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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Israel-50NewSheqalim-1998.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tomerfiliba (notify | contribs).

• Used only to illustrate the article on the person depicted on the note of currency, strictly decorative. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Like the stamp images below, we don't need a non-free image to illustrate the fact that this man was so honored. It's explained just fine in text. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:08, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. ww2censor (talk) 04:46, 11 June 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 and move to Commons: Quality isn't awful and I see no reason not to just move it to Commons. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 15:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FlyingCrow.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gaming4JC (notify | contribs).

• Orphan, Long shot and does not have much detail about the subject, subject is a little blurred, Crow article already has a picture of crow in flight. Jay (talk) 07:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved to Commons, not deleted. It's a decent photograph. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:13, 10 June 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: not deleted

File:HipThrow.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by East718 (notify | contribs).

• Tagged ((cc-by-sa-2.0)), but the Flickr source page says it's licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic. "Noncommercial" is not free enough for Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 14:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This file was licensed as Creative Commons by-sa 2.0 when I uploaded it; it appears that the owner of the Flickr account has since relicensed all their photos to by-nc-sa. Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable, so we can still use the image under the old by-sa license (see commons:COM:F#Guidelines). I tried going through both archive.org and Google's cache to see if they had old versions of the image's page that had the by-sa tag but got nothing; I'll try getting in touch with the author next. — east718 | talk | 17:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-licensed. The image is again CC-BY-SA 2.0. Can we get a template that shows secondary verification for this, such as Commons has, to prevent such confusion in the future if the license is changed? لennavecia 12:29, 12 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamp-ctc-newdeal.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jengod (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose. ww2censor (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I'm not sure this artful amalgamation of PD logos is actually eligible for copyright. On the other hand, it might be, and it adds absolutely nothing to the article, so we might as well get rid of it. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:33, 10 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mir Gul Khan With habib Jalib.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Notoriouskm (notify | contribs).

• Looks to have been scanned, possibly from a newspaper. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "NotoriousKM" did not create this image, and has had many copyright problems in the past. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File is not copyrighted and is in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.148.75 (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think so? – Quadell ^(talk) 21:02, 11 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamp-ctc-first-super-bowl.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jengod (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1999 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose. Besides which there is no fair-use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 18:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:35, 10 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mir Gul Khan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Notoriouskm (notify | contribs).

• A very old looking, posed photograph. I doubt the uploader owns the rights to this image. J Milburn (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "NotoriousKM" did not create this image, and has had many copyright problems in the past. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File is not copyrighted and is in the public domain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.148.75 (talk) 06:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think so? – Quadell ^(talk) 21:02, 11 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamp-ctc-ash-can-school.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jengod (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1998 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose. ww2censor (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8 as a stamp photo, and NFCC#1 as a photo of the art movement. Surely we can find paintings in the public domain to illustrate an art movement that flourished from 1910 to 1930. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:37, 10 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scientists4fdc f cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ceyockey (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 2005 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose. ww2censor (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — the image was uploaded prior to the increased stringency / clarity now exhibited by the guideline cited as the basis for deletion (having looked back at historical versions of the guideline). The inclusion criteria for images cited remain guidelines and have not been graduated to policy. These things having been said, I will not dispute the outcome of the present discussion. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually WP:NFCC is policy nowadays not just guidelines and non-free images must pass all 10 criteria. ww2censor (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:NFC remains a guideline despite WP:NFCC being policy. I confused criteria #8 from NFC with criteria #8 from NFCC ... the former specifically speaking to images and guideline, the latter a general statement without specificity to images. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That might be slightly confusing for some but if you read the NFC ppage carefully you will see that the NFCC policy is transcluded into the NFC page for users convenience, in it own policy section which clearly states it to be policy, while the rest of the page shows examples of use, enforcement, etc., as guidelines, however NFCC is policy and all criteria must be passed for images to remain. ww2censor (talk) 13:06, 11 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RobertPennWarren.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by YUL89YYZ (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 2005 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose. Also there is no attempt at a fair use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:39, 10 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert-millikan-stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bunzil (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1982 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose. ww2censor (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:39, 10 June 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raoul-wallenberg-1997.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alex756 (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1997 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in two non-stamp articles to illustrate the subjects of those articles and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose. Also there is no attempt at a fair use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Papa November (talk) 22:19, 10 June 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 - Just to explain my reasoning here. We have a nomination on the basis of NFCC#8 and 2. Looking at NFCC#2 the image is a recent image from a press website and I am unconvinced by the arguments that we are not comprimising the commercial nature of the image. As for NFCC#8, I can't see how those seeking to keep the image have shown that this image of his dead face meets the requirement - though this is not as significant as the NFCC#2 issue. as a side note: I am surprised that no-one mentioned NFCC#1 here except for the comment "it is the only image of the article's subject available"....According to the article the man was held in US govt custody for a while and it could well be argued that there will be a great number of free images of him consequently (difficult but not impossible to obtain in time). - Peripitus (Talk) 12:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ibn Shaykh al-Libi corpse.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).

• Image of the corpse is not important for a full understanding of the article. A single image of the subject would be useful, but an image of them alive would be better. As a recent news item, an image of the corpse has high commercial value, and its use here reduces its commercial value. Uploader has refused to provide a more solid rationale than the one already given, including a refusal to give any explanation of why this death needs to be illustrated, or how a blurry photograph of the face of a corpse does so, and has instead edit warred and accused me of bad faith in order to retain the image, which is not required as per the non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 18:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Obvious keep, (rationale is "Rationale: No loss of commercial revenue, small resolution, illustrates controversial death of subject in question. As subject is deceased, no Free Licensed alternatives are available.") nominator first claimed there was "no rationale", when it was politely alerted on his talk page that he'd falsely flagged the image, he changed to "insufficient" and said that wasn't a rational "by any stretch of the imagination" since it didn't use a template (which is not, incidentally, required or even heavily-suggested). When his call for speedy-deletion was again removed, he brought it here. The death is notable, the rationale alludes to that, there is an entire article on his death, which has been painted as a suicide, a murder or tuberculosis. It has eaten up pages of news copy, dealing with the circumstances of his death, and this is the only image of his dead body. It is historically notable, no freely-licensed alternatives can be created (especially since he is, after all, dead), and it is given in a small resolution. This is a perfect example of a Fair Use image. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I have uploaded 2,760 freely-licensed photographs and 600 Fair Use photographs in my four years at Wikipedia. I'm well aware of the standards of Fair Use, what it does and does not cover. This is not a newbie stumbling around. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 19:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • (ec)Nice work on misquoting me. Firstly, I did not claim the fact that there was no template was the issue, I just said the templates are often useful, as some people find it difficult to write a decent rationale. Ok, the death is notable. I'm not saying we should remove all mentions of the death, just this picture. Why do we need to see his corpse? Is what his corpse looks like significant? If it is, is there a sourced discussion of the appearance of the corpse? If not, why are we using this image? Note point 8 of the NFCC. If, as you say, this is the only image, are we really juditied in using it? Sounds pretty valuable- note point 2 of the NFCC. The fact you're not a newbie is not particularly important- I'm hardly a newbie either. We've both written articles, we've both dealt with image issues in the past. How about, rather than bragging about how long we've been here, we actually consider who is making valid points backed up by policy? J Milburn (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Regardless of any personal conflict here, an image of the person passes NFCC#8. Perhaps an image of him alive would be better, but there is not such a photo in the article. There's no evidence that the image is being sold or leased for money, unlike AP images, so I don't see a NFCC#2 concern. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is a commercial one- it is being used by a press agency. Thus, the fact they are using it is selling their papers/bringing visitors to their site- when we use it, we remove the upper hand that rightfully belongs to them. In regards to point 8, I'm really not seeing what this image is illustrating that needs to be illustrated. J Milburn (talk) 20:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The person? – Quadell ^(talk) 21:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8 and possibly #2 as well. Also, lacks a proper rationale. Stifle (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're saying that the only image of a person in an article about that person does not pass NFCC#8? – Quadell ^(talk) 21:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not an image of the person- such an image would be useful. This is an image of the corpse- it is not representative of the subject of the article as a whole, only of his death (and, even then, doesn't really tell us anything useful about the death). J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:NFCC#8. Also, it is the only image of the article's subject available. To say an image of the subject alive would be a "whole" representative probably is consistant with user sentiment. Yet, since his death is a matter of controversy, this image has more relevance than such an image would have for most biographies. - Steve3849 ^talk 06:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Ibn al Shaykh al Libi was a very important person. False confessions and false denunciations wrung from him made the difference between an invasion of Iraq and no invasion. When the CIA realized they outsmarted themselves, by torturing him, and then believing the lies they tortured him into uttering, they buried him a second time. When Bush announced on September 6 2006 that he had directed the CIA to empty the black sites, and the fourteen remaining captives held there had been transferred to Guantanamo Ibn al Shaykh al Libi's name was notably absent. They buried him in a Libyan prison. That an image of this mysterious man has been published is very important, as it makes it a lot less likely that the reports of his death are based on mistaken identity. Geo Swan (talk) 05:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- One of the justifications offered for this nomination was that there was no ((Non-free use rationale)) Here is my my first draft of one. Geo Swan (talk) 06:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes, he was important, and yes, his death was important, but this photo doesn't show anything about the death that the reader doesn't already know by reading the article. Just because his death was controversial doesn't mean this photo is illuminating. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:20, 16 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Philo Farnsworth stamp.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Evrik (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1983 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose. ww2censor (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep image has now been moved to Philo Farnsworth#Memorials, as such it passes WP:NFCC#8. Surf Dog (talk) 03:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: it still fails both WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFC#Images even after being moved to another section. It still only says the stamp exists and there is still no WP:V critical commentary about the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 04:18, 14 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Olympic stamps.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pagingmrherman (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1984 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose. Also there is no attempt at a fair use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. This is a different case, because the image is being used in an article about the artist, not about the person pictured. It could potentially be used to show the artist's style. But in this case, there is no commentary about this artwork, and no non-free use rationale, so it fails NFCC#8 and #10. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:46, 10 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1996 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. This should be treated like any other depiction of a fictional character. In this case the character's depiction on a stamp is not particularly important (meriting only two sentences in the article), and is pretty far from iconic. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:50, 10 June 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 Moni3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mary McLeod Bethune Stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moni3 (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 1985 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 19:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you can link to a RS on the copyright status of stamps after 1977, I'll delete the files myself. --Moni3 (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright template in the file itself clearly states the facts concerning post 1977 US stamps, as does commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain#United States. Thanks ww2censor (talk) 19:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also United States Postal Service#Stamp copyright and reproduction and the references therein. Don't feel bad; it's a very common misconception to think stamps are PD. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted --Moni3 (talk) 13:38, 11 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Martha Gellhorn (Stamp).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cocoaguy (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 2007 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:57, 10 June 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 Moni3 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marjorie Kinnan Rawlings Stamp 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moni3 (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All post 1977 US stamps are copyright and this 2008 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. Also there is no attempt at a fair use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 19:21, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. --Moni3 (talk) 13:38, 11 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ptv Logo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Khalid_Mahmood (notify | contribs).

• Non-free logo, incorrectly tagged as PD-release, used in an article that isn't about the organization represented – Quadell ^(talk) 20:23, 10 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamp Designed in 1948 by Chughtai .gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Khalid_Mahmood (notify | contribs).

• Non-free stamp used only in an article on the artist, Abdur Rahman Chughtai... but we already use File:1951 O001 3anna O Chughtai-st.gif and File:Radio Logo.jpg do demonstrate his style. This is just an excess non-free image used in a gallery. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ww2censor (talk) 23:33, 10 June 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: Retagged as free. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sonofcaptainblood1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Philbertgray (notify | contribs).

• Image adds little to the article, which is not about the film and discusses it only in passing. J Milburn (talk) 20:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• If it's non-free, then it should be deleted. But if was published without a © notice before 1978, it's PD and can be kept. The text at the bottom is too small for me to read, but I believe most posters from that era omitted a © notice. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No comment on whether not the image is free, but it is a picture of the subject of the article; that the movie itself is hardly mentioned is not the point - it's a picture of Flynn.  Frank  |  talk  20:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's hardly being used in that context- surely a screenshot from the film/trailor or a promotional photo would be a far better illustration? J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If no free photo can be found or created, I'd suggest this one. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Much better; is that available since it's from Stars and Stripes?  Frank  |  talk  22:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's non-free, if that's what you mean. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that's what I meant; I'm not sure how Stars and Stripes' work is licensed. If it's non-free, how would we use it?  Frank  |  talk  14:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • It would have to comply with all our [WP:NFCC|non-free content criteria]]. Assuming that a free replacement cannot be found or created, I'd say that's doable. – Quadell ^(talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment according to IMDB, the film is a 1962 film, so the poster should be the same vintage. Does that mean it's copyright is done? 70.29.210.174 (talk) 03:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. If the poster was published with a © notice, and if it was registered with the U.S. copyright office, it would still be held under copyright. (In the U.S., copyright lasts 95 years from publication for corporate works.) I think the poster was never published in compliance with U.S. copyright law, and so was never copyrighted in the first place. But it's not 100% clear. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree that picture should not be deleted as the subject of the poster is the subject of the article and it serves to illustrate the subject! The movie itself seems to be in the public domain; the poster is probably as well as any copyright has to be properly maintained by the copyright holder! and unless instructed by the copyright holder (if the copyright has been maintained properly!) to remove the poster, the illustration should remain!
• Comment: I just realized, the poster was almost certainly published in 1963 or earlier. As such, the copyright would have had to be renewed at the USCO, or the copyright would have expired 28 years later. A search of the copyright records at http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html shows that the film itself had its copyright renewed, but not the poster. So I'd say the poster is PD, whether it had a © notice or not. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:56, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • The poster was created for the U.S. release of the film which while the film was initially released in Italy and Spain in 1962, the English version first saw release in England in 1963 distributed by Warner-Pathe. In the U.S. the film was released by Paramount Pictures in 1964. Therefore the vintage of the poster is circa 1963-1964 and is most certainly in the public domain! (Unless it can be proven that its copyright has been properly upheld!) But more to the point the poster is of Flynn's best known film and illustrates his entertainment career very well and is therefore essential & important to the article as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ANASTROFAN (talk • contribs) 12:45, 15 June 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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamp Designed in 1951by Chughtai .gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Khalid_Mahmood (notify | contribs).

• As above, non-free stamp used in a gallery Abdur Rahman Chughtai. NFCC#8 and #3b violation. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ww2censor (talk) 23:34, 10 June 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 - on the basis of NFCC#8. As a note to those reading this, WP:NFC is fairly clear on the use of things like stamps to do other than discuss the stamp itself. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Non-free stamp image, used to illustrate the person so honored. We already have a free image of him, and the image of the stamp is not needed to fully understand that he was so honored. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ww2censor (talk) 23:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment actually the intention was to illustrate the stamp discussed in the article, not to illustrate its subject. However, I have no objection to this being deleted if it's not considered justified. I've taken the liberty of removing it from the article, pending the outcome. Voceditenore (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, on second thought. The only place this stamp and the series from which it comes is discussed is in Juan Diego Flórez, and as I said before, its purpose is to illustrate the stamp not the subject, who already has a free-use photo. I've now re-added the photo to avoid it being orphaned. Voceditenore (talk) 13:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as it's not merely "used to illustrate the person so honored", but to illustrate a particular part of the "Awards and distinctions" section of the article. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But there is still no commentary about the stamp itself other that is exists and shows the subject on the stamp. None of the current prose will detract from a reader's understanding of the topic if the image is omitted per WP:NFCC#8. Some critical commentary about the stamp itself would be good as not as it is verified by reliable sources and is not just some production details of the stamp. It still needs more to pass the threshold for fair use in a non stamp article. ww2censor (talk) 21:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "Some critical commentary about the stamp itself would be good as not as it is verified by reliable sources and is not just some production details of the stamp." means. Is the reference given [1], not reliable? Or are you saying it needs more and/or different references? Voceditenore (talk) 21:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How much "commentary" is required? If it's not enough that a reliable source like the New York Times says that the subject matter is unusual (sigh), I've now added information about the photographer who took the portrait used for the stamp and that said portrait was previously used for the cover of one of Flórez's CDs. Voceditenore (talk) 23:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "None of the current prose will detract from a reader's understanding of the topic if the image is omitted" means. If the intended meaning was "the removal of the image will not be detrimental to the readers' understanding", I disagree. As stated already, it illustrates a particular section in the article so the majority of readers, who do not have direct access to the Peruvian stamp, can form an opinion about this particular one. Stamps of people come in all sorts of designs, e.g. from paintings or busts, as stylised images either drawn or from photographs, or as in this case, as a mere reproduction of a photograph, and, I think, quite extraordinarily not a specially commissioned one but from a commercially released CD. This, among other reasons, deserves illustration. Obviously, The New York Times thought it was Fair Use, too. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New York Times are not subject to the same fair use criteria as we are. Most postal authorities permit the media to use copyright images in news article, in fact the USPS has specific rules for the use of their images by the media. Essentially all the New York Times was reporting is that the image of a living person is unusual because their experience is that USPS has seldom done so, but the worldwide situation varies considerably from those postal authorities that have a blanket ban on honouring living people to several who do so regularly. The opinion expressed was only a US-centric point of view and not very notable in the worldview. I am now leaving this to the closing admin to decide if it fails NFCC or not. ww2censor (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From what is written here, for the fair-use image of a stamp on Wikipedia:

1. It must be used for identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject, which is the case here.
2. There must be commentary devoted specifically to the stamp, with the stamp placed next to the commentary not at the head of the article, as is the case here.
3. It must not have its own article or be used elsewhere on Wikipedia with more detailed commentary, which is the case here. Juan Diego Flórez is the only place on WP where the stamp is discussed.
4. The stamp has previously been published on the internet, as is the case here.
5. A reliable source must be provided to establish the notability of the stamp (not its subject) and verify the assertions made in the article, as is the case here.
6. A free-use alternative is not possible, as is the case here.

Now the goalposts have been moved yet again. Now, because the New York Times takes an allegedly "US-centric" view on the stamp's notability it's not a reliable source? The stamp is not notable and therefore needs neither discussion nor depiction? There's nothing in the guidelines above that indicates that this is a barrier to fair-use or that it makes a source which is often cited by Wikipedia as a prime example of reliablity suddenly unreliable. Note that one example given for valid fair-use is the baseball card in Billy Ripken. How US-centric is that? Which of its sources take a "world view" on the significance of baseball cards, or of baseball players writing swear words on their bats? Besides, ww2censor's comment above is not an accurate summary of what the NYT article says. It does state that stamps depicting living opera singers have been issued outside the US before, but that according to the philatelist they consulted (a Canadian, by the way): "this is the first stamp I know of depicting an opera singer issued so early in his career."

Finally, please note this discussion on the file's talk page and the fact that my original FU rationale clearly stated "3. The image illustrates the stamp which is discussed in the article's section on Prizes and Distinctions. As such it adds significantly to the article."[2]. Later someone replaced it with another rationale which now simply says: "Used for purposes of illustration in an educational article about the entity represented by the image." Voceditenore (talk) 08:33, 18 June 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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cottonseed oil.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kingoftexas (notify | contribs).

• Image metadata state that the author of this image is "MondoALL RIGHTS RESERVED". I doubt that this is the uploader. J Milburn (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, unless we get confirmation of permission. ww2censor (talk) 14:38, 12 June 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) 12:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metal Fight Beyblade logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DranzerX13 (notify | contribs).

• I fail to see why this logo is required in the episode list article, and it is not used anywhere else. J Milburn (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd oppose the deletion. I see that its reasonable to put that series' logo for the article. It's either the logo or the DVD cover to represent the series but I feel the logo would do a better job of that. DragonZero (talk) 06:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I'd say this passes NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:10, 18 June 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⚡ 13:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sexpistols8track.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Teamgoon (notify | contribs).

• Unlicensed derivative of copyrighted tape case artwork <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as used in 8-track tape this is an image that is replaceable with a generic 8-track tape, so fails WP:NFCC#1. ww2censor (talk) 14:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not sure that cover is eligible for copyright protection. Typefaces and colors aren't. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:09, 18 June 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.