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 per those below who reasonably content that this image is PD. For the record, though, if this image were unfree, this FfD would have been closed as delete as the arguments below regarding the significance of this image are unconvincing. If it is determined that this image is in fact not PD, it is my opinion that the image may be summarily deleted per my aforementioned reading of these arguments. ÷seresin 05:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ponce Massacre.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jmoliver (notify | contribs).

• Copyright holder not identified for this non-free picture. Also, image is a non-famous picture of a famous event. It shows people and police on the streets, and I don't think it adds any relevant information to the article's (free) text. Damiens.rf 01:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Image is relevvant to article and is a famous picture which not only circulated in the local newspapers of Puerto Rico at the time, but also appears in other websites in which the event is dicussed. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the image famous? Did it won some prize or was commented about? Is it being used in the article in a section regarding the picture itself? I would withdraw the nomination in this case. But for now, I have no reason to believe this.
  • And since its famous, it shouldn't be hard to discover the images copyright holder. Please do your homework. --Damiens.rf 01:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The source is, according to the article "Carlos Torres Morales, a photo journalist for the newspaper El Imparcial.". I cannot find any record to indicate the newspaper applied for their copyright to be renewed (tried a few places). If the copyright was not renewed—as seems the case—then this is ((PD-US-not renewed)) as Puerto Rico seems to fall under US copyright (in 1937 as well as today). Damiens.rf.....less snarky would be more productive - Peripitus (Talk) 04:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: no valid explanation has been given:
  • "Image is relevant to article" :

irrelevant

• • "The image is about a historical event which is fully discussed in the article." :

irrelevant, the article is not about the image itself, and does not make a critical discussion of the image

• • "It is the only image found of said event and therefore the image in question is not replaceable":

logical fallacy

• • "Author of the image is unknown.":

irrelevant. By the way, if it is so, what "Photo was taken by Carlos Torres Morales, a photo journalist for the newspaper El Imparcial." mean ?

• • "Image is of low resolution.":

it is 637 × 368 pixels, so not even really. Of course, this is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one.

• • "The image serves as visual aide for the reader and giving the reader an idea of the situation surrounding the events discussed.":

oh, you mean it's an image?

Rama (talk) 10:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Iconic image of a sensitive incident in Puerto Rico' history. I hope we can fix the problem because this is an important image. --Jmundo (talk) 11:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP

(1) Everything indicates this picture has lost its copyright, and thus is in the public domain:

EX1

EX2

EX3

EX4

EX5

EX6

EX7

EX8,PHOTO-IN-VIDEO

(2) The copyright holder was "PRENSA INSULAR DE PUERTO RICO, Inc." HOLDER, which was founded 91 years ago, in 1918 FOUNDED.

(3) The picture was taken 72 years ago, on March 21, 1937, by Carlos Torres Morales, a photographer working for El Imparcial newspaper PHOTOGRAPHER. Carlos-Torres-Morales

(4) The picture lost its copyright 44 years ago, on March 22, 1965, COPYRIGHT-EXPIRY. There is no indication its copyright holder in 1965 (presumably "EDITORIAL EL IMPARCIAL INC.", NEW HOLDER) applied for an extension (which would had brought its copyright as far as 1993 anyway). The wide availability of the picture from so many sources (see 1 above) would suggest its copyright in fact expired and was not renewed.

(5) The copyright holder went out of business 36 years ago, in 1973 CLOSING. This was 8 years after the copyright had expired.

(6) The length of time the picture has been on display in Wikipedia (5 years) IN-WIKIPEDIA, without no one person or entity coming forward claiming it holds the copyright, further attests the picture is in fact in the public domain.

(7) From the various discussions that this particular Candidate for Deletion issue has generated, it is evident that a considerable, over-arching, and time-consuming, good faith effort has been on the part of several editors to identify the photograph's copyright status and/or owner. It is difficult to see how such effort could be ignored in the unlikely event that an existing copyright obscurely existed somewhere.

(8) For those not familiar with the event or the photograph, the photograph gained notoriety as the famous Massacre (SEE-PAGE-24) was investigated by the ACLU (See HERE> Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Civil Rights in Puerto Rico. By The Commission of Inquiry on Civil Rights in Puerto Rico. 70p, np, May 22, 1937. Law Library Microform Consortium. Kaneohe, HI.). The photograph was crucial to the ACLU establishing the Massacre had been intentionally authored by the U.S.-appointed American military governor Winship (See HERE-> WINSHIP'S-MASSACRE). The photograph was then used by Congressmen Bernard and Marcantonio (TESTIMONY) against the Governor who was consequently summarily removed from his position by President Roosevelt (WINSHIP-DISMISSED). Further attesting to the notoriety of the photograph, an oil canvass painting has been made by a well-known New York artist PAINTING. A 2004 movie "REVOLUCION EN EL INFIERNO" MOVIEwas also made about the Massacre.

KEEP I agree with Jmoliver that the photograph is in the public domain.

• KEEP is my suggestion, recommendation, and vote.

Regards, Mercy11 (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It is really incredible when an iconic image such as this one is nominated for deletion. This image is the article, it is the massacre of innocent bystanders in the exact moment it occured, this is the Ponce Masscre. A quick google search will show that dozens of websites have published it because of it's historical importance to Puerto Rican and American history. Do any of you believe that this iconic image which was widely publized at the would appear in so many websites if it were not public domain. Where is the logic in that. The very importance of this image in relation to the Ponce Massacre is stated by Francisco H. Vazquez in his book, Latino/A Thought: Culture, Politics, and Society (Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; ISBN-10: 0742563553; ISBN-13: 978-0742563551) In page 398, the importance of the photo is demonstrated in the statement made by Mr . Arthur Garfield Hayes who investigated the Ponce Massacre reported the following to the American Civil Liberties Union, of which I will quote a small part:

"In this photo we can see practically all the policeman at Aurora and Marina (17 or 18) ready to fire against the people. All of them have weapons in their hands. We also see a policemen the moment that he fires his revolver. There is a white smoke from his shot. The shot is being fired directly at the people on the sidewalk. The policeman can be seen clearly. This Committee has been unable to understand why this policeman and the others fired directly at the crowd and not at the Cadets. We have tried to understand why the government did not use these photographs all of them widely published." Latino/A Thought: Culture, Politics, and Society. Tony the Marine (talk) 04:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Now the image and it's iconic importance is described in the article:The investigation and the Hays Commission. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You asked: "Do any of you believe that this iconic image which was widely publized at the would appear in so many websites if it were not public domain?"

I reply: Yes. Welcome to the Internet.--Damiens.rf 12:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article commenting about the image is a good start, and if worked correctly, can "save" the image. But you'll have to improve that. Currently, the article just duplicated a long quote from the cited book, which is itself an excessive use of non-free material (the copyrighted text).

If the article discussed the picture in original (I mean, wikipedian-authored) text sourced to two or three books that discussed the image, and the picture is used solely on the section where it's discussed, I would "vote" to keep it. --Damiens.rf 12:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You must know by now that the image meets WP:NFCI # 8. If you don't like the quote from an ACLU report that directly discussed the image, and the placement of the image in the article, so fix it!. Maybe other editors from WP:PUR are busy trying to save the images you nominated for deletion. --Jmundo (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image can't be kept if it isn't used properly. Fair use is all about "use", and not about the image itself. I don't feel competent enough to write an article section based on sources commenting on the image. I trust our great contributor Marine for that task. I volunteer, though, to write a proper fair use rationale for the image once its properly used in the article (something I don't quite trust Marines's competence for doing so). --Damiens.rf 17:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with "Damiens", my expertise is article writting, mostly Puerto Rican historical and military related articles. He is more acquinted with image issues. I'll look into more book references and he'll make the required fixes to the image rationale when the time comes. Tony the Marine (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep I cannot judge the evidence that it is public domain for non-renewal. but it does seem to be an iconic picture as shown by its wide use, & the references to the discussion of it, &would thus appear to meet NFCC. Further, the nom seems to admit as much, and if the only problem is adjusting the wording he should withdraw the nom. and help do so. DGG ( talk ) 01:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have re-worded the statement made by Mr . Arthur Garfield Hays who investigated the Ponce Massacre. His words upon viewing the image made a clear discription of the same. The image is discussed in the article. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not good yet. You just slightly reworded the quote. There are basically two things that should be done:
    1. The article should comment on the image based on more than one source, to show the picture's notability.
    2. The image should be used solely on the article's section where it's discussed, and not on disparate sections on 9 different articles.
  • If the image is shown to be notable and not used correctly, it should go. --Damiens.rf 13:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This photograph is remarkable in that the policemen are not shooting at the uniformed nationalists but at a terrorized crowd in full flight.", that was a quote from Luis Muñoz Marín, the first democratically elected governor of Puerto Rico (the source is an academic journal from the Inter American University of Puerto Rico). --Jmundo (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great source. Good work. Someone please remove the image from 8 of the 9 articles it's currently being used and write a paragraph or two about it based on these two sources. Once it's done, I'll write a valid fair use rationale and withdraw the nomination.

• Damiens, I'll remove them from the other articles today. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done - I removed the image from other articles with the exception of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party and Ponce, Puerto Rico, where I believe it is properly used. Don't know about the Museo de la Masacre de Ponce, I'll let Damiens take that one. Tony the Marine (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Now, according to the "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, 1 January 2009" [1] Images published with notice but copyright was not renewed from 1923 through 1963 are public domain due to copyright expiration. "El Imparcial" which went out of service 35 years ago, could not have renewed it's copyright which expired. If I am correct, this would make the Ponce Massacre image public domain. Tony the Marine (talk) 07:05, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right --- Which explains why the image appears EVERYWHERE on the Internet without a copyright credit line. And that EVERYWHERE includes the respected Puerto Rico Online Encyclopedia http://www.enciclopediapr.org/ing/, a project of the Puerto Rican Endowment for the Humanities http://www.fphpr.org/, itself an organization funded by the National Endowment for the Humanities (http://www.fphpr.org/sobre_nosotros/nuestra_institucion.asp), an agency of the U.S. federal government.

Anyone who (see above at this LOCATION) responds "Welcome to the Internet" to the statement -- as made by Tony the Marine -- "Do any of you believe that this iconic image which was widely publized at the would appear in so many websites if it were not public domain," such responding editor obviously either wasn't around when Napster got nailed, or hasn't cared to learn about the incident. Well...or (worse yet) knows about it, but unfortunately doesn't understand its repercussions and impact on the rest of the Internet publishing world. Of course, the self-serving defense of "well (using a girlish voice here) Napster is exactly what we are trying to avoid happen to Wikipedia!" is always bound to come back. What a pity! Some people just don't get it...

Said differently, it is poor judgement to assume bad faith with all the dozen or so sites where the Ponce Massacre JPG is displayed. To assume this is to assume that the National Endowment for the Humanities and the Puerto Rican Endowment for the Humanities are both knowingly violating copyright law. And after the little Napster discourse above, I reply: Guess what, sonny, we live in a different Internet world now than the one where people (you?) lived where Napster illegally made available for anyone's download pleasure millions of copyrighted songs. To such poor judgement, I say, "Welcome to the Internet after Napster"! Mercy11 (talk) 23:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep To closing administrator, it has been established that the image is Public Domain - "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, 1 January 2009". The image is discussed in the entire article and all criteria has been met, there is no need to present "conditions" since all conditions seem to have been met. Antonio Martin (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I confess I cannot assert the PD status of the image. If the closing admin decides it's PD. I'll be ok with it (as long as the closing admin is not forum-shopped by one of the keep-voters). I understand the original copyright holder went down before the time to renew the copyright. But wasn't the copyright inherited by someone at the time of the newspaper closing? I, for one, have no idea how to determine if the copyright of a given work has be renewed. --Damiens.rf 16:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Apparently in the public domain. Even if it isn't, easily meets WP:NFCC. This appears to be a genuinely iconic image, and its current usage in articles seems appropriate to me. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-free use in that 4 articles is unacceptable. If not PD, this image could be used in just one article, in the section about the picture itself. --Damiens.rf 01:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - You stated above: "That's a great source. Good work. Someone please remove the image from 8 of the 9 articles it's currently being used and write a paragraph or two about it based on these two sources. Once it's done, I'll write a valid fair use rationale and withdraw the nomination", now it seems as if your are retracking and setting conditions which I believe is not right, if we consider that the image is PD in accordance to Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, 1 January 2009". Even if it were non-free, there is no reason to set up conditions that said iconic image be removed from the "Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico" article since the Ponce massacre is part of the history of that political party and the "Ponce, Puerto Rico" article since the Ponce massacre is part of that city's history. This reminds me of the iconic image File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg which is included in seven articles. I don't see anyone complaining. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If the image is deemed PD, you can you it wherever you want including your user page. If it's non-free, it should be used just in the article that discuss it notability, and not in the article that discuss the events it depicts.
• Well noticed about the Iwo Jima image, it's obviously being over used. There's work to be done. --Damiens.rf 12:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note - Since Puerto Rico falls under the US copyright laws in 1937 as well as today, and the image is PD in accordance to Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, I have posted the most logical license ((PD-US-not renewed)) which was recommended by User:Peripitus above in this discussion. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:43, 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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Knive types.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lament (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, low quality, no legend, little encyclopedic value. JaGa^talk 03:56, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aberration1.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Portnadler (notify | contribs).

• No description; orphaned ZooFari 04:21, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Rhymevasion.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rhymestyle (notify | contribs).

• Unused, unencyclopedic; uploader is a vandalism-only account. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 04:50, 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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:18, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hiram Bithorn.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AntonioMartin (notify | contribs).

• Copyright holder not identified (it could be some news agency, for instance). Image was just grabbed from some nice website. Damiens.rf 05:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Image is properly sourced and is within established policy. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please get acquainted to Wikipedia:NFCC#10. Random images one finds in google or cool website are not automatically fair use, let alone acceptable on Wikipedia. --Damiens.rf 01:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:NFCC # 1: low resolution image not replaceable, subject is deceased and no free equivalent is available. --Jmundo (talk) 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NFCC is a criteria for inclusion. You're supposed to comply with all 10 criterion, not just the ones you pick. Repleacability and image resolution have not been contested on this discussion. Your argumentation is immaterial. --Damiens.rf 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have expanded the non-free rationale in the description page as required by policy. The page has link to the source of the image and my understanding of WP:NFCC #10a is that the information about the copyright holder is only supplementary to the identification of the source of the material. --Jmundo (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me, without knowing the copyright holder, how can you assure this image does not violates WP:NFCC#2? --Damiens.rf 13:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you telling me that NFCC 10a is wrong? Maybe I misread or missed something: "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder." --Jmundo (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are valid occasions where the copyright holder can not be known, like some picture published by some terrorist (or otherwise illegal) group. Having downloaded the image from some copyright-lenient website is not a valid reason. --Damiens.rf 19:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before we keep discussing about the details of wp:nfcc 10a, are you aware that the image is about the first baseball player from Puerto Rico to play Major League Baseball? This is a bad resolution gray image, are you seriously proposing that the placement of the image in his article is going to "replace the original market role"? The image is already on several websites. Can you locate a free equivalent? Wp:nfcc 10a only states that the copyright holder information is supplementary to the identification of the source that, in this case is already provided in the image description page. --Jmundo (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States, 1 January 2009"; Section "Works first Published in the United States"[2]; from 1923 through 1977 if work is published without a copyright notice it will be the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities. Antonio Martin (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you believe this was published without a copyright notice? It looks like a newspaper picture, where the notice comes at the picture side. --Damiens.rf 01:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the two main Puerto Rican newspapers in Bithorn's era where "El Imparcial" which collapsed in 1975 and "El Mundo" which collapsed in 1990 and it is unlikely that the copyrights of the image were renewed, there is no evidence of this happening, therefore it should be in public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities. Antonio Martin (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please, understand and adress my question: What makes you believe this was published without a copyright notice? --Damiens.rf 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the source and copyrightholder are unclear. Given the uniform this image is from before 1941 while he was with the San Juan Senators. It seems likely that this is a press image that was printed in a news source. While I can see no evidence that "El Imparcial" or "El Mundo", at least, ever renewed copyright on papers from this time—there is no proof or indication that this image was made by them, rather than made by someone else and used by them, nor is there any proof that this was printed in either paper. Bithorn appears well covered in books and I am fairly sure that one of them will have this image and will attribute it/source it. It seems likely that some off-line searching could find a image that could be proved to be in the public domain, or at least find an image for which there is a correct source. This image may be free, but we simply do not have any information to confidently assert this. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:39, 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; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Plettenberg arms.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, replaced by File:Stadtwappen der Stadt Plettenberg.png. JaGa^talk 15:37, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ricardomartinelli.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cocoliras (notify | contribs).

• Free alternative available: File:Ricardo Martinelli.PNG Damiens.rf 18:48, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richie Rich (rapper).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Qlazarus (notify | contribs).

• Non-free picture of a living artist. Damiens.rf 18:49, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Régi Tisza.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BBS87 (notify | contribs).

• Non-free picture of an existing place (as far as I understand from the confusing article). Damiens.rf 18:51, 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 - the nomination is on the basis that the image is replaceable with a free image, either one that is available or could be created. Opposing arguments need to sucessfully rebut this assertion, and there are none here that do - Peripitus (Talk) 02:08, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert M. Isaac.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kintetsubuffalo (notify | contribs).

• Although dead, this guy was an American politician and some offical images of him should be around (not necessarily on google, don't be lazy!) and they would be in the public domain. Regardless of that, we should not be using a picture that was apparently copied from a news source. Damiens.rf 18:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless you can provide such a mythic photo, and watch who you accuse of laziness. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 19:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As a recently-deceased politician, it should be easy to find a free image of him, or to find someone willing to release an image under a free license. --Carnildo (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Deletion rationale relies on an assumption that a free image is available. Nominator should try some WP:AGF and stop insulting editors by calling them "lazy". --Jmundo (talk) 14:39, 10 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⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Kotick press photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DustFormsWords (notify | contribs).

• Unused non-free image of a living man. Damiens.rf 18:55, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Non-free picture of a living artist. Damiens.rf 18:58, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Richardstewartlowres.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Greg Salter (notify | contribs).

• Non-free picture of a living public guy. Damiens.rf 19:01, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Roland SH-201.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheFrankinator (notify | contribs).

• Non-free picture of a commercially available object. Damiens.rf 19:02, 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⚡ 11:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rita wind.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FLEE (notify | contribs).

• A free alternative drawing could be made from the data (or maybe this one is already free, since it was done by nasa/colorado.) Damiens.rf 19:05, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Messenger of Freedom By Eddie Adolf.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Snoxie (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary, non-notable not-commented-about work of art. Damiens.rf 03:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible keep - Promotional image of a deceased individual; irreplaceable and necessary. Kindly dedicate your energies to contributing to our encyclopedia in a constructive, not destructive manner. Badagnani (talk) 02:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you believe nominating a file for deletion is a destructive activity? We should close WP:FFD then. And... oooops, I nominated the wrong image in the article. Fixing now. --Damiens.rf 03:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - we do not take copyright works (like this) that people have put great effort into and use them to decorate articles. The image itself has no sourced discussion in the article. Perhaps the original artist attempts to sell web copies and we are also infringing on his rights there. Image fails WP:NFCC#8 and probably WP:NFCC#2 - Peripitus (Talk) 04:13, 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⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Red shirt protest march 26 2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KungDekZa (notify | contribs).

• There are many free pictures of the April 2009 Thai political unrest in Commons. No point in using a non-free image whose source is a link to a blogspot page. Damiens.rf 19:10, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Remora (ADF photo).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick-D (notify | contribs).

• Although related to the subject of the article, and argbly irreplaceable (by another image) this image is not necessary for the understanding article. Its omission would not make the article harder to understand. Damiens.rf 19:13, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SAINTDOGusA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jride247 (notify | contribs).

• Non-free picture of a living guy. Damiens.rf 19:15, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:William Clay Ford Jr. in Death or Canada.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dannothomson (notify | contribs).

• This small non-free headshot is not necessary for the discussion about the documentary. All relevent information is already in the text. Damiens.rf 19:17, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Walter kamba2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Babakathy (notify | contribs).

• Non-free picture of a living guy. Damiens.rf 19:18, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilkhahn chair 1940.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aussiebear (notify | contribs).

• non-free picture of a chair. Damiens.rf 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - easy call, no attempt at a non-free use rationale. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:25, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Carol Wood.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dasbrick (notify | contribs).

• non-free image of a living woman. Damiens.rf 19:22, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chris Constantinou in 2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ianstuartpeel (notify | contribs).

• non-free picture of a living aspiring artist. Damiens.rf 19:23, 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 as G7 by Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Copyright holder not identified. Source is just a link to a website that display many images. Damiens.rf 19:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

 Done It's gone, per G7. Rodhullandemu 19:50, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ellen Zittek.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Computerjoe (notify | contribs).

• Non-free picture of a living woman. Damiens.rf 19:45, 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: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olga Viscal Garriga.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• Copyright holder unknown. Image is not really found the source url or anywhere in the supposed source website. Image is tagged as non-free and used decoratively in at least one article. Damiens.rf 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Another source has been added. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A link to Picasa? Honest question here (really really honest!): Are you that ignorant about our non-free content policies or you're just think other editors are? No offense intended, really. Please reply. --Damiens.rf 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, I'm not that ignorant about our non-free content policies, even though I messed up at times, therefore no offense taken. The Garriga family had a website once, but obivously they have chosen to post their images in the Picasa web album. Pardon my ignorance, I don't understand what is wrong since they work in a way similar to Flickr. The image is there. Now, I'm asking in good faith, is there any reason for which it cannot be used in the subjects bio with the source and rationale? It can be eliminated from all other article (It has been done already). Tony the Marine (talk) 05:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can't use non-free images when we don't know about the copyright holder. Have you considered contacting a family member and asking for a release of an image under a free license? Are you familiar with the OTRS system? --Damiens.rf 12:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Image of a deceased subject, please don't delete without having the actual replacement image.--Jmundo (talk) 14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're asking us to ignore one of our core polices. --Damiens.rf 17:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • My request is based on Non-free content #1, the low-resolution image is not replaceable because the subject is deceased and "no free equivalent is available". --Jmundo (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Understand that WP:NFCC is a criteria for inclusion, and not a list of qualifying attributions. That means that you have to comply with all ten of them, and not just one out of your convenience. --Damiens.rf 18:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have expanded the non-free rationale in the description page as required by policy. The page has link to the source of the image and my understanding of WP:NFCC #10a is that the information about the copyright holder is only supplementary to the identification of the source of the material. --Jmundo (talk) 03:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tell me, without knowing the copyright holder, how can you assure this image does not violates WP:NFCC#2? --Damiens.rf 13:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Are you telling me that NFCC 10a is wrong? Maybe I misread or missed something: "Identification of the source of the material, supplemented, where possible, with information about the artist, publisher and copyright holder." --Jmundo (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- One of the interesting facts that all of us have failed to notice or mention here is that this image was taken during a Federal Trial in a United States Federal Court. In other words, it couldn't have been taken by a family member nor private citizen, because cameras for personal use are not permitted during a Federal legal process, only Federal employees in charge of public relations and certain certified members of the press are allowed to take images during a Federal process which they in turn provide to other members of the press. This image should be permitted to stay in the subjects article only. Tony the Marine (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep after a great deal of thought and hunting. From 1946 to 1991 ( as far as I can tell) the only photography in US federal criminal trials was by court photographers - the press were banned by an act of congress until the Federal court allowed a trial run in about 1991, or at least far later than the date of this trial. Today press can apply to attend - with no guarantee of acceptance. Hunting further everything tells me that the Court Photographers were uniformly federal employees, and I cannot see that, around the time of this photo, the work was contracted out. The angle of the photo hints as to the location of the photographer - not one that the court officials would fail to notice. Even though we have no definite source I am convinced that this image was made by a US federal employee in the course of their work and is correctly licenced as ((PD-USGov)). - Peripitus (Talk) 02:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's good news. I suggest even creating a template PD-tag like ((PD-US-Courtroom-1946-91))}, where this rationale for PD is explained (and possibly documented). --Damiens.rf 12:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I made a notation in the File and license change as recommended by Peripitus, to be replaced by the suggested template recommended by Damiens upon it's creation. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:07, 17 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⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erik estrada.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Donmega60645 (notify | contribs).

• A free image of this actor is available and in use. Damiens.rf 19:59, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lettertomesingle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Superman786 (notify | contribs).

• Sheet music covers can't be used to identify singles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:41, 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:REF2 Clajot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jimic be (notify | contribs).

• Different reason, can't understand the context enough for it to be usable. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:42, 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.