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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FunParty 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kings Kup (notify | contribs).

• Unused image, dubious copyright claim. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm confident that the user is not, in fact, the copyright holder. Enigma^msg 05:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agreed. - Damërung ^{...ÏìíÏ...}_{_Ξ_} . --  15:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. The Uploader probably isn't the copyright holder. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as not in use in any article. I don't find it too improbable that the uploader User:Kings Kup is the copyright holder on an image promoting a commercial game named "Kings Kup"; but it looks like he uploaded it for the article Kings (drinking game), as part of promoting his own site. It was promptly and appropriately reverted. It's not likely to be used anywhere else in Wikipedia, so delete. TJRC (talk) 21:21, 29 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Im-Not-a-Girl-Not-Yet-A-Woman.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Rogue Leader (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image that is very similar to an existing one in the same article. The small differences can be described with text (a free replacement) and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 06:59, 23 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:1010 1333.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vrlobo888 (notify | contribs).

• Derivative work MER-C 07:57, 23 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maxrcd cddvd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NATEamx (notify | contribs).

• Cover is basically the same as the main one. No need for use of a non-free image to show this cover. J Milburn (talk) 09:17, 23 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• There is no need for the back cover of this album, especially with the standard, template rationale. A back cover would only be needed if it was in some way significant. J Milburn (talk) 09:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The back cover lists the song titles and times, as well the music publisher, distributor, and year of release. While this information may be available in the main article, the back cover provides authentication as a reference source. rasotis (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - We don't typically retain copies of sources within the article for authentication purposes. Is there a reason why the back cover should be treated differently and retained? TJRC (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The discussion page raises an issue with the duration of the song “God is Love”. This issue is settled by including the back cover. I will leave it to other editors to decide whether this is sufficient justification. In it’s own right, the back cover image adds a useful esthetic element to the main article. But again, I will defer to other editors on this point. rasotis (talk) 19:39, 28 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. Many of the Keep votes are treating this as a discussion about article content, when the only issue here is whether both images would be permissible in the article per our non-free image policy. I cannot see any reason why this is the case, both per minimal use and significance. If there is an overriding reason why this image is significant (i.e. iconic or relevant to the article) then this one should be restored and the other one deleted instead. That, however, is a discussion for the talk page of the article, not here. Black Kite 19:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• We already have an image of her alive. A second is not needed per the non-free content criteria- two images showing the same thing is hardly minimal use. J Milburn (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo showing "Neda" alive is a fake. It's clearly not the same woman and there are other photos of this Fake-Neda wearing a cross around her neck. So I wouldn't delete the photo that is more likely to show the real Neda in favour of a clear fake.

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Keep BOTH This picture was actually used by protesters in Iran and that alone warrants it's retention. These two pictures do actually convey very different information, especially since the article on Neda is actually the article on the protest. Also, if you are indeed checking IP numbers please check that comments posted as "delete" are not connected in any way with Iranian government machine. The reason is twofolds - this picture will always remind people of the protest (the other one will not) and the picture of Neda as "properly dressed Iranian woman" carries much more weight for Iranians who live in Iran then the other one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.196.123 (talk) 10:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria: "Minimal usage. Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information." In Iran women are required to wear a scarf in many situations. So we need a photo of her with and without the scarf in order for Wikipedia not to be perceived as having a Western systemic bias in its selection of photos. Plus in the video of her just before being shot she is wearing a dark scarf also. When she is dying in the other video we see her face and hair more clearly. There is lots of confusion about how she looks, and there are only 2 photos of her so far confirmed as far as I know; this one and File:Neda Agha-Soltan.jpg. There is a third photo that is questionable. File:Neda.png. So the 2 confirmed photos are needed to "convey equivalent significant information" to both Western and non-Western English Wikipedia readers worldwide. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, what? Do we also need her naked, in order to avoid systematic bias against naturists? We need one image to show who she was; any more would almost certainly be an abuse of the non-free content criteria. Which image to use is an editorial decision- if you want to avoid systematic bias, choose the image carefully; don't just slam more non-free images into the article. J Milburn (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I also don't appreciate your tone, or your sarcasm, or your lack of respect. Just because you are an admin does not mean you get to abuse common courtesy. Also, before leaving any more notes on my talk page please read the notes at the top of my talk page. --Timeshifter (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have an issue with my conduct, raise the issue with me on my talk page. This discussion is about the image. You'll note I used exactly the same argument you did- if you don't want such ridiculous responses, don't make such ridiculous arguments. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you did not address the issues I raised. Except to ridicule the idea of Western systemic bias. There is no rule against having more than one Fair Use image in an article. To avoid systemic bias you don't just "choose the image carefully". That's the point. Both images are needed to address systemic bias. I am sure people from Middle Eastern Wikiprojects would have little problem understanding my points. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: I just deleted File:Neda.png. It isn't coming back as a result of a complaint to the Oversight list. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the more reliable one.

• Delete - I do not need to see someone in a scarf to visualise it. No justification for this additional image; its inclusion does not significantly increase reader's understanding. Image fails NFCC#3a - Peripitus (Talk) 12:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is NFCC#3a? --Timeshifter (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is related discussion at

• Talk:Neda Soltani#2 Neda Soltan images versus 1

I suggest reading it before commenting here. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There was a much better photo up before, and this new image hasn't even been saved with the right proportions. Replace the one from the BBC article. --Veratien (talk) 15:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The poor proportions are a tempororary glitch that fixes in a matter of moments. ↜Just M E here , now 15:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. One non-free image to identify a dead person in a biography is the normal maximum usage, and I don't see a compelling reason to go beyond that here. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Admins seem to be making up interpretations of WP:NFCC as they go. An admin is telling me on both my talk page and at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 48#Neda that no Fair Use images of dead people are allowed in Wikipedia articles on dead people. Even if no free images are available. There is no rule against having 2 Fair Use images in an article. WP:NFCC is based on wikimediafoundation.org Resolution:Licensing policy. It says "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose, such as is the case for almost all portraits of living notable individuals." Neda Agha-Soltan is dead. --Timeshifter (talk) 16:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This image is the only fair-use image of Neda before her being shot in the article, at the moment. Not wearing a headscarf can be controversial in more traditional MidEast countries. As a (tertiary) encyclopedia, WP should use this image, the one chosen over the other image by the preponderance of (2ndary) news sources both in the West and worldwide. (Note that both images were provided to the LATimes by friends of the victim's family at the same time.) ↜Just M E here , now 16:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think the argument about keeping this image because she's wearing a scarf is a reasonable argument EPM (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Regardless of the scarf it's the one that comes closest to a formal portrait.88.108.205.43 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The scarf aside, I think the fact that it's a traditional portrait as opposed to a candid shot makes it a better choice.Proserpine (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This image is a sharper, more defined one than the death video one. In addition, it is larger, allowing for people with vision problems to see it more clearly than the other one. It's also a more formal portrait.(Iuio (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete - She was shot while protesting for freedom and reform, opposing the same unfair injustice towards women which includes the compulsory wearing of scarf in Iran. I suggest using the image with no scarf which was originally provided by BBC (Neda_Agha-Soltan.jpg)

  Note: The veil is a much more complicated icon than this commentor believes. It's a symbol of many things as well as a symbol of oppression. e.g., In Afghanistan under the Taliban the veil became (amazingly) a symbol of feminism for women smuggling banned books under burquas. It's also, to some wearers, equivalent to prominently wearing the cross for Christians. The veil is complicated and has a long history, not all of it good and not all bad. A one-dimensional Western view of what the veil means shouldn't be relevant to which photo gets used. — Saxifrage ✎ 17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The other image I was referring to is now not used in the article. Originally, there was a photo of the subject on holiday used in the infobox, and this one further down. J Milburn (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There is no non-free alternative. Her youth, demeanor, looks, and willingness to appear in a scarf ar all telling details that cannot be gleaned without an image. Because she has become an icon of protest both in Iran and the wider world, her image is important. Wikidemon (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Information is good, whether it is in the form of photography or print. If there are 20 pictures of her, by all means, post them in another section (i.e. images, pictures, etc). The more we see people in different lights, the better we get to understand them.
• Important note: As the article now concerns her death rather than her (as it always had in all but title) there is even less reason to keep this image- instead, the single image of her dying, taking from the YouTube video, is all that is really required. Why is her appearance in life important, when the article is not even about her? J Milburn (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting sophistry, J Milburn, however I still believe an article about someone's death most certainly is additionally about their having once been alive. ↜Just M E here , now 20:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't deny that we should mention how she was, at one point, alive. Her death wouldn't be that important if she wasn't. However, I don't see the need for a non-free image to illustrate that point. J Milburn (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because providing such an image provides encyclopedic information about the person who died that is not avialable from free sources. (Eg Ted Bundy's Florida victims, etc.) ↜Just M E here , now 20:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those images are free use, so it is difficult to compare- I daresay that, were they not, they would be removed. Though I'm loath to use counter examples as we both know that other crap exists, consider The Falling Man- we have images of the photo (as we have images of the video in this article) but we have no images of the subject when he was alive. J Milburn (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you're a hyper deletionist. I guess that'a a valid position. However, many Wikipedians would allow, say, the image of a fireman in a fair-use, historical image of a fire (with this image subject to copyright) to be used in an article about the fire, rather than only in an article about the biography of the fireman. (Hey! here is a picture of Obama's Kenyan relatives, many if not most of whom aren't even dead! So, therefore, other photographs, ones that would be free -- albeit perhaps not of the entire family in a group setting -- could be taken of Kenyan family members that are still alive....) ↜Just M E here , now 21:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call myself a hyper deletionist- I'd concede that I interpret the NFCC fairly strictly/conservatively compared to some, but I'm not out to delete everything. I don't have an opinion on the Obama picture. The question at hand is whether it is important to know what Neda looked like in order to understand her death. Personally, I don't see why it is, especially as we have the image of her dying. I feel that a single image was useful to identify her in her biography, as the death image was not appropriate for that, but the burning need for identification has now lessened somewhat when we no longer have a biography- simply a retelling of an event she was involved in. As time goes on, her involvement will be less important- instead, the reactions from various people and groups will come to dominate the article. Currently, this image is used to illustrate the article as a whole, and it is not appropriate for that- the death image is. What do you feel this image actually illustrates? J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Why visualize a liberal girl in a scarf? Besides, in this particular photo, and in an Arabic-style scarf, which is not common in Iran (Iranian scarves are different) she looks more like a fanatic religious Palestinian or Iraqi girl, than the liberal Iranian girl she was. Shervin Elghanian (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both images! The contrast of Neda with a moedrn look vs. with the traditional scarf is iconic of what the current conflict in Iran is all about: New vs. old, liberal vs. conservative, exactly what Neda's life was about; modern, liberal music-student at home, conservatively dressed look on the street. juandresh 06:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - She was shot dead opposing unfair injustices towards women including the necessity of wearing scarves in Iran. I was personally expelled from college temporarily for what they call "incomplete veil" and I cannot stand seeing my deceased liberal beautiful sister being portrayed like a fanatic on the Internet's most comprehensive encyclopedia. Delband (talk) 06:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• The following is commentary I've moved up from a nomination of a image of Neda-unveiled (which nom I've withdrawn):

        It is my understanding that the picture currently displayed as "Neda" (plain black scarf) is not the lady who was killed but another with the same name, who had to delete her facebook because it was getting inundated. The picture of the lady in the black scarf with white flowers is the correct one. If this could be confirmed it might make things easier. --Bluejay Young (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
        If we get a confirmation it's not her, then of course it should be deleted. And if the other image is deleted but this one is her, then we should keep it. The tougher question is whether to keep two images or one. The difference between the two images - one, showing a proper girl in formal garb (which indicates that she is willing to be the good Muslim), and an informal picture on holidays (which shows that she was a modern, regular, approachable human being), is actually pretty important. Neither image by itself conveys the whole picture. So this may be an exception to the usual rule... the non-free use rule (derived after much hand-wringing, argumentation, and upset) is minimal use. It is not one use - if that were the rule we could replace the word "minimal" with "one". A little common sense ought to prevail. Zero where no image is needed, one where one image does it all, and two or more if for various reasons it is encyclopedic to do so. Wikidemon (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
        Wrt the photo of the woman in the "flowered" scarf, showing some of her hair in the front: Actually, this is not the victim, Neda Agha-Soltan, but is rather is a "Neda Soltani" of Tehran: a woman who is not dead. (Compare the several images, side by side.) The image of the woman in the plain, dark headscarf is Neda Agha-Soltan and, accordint to the LATimes, was provided to that newspaper by friends of Agha-Soltan's family. ↜Just M E here , now 20:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

  -- [End of material in above blockquote.] ↜Just M E here , now 17:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As J. Milburn said right at the start of this discussion, we already have an image of her alive. A second is not needed per the non-free content criteria- two images showing the same thing is hardly minimal use. Since we need to keep just the one, the smiling image is clearly more representative of the person in question than this image, which is a posed, expressionless formal portrait, and far less recognisable as the same person as the person pictured dying in the news image. It's not surprising that the LA Times article this image is taken from chose to feature, as its primary headline photo, an image from the same set of photos as the alternative image. -- The Anome (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per J. Milburn, Peripitus and others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an encyclopaedia, not facebook or anything like that. The photo should not distract from the article. Plastering the article with unnecessary images does not add to the value of it. -- Akuram (talk) 12:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. There is no longer any image at all of her in Death of Neda Agha-Soltan while she was alive and well. I suggest looking at the Emmet Till article. He is another person who became notable because of his murder. In his article there is a Fair Use image of him while alive and another Fair-Use image of him in his casket. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The use of the image is a fair use of a deceased individual. Two other arguments that have been raised are beside the point. 1) "We already have an image of her alive." That's an argument to remove an image from the article that uses them. If that happens, the one that is so removed may be deleted as an orphan. But the fact that two images are being used now is not grounds for deletion of the image itself. That is an issue of article content, not of whether to delete the image. 2) "This is an encyclopaedia, not facebook or anything like that. The photo should not distract from the article." That is an argument for editing the article to remove a photos; not for whether the photo should be deleted. Again, if that argument prevails, then the photo will become an orphan and will be subject to deletion. Like the first argument, this is an issue of article content, not of whether to delete the image. TJRC (talk) 18:41, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The rational behind this delete isn't very strong. However this image isn't Neda. The face in this article is a much thinner face where in the other image has a much thicker face. In addition Neda has a short face and the other (this one) is a long face. Probably a friend of her's or a family member, but not her. Also in addition her death image shows a very short and rounded face. Rgoodermote  19:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Los Angeles Times says to the contrary: [1]. TJRC (talk) 19:14, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when do we trust just one source? I was just pointing out what I saw and that was that her face didn't match the ones we know to be her and humans can't change the shape of their faces unless they have a million dollars just laying around and even then our bone structures are going to remain the same. This one looks to be a long face, the ones we know are her are rounded. It's just an observation and something that most humans will notice. Rgoodermote  20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." TJRC (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still Delete per my original. Rgoodermote  20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: We need one, and only one, non-free image of Neda to show what she looks like (assuming a free photo can't be found). I have no opinion on which photo is preferable. Full disclosure: I'm personally hugely supportive of the Iranian pro-democracy movement, and Neda is a heroine of mine. But our policies prohibit us from using two non-free photos to identify her. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this image as apparently genuine and delete the other more dubious image. Jack1956 (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both images - First, no free images of her exist. Second, in Iran women have to wear hijab in public (justify second image for public appearance), but prefer not to wear hijab in private and are okay with showing their hair (justify first image) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the formal portrait (in scarf). Only one picture is needed, and this is the one provided by the family. --Bluejay Young (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the other photo is clearly a fake. It does not show the same woman and there are other versions of that photo that show Fake-Neda wearing a cross. A muslim woman, liberal or not, would never ever do that. 92.229.175.175

Muslims would never ever wear a cross? Why don't you take a walk with me in northern Tehran's streets to see things more marvelous than crosses. Many many many of them are only muslims in ID cards, and they can't change their religion, or suffer the consequences: being sentenced to death for apostasy. Delband (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The colored-scarf photo has been shown to be of a different person. This black-scarf photo is of Neda. There is a photo (no scarf) provided by her fiancee, Caspian Makan, that shows her wearing a cross in May 2009. See the photo here:

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-43699-4.html

Delband, are you living in, or from, Tehran? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm from Philly, but my parents and boyfriend live in Tehran, so I visit Iran frequently. (about me) Delband (talk) 09:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately some users are trying to change the reality of Neda Agha Soltan's life in wikipedia. Giving false informations about the Iranians' actual situation is shameful. This photo in which a man has a toy gun in hand, published in the Iranian media, is one of the numerous cases that can change the people's mentality about the real events of Iran. We don't need to publish Neda's photo in a scarf, and if we do so, we shouldn't be astonished to see her modified photo in a chador! An innocent young woman killed in Iran, should not become a tool for such absurd propaganda. Javanbakht (talk) 09:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I suppose the ppl voting to keep the photo with the scarf are mostly hard liner muslims from neighboring arab nations and have difficulty accepting the fact that Neda died supporting the cause of freedom and liberation. Current movement in Iran is the pursuit of purging the Iranian society of all the unwanted government enforced restrictions including the compulsion of wearing the scarf for women. By the way, muslims of arabic descent, please stop voting for keeping the photo with scarf for your own personal religious satisfaction! The COMPULSORY wearing of scarf in the 21st century in the free world is just absurd, barbaric, pathetic and indeed against the minimal freedom of any woman. However, voluntary wearing is fine. Those in the current movement in Iran, in which Neda was active, are thriving for liberal democracy, and that clearly shows if they were allowed, majority of them would avoid wearing the scarf since the mandatory hijab is against freedom and democracy! Bare in mind, Iranian ppl have different norms, traditions, background culture and are quite distinct from the neighboring arab nations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestive (talk • contribs) 03:02, June 25, 2009
  • Delete - The far right photo on the following page would be an excellent substitute >> http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-43699-5.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestive (talk • contribs) 03:16, June 25, 2009
• Delete per Fut. Perf., among others. Fails any of WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, with #2 a possibility as well. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Iranian women are not the same as Arab women! Misusing pictures is not allowed! Actually Iranian women do not wear scarf like this, this picture has been taken mandatory for special usage like passport picture, due to forces from Islamic Republic of Iran regime. She has been killed for her protest to wear scarf and Islamic forces. It should be removed. Bardia666 (talk) 11:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -It is not genuine & true photo. Nersy (talk) 12:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BOTH - As stated above, the use of both pictures (assuming both are of her), encapsulates the controversy which she got caught up in. According to the articles I've read on her death, she was not protesting, she was an innocent bystander. Attempting to claim her as either a brave freedom fighter fighting the reppressive islamic state or as just a loyal muslim over simplifies her life in order to support a specific world view. By using both pictures, you are both addressing the current conflict in Iran and allowing an individual to be more complex than a mere figurehead. Fredrik Coulter (talk) 12:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Iranian women do not wear scarf like this, this style is belong to Arab Women and some Press TV & Al-Alam TV announcers!--هریوا (talk) 12:56, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do. --Wayiran (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an encyclopaedia, not facebook or family album. --Kaaveh (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -The picture is fake and not genuin. The picture does not belonge to Neda Agha Soltan. --Where is my vote? (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is of Neda Agha Soltan. See the Los Angeles Times description and the source listed ("family friend") here:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-neda-agha-soltan-pictures,0,5241125.photogallery

• Delete. It is a pity that the person, who touched up the photo, did not go the whole nine yards to cover Neda entirely in a Burqa. Such a half-assed attempt should be punished by image deletion and the artist prosecuted for bad taste. Spelling it out: 1) It is a touched up photo (if not a fake one). 2) There is no shortage of other non-free images of the victim. MaskedFeminist (talk) 17:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To respond to some of the commenters above: For Wikipedia's puposes, this image's provenance is sterling; it was provided to The Los Angeles Times by sources the Times described friends of the victims family. Also note that the image was recently used by Maryam Rajavi, head of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, at a memorial ceremony in Paris. In any case, I believe that the use of this conservative, formal image, of the image is a reasonable fair-use, to supplement another image of the victim in a artistic or informal setting, in order to best illustrate how the subject lived her life.
  IMO the image is historical because she is a famous person who is dead. In fact, I personally believe this image in question is not only "historical" but even is literally by any definition of the word iconic! But what's more important than my opinion about this image is Reuters's, which said this just yesterday, in reference to this exact and self-same image: "Neda, whose image is being used as an icon of the demonstrations in Iran." ↜Just M E here , now 03:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no justification for two non-free images. Therefore, one must go. Personally, I think this image is better than either of the ones we have now. So my first preference is to delete both and substitute this one. My second preference is to delete this one in favor of the other one (because I think this one is inferior). ÷seresin 03:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick aside to seresin: Although I personally don't find the image you point to as your preference to be objectionable, there are some who feel it controversial because in it the subject, a Muslim woman, happens to be wearing a pendant on a chain around her neck that appears to be a Christian cross. ↜Just M E here , now 03:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be WP:NPOV we should show her full complexity as a woman in Iran, not a figurehead for one side or another. There is also the issue of personal religious syncretism, or religious and spiritual blending, which is more and more common worldwide. She studied Islamic philosophy in college, and wore a cross around her neck. I sometimes wonder if the gunman shot her for that (if she was wearing it) when he saw a black-scarfed woman and then saw the cross. It's not hard to imagine. Just look at the religious and feminist projections and disputes and even fury in this discussion. From the Washington Post [2]: "In the videos, Agha Soltan is dressed traditionally -- wearing a head scarf and a coat that extends past her knees." The scarf does not indicate a religious point of view anyway. At least not in Iran where it is required in public. We need both images (the scarf, and the cross). --Timeshifter (talk) 05:50, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The way I heard it, I believe on National Public Radio, she was talking on her cellphone after exiting the car. Cellphone users are particularly targeted and I find this much more likely than that she was shot for wearing a cross when there's no evidence she had it on, much less that the shooter saw it if she did. --Bluejay Young (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you said the scarf does not indicate a religious point of view. It is IMPOSED on women in public in Iran. Then why should we keep it? Because some Muslim fanatic in some other country is going to be offended by a fellow woman in a Muslim country, not wearing Hijab?! This is not an article about women in Iran and their religious tendencies and practices. This is about Neda, the person. I agree with J Milburn, above (the naked picture argument). MaskedFeminist (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is imposed in public in Iran, but I doubt that the full version she is wearing in that photo was imposed on her. And you assume you know "Neda, the person." Maybe it is like some people wear their "best" suit to church. Who knows. Is everyone who wears a "suit" in any culture a religious "fanatic" (word you used). Sometimes, I put a suit jacket on (funerals, for example), and I am not religious at all. My spiritual beliefs are all over the map, and they change. Wikipedia does not impose individual points of view in articles. We have WP:NPOV. We show all points of view. We are an encyclopedia not an advocate. --Timeshifter (talk) 14:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy is wrong. Let me put it this way: a nun doesn't have a devil's tattoo on her ass. This scarf picture is is like that tattoo. The mere existence of the other non-hijab picture means that one will not dress like an Arab women. If one does, one should suspect a touch up. I strongly suggest you read J Milburn's comments above. It seems that you are repeating a point which has been adequately responded.MaskedFeminist (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you don't believe the Los Angeles Times when they say the photo is from a family friend. Or you believe that the family friend or somebody touched up the photo. That's your right. It is common in Iran to wear black scarves and a long black robe in public. One can see many pro-fair-election protesters dressed that way in the many videos. And it is common to wear casual clothes in private. See the YouTube video of her a little earlier showing her wearing a black scarf, baseball cap, and long black top before she was shot. She turns around and looks in the direction of the camera at around 9 seconds. One can pause the video there. She is next to her music-teacher friend in the blue shirt with white stripes. See Justmeherenow's comment below containing the CNN description of her in that video. See the shooting video to see her still wearing the long black top after she was shot and on the ground. It is laying on the ground behind her, and closed at her waist. The black scarf is behind her head. --Timeshifter (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, Timeshifter -- with the caveat that I don't think her cultural syncretism had to necessarily involve much of the spritual/religious; that is, it might have been more analogous to how, say, some particular Western woman might be off to the gym wearing a pair of the unisex loose leggings that in the MidEastern and Asian subcontinent are often called a shalwar but that she might call "yoga pants," which she might match with a necklace with a pendant emblazoned with a yinyang sign, even without her actually being in any way actually Taoist. In any case, yes Neda was wearing a headscarf and long top in public at the time of her death. Still, the overall effect was maybe a little hip: according to CNN(link) she was wearing "a baseball cap over a black scarf, a black shirt, blue jeans and tennis shoes" -- which jeans, I think I see from the video, were the kind ripped at its knees some. ↜Just M E here , now 06:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Great CNN article. Another quote: "Much about her remains unclear, but here is what CNN has learned from at least one source: ... She was a happy, positive person. Though she studied philosophy and religion at the Azad Islamic University, she was more spiritual than religious." We need the full picture. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 05:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BOTH - I agree with what has been said before in favor of both images. Especially since we do not know much about Neda the person other than her iconic role for Iran, it is important that an accompanying image shows her in that role. However, neither image can do this on its own; its the contrast between both images that illustrates the story of the protest movement in Iran. Therefore, it is imperative that both images remain. 217.91.25.149 (talk) 12:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Cause it gives neda an arab personality that is not right.she was Iranian80.191.242.195 (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The photo belongs to her. See Los Angeles Times. --Wayiran (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (along with the other one) The use by the LATimes is sufficient authentication. Necessary to properly give the context. DGG (talk) 16:05, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Both images because it gives a perspective of the modern vs traditional looks. Maybe not both in the infobox though.

Keep There is no reason to delete the photo. Anyone who wants it deleted is writing on the behalf of the Iranian Government. They have stopped her family from any public display of mourning, refused to allow them to hold a funeral service and threatened their neighbors not to speak to them or anyone else about Neda's death. Do not allow these barbarians to censure us in our own forum.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.15.101.182 (talk) June 26, 2009

Comment:Ok, what? That's not a real reason to want to keep this photo. All you are doing is throwing around insults, which I hope you know is very much against the rules and it is a very serious rule. Rgoodermote  04:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. To Rgoodremote: These people are the same people who can't stand any liberal values and freedom, same people who beat the people in Iran, same people who shot Neda, and what makes them the same is their ideological values which to their mind supersedes any liberal values. They provide dozens of reasons for their persistence of why a woman should wear a scarf, but the truth is that they force women to cover their hair and body (shape) so that men don't get aroused by looking at them and this is as barbaric as it sounds. That's why these (mostly arabic descent) stubborn muslims would be much happier to see the photograph with the veil than non, no matter how hard you try to explain to them that Neda was a victim of the same backward ideology that you stick up for! Things such as compulsion in wearing the scarf which is directly derived from their ideological doctrine. Therefore I strongly disagree with those favoring the image since she doesn't look real and Iranian in this image and those who vote for keeping it knowingly/unknowingly are selfishly pursuing their own personal religious satisfaction.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lestive (talk • contribs), June 27, 2009

Comment2: Your reason for delete is even worse. This has nothing to do with a person's affiliation. You must cite something as a reason to delete or keep this file. Not cite a person's affiliation with a group or their personal beliefs. Rgoodermote  15:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per DGG and others. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 00:36, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you and DGG and others that we should keep both photos. I note that your user page says that you are from Farsi Wiki. Farsi is the language of Iran, and so I would like to know how many images of Neda is Farsi wiki showing, and which ones, and why. For those who are interested there is related discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 48#How many Fair Use images are allowed in an article?. See also the talk sections above it on that discussion page. I think it will come down to how admins answer the question about "minimal" use of Fair Use images. --Timeshifter (talk) 07:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Wales's response is -- here. ↜Just M E here , now 20:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article in fa.wikipedia is Here. This picture is not there. Anyways, my main reason for keep is that some editors seem to make a personal judgment about which picture should be up there and which shouldn't be. I think they should leave this to the family of Neda. If the family of Neda have decided to release this picture, it means they want it to be released. We have both pictures with Hijab and without Hijab. So if that's the decision Neda's family have made, it is not appropriate for us to judge which one to delete and which one to keep. This must be left to the family of Neda. I hope my point is clear. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 08:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. That fa.wikipedia page also shows a Fair-Use newspaper page that has side-by-side photos of her with and without a scarf. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For many people around the world, veil or hijab is a symbol of many things as well as a symbol of oppression. thus, Neda died supporting the cause of freedom and liberation. IMO, this particular picture of Neda with hijab, shouldn't be used, mainly due to the possibility of propaganda usage, by "hijab advocates. Also bear in mind that, questions have been raised about the authenticity of the Neda's photo with lebanese style Hijab. --Kaaveh (talk) 09:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see DGG's comment regarding the authenticity (a reliable source reports it and wikipedia is about verifiability and not truth - even if we assume the picture is not genuine). Regarding your second point, to censor a picture simply because of the possibility of propaganda usage, IMO, is like forbidding a knife because it may be used in killing. To censor it because it doesn't help one's cause is not helpful either. As I said before, we should let the family decide. --DoostdarWKP (talk) 09:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This photo with lebanese style Hijab is not genuine. For those viewers, who are not familiar with culture of Iran, it will gives them, the wrong impression of Iranian women. where, in fact, modern Iranian women dress a lot like modern American women and Neda was certainly one of them. --Kaaveh (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the photo of her with a scarf is being used by Muslim women and others to protest against the Iranian government. See this photo in use at a Neda memorial by the National Council of Resistance of Iran:

http://ncr-iran.org/content/view/6599/1/

The Los Angeles Times says here that the source of the photo is a family friend. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timeshifter, You should read this. Since the establishment of the Islamic regime in Iran, women are forced to conform to the strict dress code. But the dress code in Iran and it's style is different than the style of hijab that Arab women wear.

Regarding the National Council of Resistance of Iran, is a terrorist sect which has no support among Iranians. --Kaaveh (talk) 10:25, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. I have seen many photos and videos showing women with all black scarves and robes up to their neck protesting in the streets for fair elections. They supported various candidates. I know little about the National Council of Resistance of Iran, but according to the Wikipedia article the French government does not consider them a terrorist organization. But that is another discussion not relevant to this discussion. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eg - see the link to this article, typical of so many (here), which is ullustrated with a photo of a Dubai woman's lighting of candles in front of this image of Agha-Soltan. ↜Just M E here , now 23:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the image and as much images as you can , The young girl was shot dead with cold blooded armed animals, the young girl had lost her life cos she stood up and spoke up and broke the circle of shame...she was a hero , a saint blessed martyr and her pictures should be available for every one and every where to remind us of how coward we are. These policies means nothing and they were invented by people like us ..Now it is the time to break these stupid policies for the sake of that innocent young woman..Please add more and more images..God rest her soul in peace--Ramsis II (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's already one picture of her here under fair use and that serves the purpose of showing what she looked like. Let's not make WP a photo gallery of fair use images Corpx (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both There is value in both perspectives of the individual. If both are deemed legitimate photos of the woman in question, keep them both. --99.245.253.158 (talk) 21:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Think this should be closed, I've been watching this deletion and it's going no where. I think it should be closed and everything weighed in (I suggest ignoring anything that talks about memorializing and anything that talks about people's beliefs an religions as none of those are valid reasons) and this should all be done fast. Rgoodermote  00:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(With the caveat that the subject's black manteau and headscarf are religious garb, obviously, FWIW. See Sarkozy, Nicolas (or even the nun, flying; per «Affaires du voile islamique», in the French Wikipedia: "Law 2004-228 of 15 March 2004[... -- ]People's wearing of ostentatious signs of Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, etc., is prohibited").) ↜Just M E here , now 00:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Huh? What does that have to do with anything? However, thank you for that URL..I didn't believe it but now that I see it..I can't say I like it. Rgoodermote  01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment: This image is now very different from the one originally nominated, and circumstances have changed significantly. However, several things are clear- firstly, the use of two images in one file like this is completely uneccessary, and fails point 2A of the NFCC- therefore, even in her own biography, this would be overuse. However, this is not used in her own biography, it is used in an article about her death. This article is already illustrated by an image of her from the video- a video f her dying, which is the significant part of the story. Thirdly, these images have a high commercial value, and were released to newspapers specifically- not to the world, as the video was. Thus, we have to judge whether their use reduces the market value to the newspapers- and yes, it clearly does. As such, these images fail at least three of our non-free content criteria, amd should be deleted. Many of the votes above should be discounted, amd perhaps even the whole IfD relisted, due to this being the second major change in circumstance of this image. J Milburn (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It's assumed that the fiance or family retain copyrights to the iconic Neda Soltan portraits, not the many news organizations and protestors who have used them. But more importantly, at least IMO, is that the recently deceased deserve the considerations Wikipedia affords subjects via the spirit and letter of BLP, too! In striving for sterile objectivity wrt the iconization of a subject's death, we need keep in mind the subject's human dignity for the public and esecially those who revere her. As "Fatemeh," at the media watchdog blog concerning Muslim women in the news, Muslimah Media Watch, blogs:

  "[...Neda Soltan] was young, slender, and pretty, and so Western media images are obsessed with watching her die[;...but it's her foreignness that] helps explain the fact that Neda is represented as a corpse just as often as she is represented the way any murdered American woman would be: alive and smiling, usually in a picture given to the media by her family or friends."

  An important consideration, I think -- that is, giving a notable death encyclopedic coverage via fair-use imagery require us to reponsibly balance the same with our coverage, both visual and otherwise, of its victim's life. ↜Just M E here , now 14:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should aim to be immune from the personalisation that the kind of "pretty, smiling family pictures" force- this is why the press love them so much. In the same way that we refer to her by surname, we should show her primarily in the context of the death- the reason we cover her. If you are really concerned for a neutral presentation of the event, you would support the removal of these images as overly personalising. We should not be on her side- we should not be on any side. J Milburn (talk) 22:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

((Jimboquote)). Jimbo Wales (see this diff) said the following:

It is part of this larger discussion: User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 48#Curious about your personal opinion. This is especially important in my opinion: "a concern for the human dignity of the deceased." In most countries (including nations in the English-speaking world) it is considered in very bad taste to only show someone when they are dying. This is true for most news services, encyclopedias, etc.. Photos of the person while alive and well are considered necessary as soon as possible in order to respect their human dignity. In the same news segments, or as soon as possible in news updates about their deaths. It is considered necessary also in order to respect the feelings of the grieving relatives and friends. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Neda is famous because of her death, and because of the fact we could all see it. This isn't the same as your standard celebrity, or even your standard murder victim. This is more comparable with Jonathan Briley, of whom, in life, we rightfully use no non-free images. J Milburn (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• And now it's back to the original image. Would someone please just delete this and get it over with? J Milburn (talk) 10:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep per Timeshifter's rationale. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:04, 6 July 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 - original research + copyright owner of TV program not identified satisfactorily Papa November (talk) 10:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Analogtv-digitaltv.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 2ndAmendment (notify | contribs).

• Irreplaceability is false. There's no reason why a non-FU image couldn't be used to do the same thing. Also, content is not identified; source is dubious. Furthermore, it's WP:OR. Or at least those are the allegations being made by User:KeithTyler, but I certainly do not agree with any of those concerns. 2ndAmendment (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It's an example of a television broadcast signal, showing a weak analog signal and a weak digital signal, taken in winter with a snow covered, partially broken antenna (talk about stacking the deck). It is clearly not possible to obtain a free image showing a broadcast signal, hence the fair use claim. Content is clearly identified (though the time could be off by an hour due to daylight savings confusion), although I could not care less the woman's name in the image, if that is what they are looking for - it is totally irrelevant to the image. 2ndAmendment (talk) 13:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  No information is provided as to what mechanism -- camera with film, frame grabber, etc., was used to capture this image. Aside from OR and NPOV I find the image itself to be highly suspect as I see no quantization artifacts in the "digital" part of the image. Before I go so far as to accuse someone of faking an image I would offer the opportunity for the author/creator to provide provenance of the image. 76.27.195.28 (talk) 06:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Hand-held digital camera. Both images have the same time stamp, so were taken within a minute of each other. I clarified that in the description, to avoid any misunderstanding that they were taken simultaneously. I can assure you that both images are "real", because I took both of them. I also have a photo of the antenna taken a few minutes before these were taken, but that is not really relevant to the image. 2ndAmendment (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I looked at the photos in another program, and the analog was taken first, and the digital ten seconds later. However, I have no way of knowing if the time in the camera was set accurately, but other than possibly being off by an hour due to daylight savings, was probably accurate to within a minute or two. 2ndAmendment (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Whether the time of the camera was accurate has no bearing on the reasons for nomination... for that matter, neither does the quality of either half. The two pictures, and the comparison of them with each other, constitutes an experiment, performed by the submitter, and therefore OR. Even if you were to split the image into two separate images, putting them next to each other in an article and saying "this is what digital looks like compared to analog" would be SYN, and therefore still OR. Whether or not one or both halves is faked doesn't even matter. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ 14:52, 7 July 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 Luk (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Not used, mostly just black with a flashlight cone or some such in one corner and some lights on the horizon Sherool (talk) 20:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll move it to commons.--Ipatrol (talk) 20:57, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What educational purpose could it serve? Just because something is free licensed doesn't mean it's within Common's scope, see: Commons:Project scope#Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. --Sherool (talk) 15:56, 24 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BangaruAdigalar2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SwarupaRahul (notify | contribs).

• Not used, also very low quality even if it was properly cropped. Sherool (talk) 20:37, 23 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) 00:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colcannon 4215w.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sarah777 (notify | contribs).

• Copyvio of the recipe text (see also the image's use in Colcannon). Also, Wikipedia is not a recipe collection, even in image form.  Sandstein  20:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the recipe is common not copyright and the printing is on a bag of potatoes (unbranded). It is to illustrate the fact that colcannon is part of the Irish celebration of Halloween. Sarah777 (talk) 21:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the idea that the colcannon recipe has been copyrighted will have generations of fellow culchies spinning in their respective graves. The photo is wonderful. It rings my bell anyway. RashersTierney (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't know if this image is appropriate to house on Wikipedia. But recipes can't be copyrighted.[3][4] – Quadell ^(talk) 19:19, 24 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlueTree GreenSky-1- copy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blasilisks (notify | contribs).

• Unused since parent article is deleted. Sherool (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and orphaned. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:45, 25 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BlueTree,GreenSky.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blasilisks (notify | contribs).

• Unused since parent article is deleted. Sherool (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and orphaned. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:45, 25 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blueberry-Pear1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sugarisbad (notify | contribs).

• Not used, probably intended for this deleted article. Sherool (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. I honestly doubt the uploader holds the copyright to this image. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:47, 25 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; awaiting OTRS confirmation. If permission is not confirmed, the image will be deleted as npd. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cc-tub.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tallulah13 (notify | contribs).

• Probably copyright violation, apparent work-made-for-hire photograph created for catalog, but copyright release is given by the photographer rather than the actual copyright holder (the business issuing the catalog) Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:56, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

usage permission has been emailed to permissions-en@wikimedia.org - permission from BOTH the photogropher, Sasha Sheldon AND from publication owner/copyright holder, Ali Barone. The contact information for both parties was included in the usage permissions. Sent on June 28 2009 (originally sent in Sept & Dec 2008)

• Please note that the licensing information for this image was changed by an anon while this ffd discussion was ongoing. The claimed permission -- "for use on wiki" -- is insufficient on its face, and an important part of the new claim of permission, if read to comply with WP:IUP -- that a business has GFDL-released all its published images that it holds copyright to -- is unsupported by any reliable supporting evidence, and is conspicuously unlikely, to say the least. The original uploader (who appears to be editing as an anon after invoking her right to vanish) had a long track record of uploading images with insufficient, sometimes invalid, calims of "permissions". Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an OTRS claim was submitted, then we'll know soon enough. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • OTRS:3236589 refers. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • awaiting additional/updated permissions from copyright holder/s. Following this format[5]. I will pass that on to OTRS as soon as I receive it. Thanks for being patient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.164.137.114 (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In short, no valid permission given, image is part of extensive gallery with negligible significance, no fair use claim, and probable promotional intent. Speedy deletion would be justified. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • None of that is in our criteria for speedy deletion. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:00, 2 July 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:180px-Highimgnoise noise reduced.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Capital_photographer (notify | contribs).

• Not used, aparently an edited version of something but no orignal referenced. Sherool (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:47, 25 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bench Robinsons.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FoxLad (notify | contribs).

• Not used, probably intended to illustrate the store brach, but it's not a particularly good shot (blurry, too much highlights, escelator in the way etc). Sherool (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:47, 25 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bng1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mackayk2 (notify | contribs).

• Not used, fairly low quality. Sherool (talk) 21:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:48, 25 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Not used, pretty sure it's a copyvio too (assuming the logo is original enough for copyright), doesn't look like we have a English language article about the company anyway (stubs on Norwegian (bokmål) and Sweedish Wikipedias though). Sherool (talk) 21:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low quality and orphaned. Possible copyvio. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:49, 25 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abetaleb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sjc4062 (notify | contribs).

• Unused personal photo. Sherool (talk) 21:31, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:49, 25 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bm1.sm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pbeckwith (notify | contribs).

• Unused original artwork by uploader (now absent). Sherool (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:49, 25 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⚡ 04:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Not used and not ensyclopedic. Sherool (talk) 21:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic and orphaned. --Kaaveh (talk) 05:26, 26 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.