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 I4 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:USS Kidd (DDG-993).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by N328KF (notify | contribs).

• Duplicate image file with same name exists in Commons Cla68 (talk) 01:42, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Not a duplicate: Commons:File:USS Kidd (DDG-993).jpg has a pier in the background and is taken from a different angle and lighting. Ignoring that, the image here on Wikipedia lacks a source, and could be deleted for that (with the 7-day grace for a source to be located). Jappalang (talk) 08:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • NAVSOURCE perhaps could be used as a source for the photo [1]. It identifies the photographer as a US Navy member but doesn't specifically say that it's an official US Navy image. Cla68 (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the source, but good grief, this is becoming complicated. This page shows two versions of this picture. This one is an exact match of the image on Wikipedia; it is copyrighted to Atlantic Fleet Sales (a business that sells private photos). However, there is a darker image that is, I sincerely believe, the same photo (check the waves); this is claimed by SM1 Carter to be sold in the ship's store and taken in his presence (thus Naval property). Jappalang (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • We have several good images of that ship in Commons with clear licensing, so why not delete this one and be done with it? Cla68 (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would agree. However, I think the policy is generally to not delete images unless they are against the policies. A deletion request for convenience is generally not entertained. We could slap this image with ((subst:nsd)) and do nothing, letting it get deleted in 7 days. Jappalang (talk) 01:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK. Cla68 (talk) 01:23, 21 January 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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sayyid Poem .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RoboRanks (notify | contribs).

• The poem represented by this image is possibly PD by age (see http://sanseverything.wordpress.com/2008/12/28/a-land-of-bards/) but we don't usually store source texts, let alone as images.  Sandstein  07:14, 20 January 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 - Peripitus (Talk) 23:31, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stalin Hitler photomontage.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Eugene Pivovarov).

• Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Photomontage (photoshopping) with Hitler and any other politican is not allowed content, it is a falsification of history. X-romix (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image is used in the article Totalitarianism and is an accurate illustration to the topic. As the article says, in the West there was a major postwar concept that Hitler's and Stalin's regimes had a lot in common and thus, they were variations of the same political system, totalitarianism. This model became a subject of scholarly research, too. Today one can find similar artwork on book covers ([2], [3], [4], [5]), in magazines ([6], [7]), etc. pivovarov (talk) 10:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you get this image from book, newspaper or other published source? Self-made photoshopping is not verifiable source and is not encyclopedic content. X-romix (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes (see the references above), however, a copy of a book cover would be copyrighted. This image has very similar composition and implements the same idea as the mentioned artwork, but it is free in the US. As for the "verifiable" argument, the description clearly states that the image is not a historic photograph and lists the actual sources. —Евгений Пивоваров (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I am not agree with you. Many people can't read foreighn descriptions. Photoshopping is wrong idea to illustrate history. X-romix (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As long as the copyright is clear, WP does not use politics as a reason for removal of an image in use. Collect (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I use photoshopping if I want to create non-existing istorical images or worlds? X-romix (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, yes, as long as such images do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments. No unpublished ideas with this image, as far as I can see. --Grebenkov (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Idea that Stalin and Hitler met was not published, isn't it. X-romix (talk) 13:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No valid reasons for deletion. Nomination is the case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT (as nominator states on his personal page on Russian Wikipedia, he is a stalinist). The image is encyclopedic, because it illustrates a concept already present in reliable sources (see [8], for example). --Grebenkov (talk) 18:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Ув. Grebenkov, вещать как радиоточка о чьем-то "сталинизме", не спросив при этом у участника, а считает ли он сам себя сталинистом, неэтично. В русском ВП:ЭП это прямо запрещено. Так вот, я не считаю себя сталинистом или приверженцем какой-то другой недемократической формы правления. Напротив, я за выборы (желательно, с контролем их правильности посредством отрывных талончиков). Я достаточно ясно изложил свои политические взгляды? Касательно обсуждаемой темы. Нет необходимости прибегать к услугам фотошопа в тех случаях, когда есть настоящие снимки встречи двух (или трех) политических лидеров. Если таких снимков нет, то вырезать ножницами и склеивать портреты, или фабриковать их в фотошопе - я считаю нецелесообразным. В то же время, воспроизводить обложки с такого рода коллажами я считаю допустимым, поскольку это будет свидетельствовать против этих изданий, и понизит их тираж или авторитет у читателей, которые пока еще в курсе, кто и с кем, и в защиту кого, воевал, к примеру, зимой 1941-1942. X-romix (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is the brief translation of the above. X-romix denies being a stalinist and affirms his pro-democracy views. He believes that in the case when two political leaders have never met, it is wrong to cook up a photograph showing them together. Finally, he argues that it should be acceptable to reproduce an actual photomontage from a published book cover. (Sorry, X-romix, the latter would violate WP:NFCC. Been there, done that.)—pivovarov (talk) 09:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Book, newspaper, or other source with its header/author/date of publication. X-romix (talk) 11:08, 22 January 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 I9 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GHWB.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shea DM (notify | contribs).

• Uploaded to be used a vandalistic replacement of George H. W. Bush's image here. Additionally has no source, information, or indication this is free. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:23, 20 January 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.