You lie again: File:Vientos.jpg. Why do you do that? --Damiens.rf 02:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The deletion rationale is based on assumptions, not evidence. --Jmundo (talk) 02:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - original uploader seems unwilling to verify source image information, so we can't verify the licensing. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD #F4 unless source information for the images making up the collage is provided. --Carnildo (talk) 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Objections against Poster within reason, will proceed to delete. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:17, 9 December 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 Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Early fench Settler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Image is not really found on source. No evidence this is PD. Damiens.rf 20:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nominator does not seem familiar with WP:NFCI # 8. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NFCI doesn't apply here, as the image is claimed to be PD. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • He just copied the phrase on all nominations. You don't have to take him seriously. He has no idea what he's talking about. --Damiens.rf 02:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - can't verify PD status with given source information, which is just a broken URL. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD #F4. --Carnildo (talk) 23:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection within reason, as uploader i will proceed to delete. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:03, 11 December 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 Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LaCasaFrancesa.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• This image was not "first published prior to January 1, 1923". Also, source is not valid. Damiens.rf 20:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - obviously newer than 1/1/23. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection within reason, as uploader I will proceed to delete. Tony the Marine (talk) 01:04, 11 December 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 as failing NFCC#1 - image can be covered with text alone. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sixto Escobar El Mundo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• This non-free scan of a newspaper is not necessary for the article. Just a decorative use of a non-free image. Damiens.rf 20:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep"' With all due respect image is not decorative and proper rationale for usage was provided. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rationale does not explain why the image is used. You understand this is necessary, don't you? --Damiens.rf 20:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nominator does not seem familiar with WP:NFCI # 8. The subject is clearly discussed in Escobar's article. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get yourself familiar with WP:NFCI # 8, since it asks for the iconic image itself to be discussed in the article, and not the image's subject. --Damiens.rf 04:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Image and headline of image is about the subject discussed in the article. Antonio Martin (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, great. This is enough to satisfy WP:NFCC. --Damiens.rf 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - one non-free image is sufficient to illustrate article subject; the existence of the headline is replaceable by text, and thus fails NFCC #1. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The image is not decorative and is subject of discussion. --Jmundo (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it's the subject of discussion, then where is the discussion of the historical significance of this story appearing as a headline on El Mundo? No discussion present in actuality. We know he was crowned champion. We don't need the headline from the newspaper article to convey that meaning (which is what the headline says). Blatantly replaceable with free text, failing WP:NFCC #1 and due to not being discussed as an historically significant newspaper article itself, failing WP:NFCC #8. This one's pretty easy. And for those who think it's ok because the image is about the subject being discussed, that would allow every single fair use image in existence to be permissable here. Sorry, you're quite wrong. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LuisRodriguezOlmo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Image is not found on source. It looks like a professional picture. Just because the subject is dead, it doesnt means we can ignore the photographer's copyrights. We should use an image we know the origin to make sure we're not doing anything wrong. Damiens.rf 20:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The nominator does not seem familiar with WP:NFCI # 8. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Give me a break. You have no idea what an historic iconic image is. --Damiens.rf 04:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's no evidence of copyright violation.--Jmundo (talk) 02:39, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need verifiable source information, either you like the image or not. --Damiens.rf 04:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:CSD#F4 and WP:NFCC#10a. --Carnildo (talk) 23:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CSD-F4 violation. Blatant delete. The nominator is extremely familiar with WP:NFCC. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - As uploader, I will proceed to delete, since the cited source no longer works as has so often happens with some websites who throughout the years cease to exsist. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:43, 16 December 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: Withdrawn.

File:RiefkohlyVergesChildren.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• No source (and I think the licensing tag saying it's the work of a Wikipedia is wrong). Damiens.rf 20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Image of uploaders family which is over 100 years old. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good. Now I understand. I've updated the info. --Damiens.rf 21:02, 7 December 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 Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PR German Poster.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Collage of pictures that do not credits the original images. A lot of licensing problems may be hidden (gfdl and cc always require attribution, to begin with.). Damiens.rf 20:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' I created poster from images which are PD and found in Wikipedia under subjects article. As sole creator and uploader of the poster, I take full responsibility for all it's content. I and not Wikipedia can be held legally responsible. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be silly! We have polices asking for the information to be on the file description page. For god's sake, you're an admin and you are supposed to know that. You heroic sacrifice of risking being sue is useless and ridiculous. Stop being lazy and start linking all the individual images in the collation description page. --Damiens.rf 05:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - uploader seems unwilling to provide the sources of the original images, but it's unlikely that they were all created by the same person. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What about some AGF? the uploader is an editor in good stading. It seems that deletion and name calling is more easy than engaging the editor and fixing the problem. No wonder people are leaving this project. --Jmundo (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assume good faith? Tony lied about creating these posters from PD images at least here, here and here. --Damiens.rf 02:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD #F4 unless source information for the images making up the collage is provided. --Carnildo (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Objections against Poster within reason, will proceed to delete. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:17, 9 December 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• No source and replaceable non-free image. Damiens.rf 20:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Source is only given as "NPP" - not sufficient to verify the claim that this is PD. Most likely this is a copyrighted image of a living person. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CSD-F4 violation. Plus, he's alive. We can certainly replace this image, thus is fails WP:NFCC #1 as well. Easy call. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Marine 69-71 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PR Irish Poster3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Collage of pictures that do not credits the original images. A lot of licensing problems may be hidden. Damiens.rf 20:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep' I created poster from images which are PD and found in Wikipedia under subjects article. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be nice and put the links to the original files on the images description page. Also, cite the author of individual images. --Damiens.rf 21:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you had to nominate the file for deletion instead of asking nicely for this in the user talk page? --Jmundo (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it comes out that the individual licenses are incompatible, that file will have to be deleted anyway. And I doubt the uploader was careful about that (he already violated the free licenses by not giving attribution to the original authors). --Damiens.rf 01:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Again, what User:Marine 69-71 said about his collage was false. It's untrue that he "created poster from images which are PD". At least the second image is non-free: File:Ada_Perkins_Flores.jpg. User:Marine 69-71 himself uploaded the image and knew it was not free. Being an "established editor" or an admin gives one no guarantee of competent work or truthfulness on policy discussions. --Damiens.rf 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• As sole creator and uploader of the poster, I take full responsibility for all it's content. I and not Wikipedia can be held legally responsible. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an admin, you should know this is not how things work here. --Damiens.rf 05:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - admin or no admin, the uploader seems unwilling to provide even the minimum attribution required by our licensing terms. Some of the images appear questionably free anyway. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD #F4 unless source information for the images making up the collage is provided. --Carnildo (talk) 23:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Objections against Poster within reason, will proceed to delete. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:18, 9 December 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BR1 Yoshitoki Shuya Noriko Classroom.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Henrickson (notify | contribs).

• Unjustifiable FU image; it does not significantly increase readers' understanding its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. ÷seresin 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nothing significant about the scene that can't be replaced in the text. Fails WP:NFCC #1 and #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unjustifiable FU image; it does not significantly increase readers' understanding its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. ÷seresin 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The collars are a significant plot device, but you can't make them out very well in this image, making the image unnecessary. Fails WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unjustifiable FU image; it does not significantly increase readers' understanding its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. ÷seresin 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete though almost keep. Ok, it's a cast photo. That's good, but the image is of such low resolution that it's worthless in the context. Each class member looks like a near clone of the next. Fails WP:NFCC #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 - image fails WP:NFCC#8 in that it does not significantly add to reader's understanding- Peripitus (Talk) 03:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Utuado Massacre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary non-free picture. No unique relevant useful information is transmitted by this picture. Damiens.rf 20:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Image is important since it is about a historical event and shows part of the attack against the Puerto Rican Nationalists by the Puerto Rican police. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tony, this is a historical event and is relevant to the subject. --Jmundo (talk) 01:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That the image is a picture taken a an historic event, it doesn't follows that it passes our non-free content criteria. This image does not help the reader to understand the article about the historic event. It's unnecessary non-free content. --Damiens.rf 01:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - You are entittled to your opinion, however this image is worth more then a thousand words and gives an impacting idea of the events. The image contains it's source and rationale in accordance to policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two police men crouching behind a car does is not worth more that a thousand words. It's worth some few words, and that can be accomplished with freely available text. Also, the source information is no ok. The copyright holder is not identified, since the image was just grabbed from latinamericanstudies.org, a website that host thousand of images not caring much about respecting copyrights. --Damiens.rf 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nominator does not seem familiar with WP:NFCI # 8. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reasons established above. Antonio Martin (talk) 17:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "serves as visual aid to the reader" is begging the question. What about this image actually contributes to the reader's understanding? At a minimum, the image should *definitely* be removed from Utuado, Puerto Rico. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: There's a difference between a historical image and an image of a historical event. From the evidence provided, I'd say this image falls into the second category, and therefore doesn't meet the non-free content criteria. --Carnildo (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the copy-paste rationales do not serve to convey what purpose is served by this image in the contexts where they are used. We see two policemen hiding behind a car, while they are holding guns. What's so important about that that we need to have a fair use image to get that across? The overall event is historical. Policemen hiding behind a car is not. Just because the image has something to do with the event doesn't mean it gets a free pass for inclusion. This is not a key moment in the event, and the image itself is not of independently sourceable notoriety. Let me give you an example; File:Burningmonk.jpg. That image is historically powerful and directly relevant to Thích Quảng Đức, as it is the key event for which he is famous. If we had another fair use image showing him sitting there before he lit himself on fire, it wouldn't serve the same purpose. It's him being on fire that's significant. Two policemen hiding isn't significant. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Hammersoft. Nuclear Lunch Detected  _Hungry? 22:14, 12 December 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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:03, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elias Beauchamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jmundo (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary non-free image (copied from some random website). Not helpful for the understanding of the article. Damiens.rf 20:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Elias Beauchamp was one of the principal protagonists to the Rio Piedras massacre. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what? We should ignore possible copyrights and our policy in such cases? How is the readers understanding impaired by the lack this picture? --Damiens.rf 01:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an historical image of one of the main protagonists moments before he was killed at the police station. --Jmundo (talk) 01:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nominator does not seem familiar with WP:NFCI # 8. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Jmundo. Antonio Martin (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - rationale given is "image is of a historical event in which subject was involved." If we allow this rationale to stand, we set a precedent that would allow thousands of other inappropriate uses where a person happened to "be involved with" a particular event. How does this image contribute to readers' understanding of the subject of the article? (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you didn't read the article, this image is unique and iconic because it was taken "moments before been executed at the police headquarters". There are songs and poems about the subject in Puerto Rican's folklore. --Jmundo (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was anything ever written about the image itself? You show you don't understand the difference between an historic image and an image of an historic event. --Damiens.rf 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There's a difference between a historical image and an image of a historical event. From the evidence provided, I'd say this image falls into the second category, and therefore doesn't meet the non-free content criteria. --Carnildo (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe the article needs expansion, but this image is unique and iconic. I'm suprised how editors here at quick for asking for deletion without caring to find a replaceable image for such an important historical event. Jmundo (talk) 12:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the image is "unique and iconic", you should be able to find at least one source discussing the image itself, rather than the events depicted by the image. --Carnildo (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the book "The Puerto Ricans: a documentary history: The youths, Elias Beauchamp and Hiram Rosado, were taken to the police station and shot to death but not before one of them posed solemnly for a news photographer outside and proffered a stiff military salute..." --Jmundo (talk) 04:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The picture is just mentioned, not discussed or analysed. This passage alone does not make the picture notable or historic (although the event itself is historic). --Damiens.rf 12:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • May I remind you that only one picture is available of this event. The iconic image of Beauchamp doing a military salute is essential to understand the repercussion of the attacks. The event just like the Ponce Massacre is a sensitive part of the history of Puerto Rico and the relationship with the United States and has been omitted from many history books. If I was at the University of Puerto Rico I had access to many more sources. Oh well, I know you want all these historic images deleted so discussion here is a waste of time. Good luck, --Jmundo (talk) 14:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          The essential fact that "Beauchamp did a military salute" can be (and actually already is) easily explained and understood with (free) text alone.

          I agree that the understanding of this historic event is a prerequisite for the understanding of the history of Puerto Rico and its relationship with the United States. What I disagree is that seeing this picture is a prerequisite for the understanding of this historic event. --Damiens.rf 17:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being taken moments before he died doesn't make it notable, except as the last image taken of Elías Beauchamp, who is by himself not notable except for involvement in this event. We don't need an image of him in order to understand he was killed by the police. Image's purpose has already been replaced by text where it notes "Beauchamp (was) arrested, and summarily executed". The image doesn't help readers undertand that. Fails WP:NFCC #1 and #8. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image is iconic not because is the last photo of Beauchamp. His military salute is a symbol of the militant independence movement in Puerto Rico. The image meets wp:NFCC # 1 because the subject is deceased and a free equivalent is not available and also meets #8 according to the reliable source and the mention on the article. --Jmundo (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the image is not subject of discussion in the article and seems to be used to simply illustrate a short paragraph referring to him. While the image is nice, that alone is insufficient. It does not significantly add to reader's understanding. If the image itself was subject of sourced discussion, or it added something that text alone could not convey, then that would be a different matter. I can fully understand that he was summarily executed or that he gave such a salute without having to see this image - Peripitus (Talk) 03:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• About the issue of NfCC #1 and #10: The image is from a 1936 AP picture that appeared in many newspaper including the New York Times, 1. About "subject of discussion": the material is available to expand the article (for example the source provided earlier in the discussion and this historic collection of news reports), hopefully we can attract more editors to this kind of subject and we can meet the deadline.--Jmundo (talk) 03:26, 22 December 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 - image fails WP:NFCC#8 in that it does not significantly increase reader's understanding. Except for perhaps Cerejota, and Jmundo's last note, below there is no argument as to how this image adds, let alone adds significantly, to such understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 02:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Casaroja.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Article says the image is from 1960, so the author can't be death for more than 100 years. Damiens.rf 20:57, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - You are right in your reasoning, therefore a rationale for use has been provided. Tony the Marine (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's now an unnecessary non-free image. Marine, please understand that rationales are supposed to explain why the specific image is necessary in the specific article. What you call "rationales" is a joke. --Damiens.rf 01:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Second Warning! - You don't have to be insulting about it. This is the second time you have been warned about your personal attacks against me. Above you called an "imbecile" and now a "Joker". I am not a "Joker" and I have dealt with you in a respectful way up to now in what seems to me to be Anti-Puerto Rican image agenda. I'm not saying this to be rude, just that it seems that way since all of your nominations have been directed towards Puerto Rican related subjects. If you continue to disrespect me, you will be blocked from editing. The Image is of significant historical importance and adds to the understanding of the article since this is the actual place where the revolution started. Tony the Marine (talk) 02:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Rationales are supposed to explain why the specific non-free image is necessary for understanding the specific article. The one you write are far from that. They are boilerplate mambo-jambo. Keep your agenda-theories to yourself. Here, you are supposed to assume good faith. Yes, many article about Puerto Rico made a poor use of non-free content, and I'm starting to cleanup the mess. And for last, I suggest you not to use your admin bit to keep me out of discussions. And stop the Drama as well. --Damiens.rf 05:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The nominator does not seem familiar with WP:NFCI # 8. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, yes, whatever your say, parrot. --Damiens.rf 05:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Proper rationale was added. --Jmundo (talk) 02:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Image has proper rationale, plus I would like to ask the nominator to refrain from name calling. Antonio Martin (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Rationales are grossly insufficient to explain why this non-free image should be used in either of its current linked articles. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Clear violation of the non-free content criteria. Neither the image nor the subject of the image is significant. There's no evidence that the image is irreplaceable, either. --Carnildo (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per ESkog. Note that the house isn't even mentioned in one of the articles, and only a passing note in the other. Why is this specific non-free photo important?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Delete rationales betray ignorance of the topic being covered. This photo is the rough equivalent of the phot of Abraham Lincoln's log cabin, as it illustrates an important structure in the historic event called the "Grito de Lares", namely the residence of one of those who planned and participated in it. I am detecting a geographical bias in opposition to inclusion, and a whiff of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.--Cerejota (talk) 01:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing about this picture that can't be replaced with words. The reason we've got a picture of a log cabin at Abraham Lincoln is that the picture is free content, not because the appearance of the cabin is important. --Carnildo (talk) 23:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why do we need an image of Manuel Rojas' house in 1960? In the two articles where it is used, its condition or appearance is not discussed nor apparently relevant. Is the house historically important? Preserved as an historical landmark? Something? Anything? Fails WP:NFCC #8 utterly. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The residence of one of the main leader of the historic uprising where some 400–600 rebels gather is not going to be declared an historic landmark by the colonial government anytime soon. --Jmundo (talk) 16:10, 12 December 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bob-Dylan.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sambo (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, not useful for an encyclopedia. JaGa^talk 21:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orphaned. Uploader gone. No apparent value. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:My bodyLR.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Karynmannix (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, no encyclopedic value. JaGa^talk 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sole edit of uploader. Uploader gone. Orphaned. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OriginalSketch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by IAmJack600 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, no encyclopedic value. JaGa^talk 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete orphaned. Uploader gone. No apparent value. Conflict between copyright notice on image and release statement by uploader. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nuclear Lunch Detected  _Hungry? 21:54, 14 December 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.