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--Aervanath (talk) 05:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC) Decorative non-free gallery, failing nfcc#8[reply]

• File:40078028 sinnfein 203.jpg
• File:Sf-logo.jpg
• File:Sinn fein 1.png

This is a black and white issue, and sanction should be considered for those involved in readding them to the artcile Fasach Nua (talk) 11:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, clearly a violation of NFCC #3 and #8. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:11, 9 May 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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:15, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cleanroom01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vreda (notify | contribs).

• Image from www.albany.edu/yearinreview/2008/hub/cnse.shtml 72.224.104.192 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Image from imagesnytechvalley (dot) com/index.php/site/articles/technology/nanotecch_sector_is_breeding_ground (Sorry for the mung'd URL. The site is blacklisted by WP 72.224.104.192 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Is a duplicate of File:NanoCNSE1.jpg and File:Nanocnse.jpg--72.224.104.192 (talk) 00:28, 7 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ward high res .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LTAS (notify | contribs).

• Unused, color-distorted, no context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:48, 13 May 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk)

File:Master li hongzhi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ohconfucius (notify | contribs).

• copyvio Shizhao (talk) 03:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is tagged as "fair use", which is an assertion that its use is a permissible infringement of copyright. You need to explain why this infringement falls outside of the range of copyright infringements that we tolerate. Guettarda (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• At first glance, this appears to pass our non-free content criteria. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  My mistake, Li Hongzhi lives in the U.S. and is not in hiding. The Chinese government has requested his extradition, but the U.S. has refused, and he is in no danger so long as he stays in the U.S. He has accepted many prominent awards and attended public honors, so it should not be impossible to create a free replacement image of him. Therefore delete. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per quadell. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.Agree with User:Guettarda. Image, used as it is currently in the article, satisfies fair use criterion.Dilip rajeev (talk) 22:39, 14 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Firstgoenshow.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Money game (notify | contribs).

• Screen capture that is orphaned but was used to illustrate the biographical article of a living person - fails NFCC#1 as replaceable with a free alternate Peripitus (Talk) 08:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:51, 13 May 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 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ann Baker with Fugianna.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dodo bird (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned non-free image (though it may have a home soon). The main issue is that although it is sourced to this page, the actual copyrightholder (the taker of the photo) is not identified and as such the image fails WP:NFCC#10a Peripitus (Talk) 08:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This image is used on many Ragdoll sites without attribution, even by the "official club" RFCI. I think it is reasonable to presume the author is unknown. NFCC#10a requires identification of artist, publisher and copyright holder "where possible". --Dodo bird (talk) 09:22, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pickup an illustrated book on the subject - if, as is likely, the image is used it is certain to be attributed. The web is not the world - Peripitus (Talk) 09:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While the image is no longer orphaned and the requirement to attribute the copyright holder has been weakened to a "where possible" in the NFCC, the image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is used for decoration only without contributing to readers' understanding of the article. The free image of a ragdoll provided on that page is sufficient to identify the breed. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the image does illustrate two specific individuals - Baker and Fugianna - both of whom are discussed in the article. And Fugianna is presumably deceased. Since Fugianna is one of the founders of the breed, her appearance is significant and could not simply be replaced with any picture of a ragdoll. Guettarda (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would hold water if the image was used in an article about Ms. Fugianna. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what you mean. You realise that Fugianna is the cat, right? Since the breed is descended by her, her appearance is noteworthy in a discussion of the breed. "What does a modern ragdoll look like?" isn't the same question as "what did the first ragdolls look like?" Since the article discusses Fugianna (together with Buckwheat, Josephine and Daddy Warbucks) and it discusses their appearances, an image of her is more than decorative - it significantly adds to the reader's understanding of what's being discussed. Guettarda (talk) 16:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I got that completely backwards. Ignore that message. Stifle (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this article is not about a particular cat; it's about a breed of cat. Yes, Fugianna is mentioned in passing, but that's a far cry from passing NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Quadell. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:54, 13 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mozart, K. 448, Allegro con spirito.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fanoftheworld (notify | contribs).

• This file fails WP:NFCC#1 as it is replaceable by a free recording that exists or could be created, and also drastically fails WP:NFCC#3b as it is over eight minutes long. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:

- The image is not replaceable, bacause a freely licensed media can not be found or created, that provides substantially the same information. There are no freely lincensed records of these pianists playing, Murray Perahia and Radu Lupu. The image is used in the Steinway article not only because of the pianos being played is Steinway concert grand pianos, but also because of the pianists playing are Murray Perahia and Radu Lupu. These pianists are living Steinway Artists.

- Furthermore, the image is used in an article about the Mozart effect. The pianists playing on the recording are Murray Perahia and Radu Lupu. The recording is exactly the recording Rauscher, Shaw and Ky used for their scientific discovery of the Mozart effect! Therefore, the recording is not replaceable by a free recording that exists or could be created, because the recording is a historical recording used for the scientific discovery of the Mozart effect.

- It is a sample of no more than the first movement of a piano sonate in three movements, and could not be used as a substitute for the original recording or to recreate the original recording. The image is therefore only a small part of a large music piece, which is according to WP:NFCC#3b. However, if the image is too long, there could easily be made a shorter image. Fanoftheworld (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Stifle. I don't believe it's actually important to have a recording of Steinway Artists or the music used in researching the Mozart effect—there is no textual commentary about this recording in Steinway & Sons, and I don't see how the inclusion of this recording in Mozart effect "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic" as required by WP:NFCC#8. However, even if it is decided that this clip needs to be in those articles, it certainly needs to be shortened; see Wikipedia:Music samples. —Bkell (talk) 13:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even a cropped version would fail NFCC#1 (in an article about the composition) or #8 (in any article not primarily about this particular recording). – Quadell ^(talk) 02:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The specific recording is not altogether that important, but the textual description (recording XYZ by A and B using FGH and IJK) is enough. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:57, 13 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Urkunde 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Artaxerex (notify | contribs).

• Image is used in a gallery alongside three other similar images which are free. It is therefore not compliant with WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Completely replaceable. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:00, 13 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Anne's manucripts.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yallery Brown (notify | contribs).

• Unused, low resolution, no source information. Tagged ((PD-US)), which is likely false, as Anne Frank wasn't born until 1929. —Bkell (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete low res, orphaned. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:03, 13 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unused, no context for encyclopedic use. Tagged ((NoRightsReserved)), but sourced to darkspyro.net; no evidence is given that the copyright holder has released all rights. —Bkell (talk) 13:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unused, appeared to be incorrectly tagged. Guettarda (talk) 20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OR, copyvio, wrong tag. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:04, 13 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flight 195 Boarding List.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TheCharlesOne (notify | contribs).

• Seems to be replaceable by the text which exists in the article; this non-free image doesn't really add anything to the prose it accompanies. (ESkog)^(Talk) 14:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you, as other names are listed on the image besides the known heroes, like "Gordon, F." which I believe to be Flint Jr. but without proof, "Dawson, N." which I believe could be "Nana" Dawson if her name (never mentioned) starts with "N", but, again, without proof, and "Redhouse, S." which I believe is the so mentioned Sparrow Redhouse, but once again without proof. So I think it's is better to leave those names to the viewers appreciation. Also I think it serves as conection to both the Rebellion GN and the episode "A Clear and Present Danger" to make the point that Monica was in deed in that flight. Thanks for reading. TheCharlesOne (talk) 15:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't be convinced that this crosses the Threshold of originality, but using it on a non-free licence fails WP:NFCC Fasach Nua (talk) 15:31, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can you explain me that? That license supports webcomics too. TheCharlesOne (talk) 06:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a non-free image, then we can't use it. (We don't use non-free images to "prove" anything on Wikipedia.) But if this image is not eligible for copyright, then we should be able to use it. Copyright protects creative works, but does not protect trivial creations (like a simple picture of a triangle and a word). So the question is: does NBC hold a copyright on this image? I think they do, and I think their lawyers would certainly say they do.

• Delete. I think we have to assume this is copyrighted, and NBC would certainly assert that it is. And we can't use it as non-free. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:30, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The character names are all copyrighted as part of the script. Given that this is a screenshot, it is part of a larger work and, therefore, is copyrighted. Unnecessary and the basic details can be given without the picture. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:07, 13 May 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, but limited to use only in E.O. Green School shooting. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• According to the source link, this non-free Image was downloaded from photo agency "VenturaCountyStar". They charge for using their photos, so, it this image is really theirs, it's not fair for us to use it for free just because we know of any freely available alternative. Damiens.rf 16:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair use means that something can be used for free, under specific criteria, even if the copyright holder normally charges for its use. If there is no freely available alternative (and I'm almost certain there isn't), it is available for our use as long as it meets fair use criteria. I believe every effort has been made to ensure it meets those criteria (although the image could be smaller). See also the previous deletion discussion where the result was keep. -kotra (talk) 17:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete fails WP:NFCC#8 Fasach Nua (talk) 17:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - NFCC#8 said "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." - This is an image of the boy who died in the incident. This image is significant to the E. O. Green School Shooting and therefore it passes NFCC#8. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Correct the image is signifiacnt. However what information does the images give me, the victims gender, approximate age, all this information is already included in the article, so if removed its omission would not significantly diminish my understanding of the subject Fasach Nua (talk) 18:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In an article about a murder of one individual one would expect to see the murdered individual's face somewhere in the article. Because the person is dead one can use an un-free image unless an equivalent free image becomes available. WhisperToMe (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found a similar photo on the family's website: http://streaming.rememberlarry.com/gallery/21.JPG - It was probably taken around the same time as the photo here. I'm assuming that this photo is copyrighted, but would this be somehow better to use than the other photo that was printed by the Ventura County newspaper? WhisperToMe (talk) 18:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The photo printed by the Ventura County newspaper appears to be just a crop of the image you linked.(see comment by Guettarda below) I do not see any copyright (or copyleft) info on the website, so I think it's safe to assume it's copyrighted, just as the newspaper version is. I don't think a distinction can be made between the two images, partially because it seems to be practically the same photo, but mostly because whoever owns copyright for each image has the same legal right to earn revenues from usage of the image. Unless the family's version somehow turns up as copyleft/freely licensed, I'd assume fair use applies equally to both images. -kotra (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The family's website is a matter for the family and wikipedia's website is a matter for the wikipedia community, the reasons being presented to include this image are in no way supported by consensus or policy! Fasach Nua (talk) 19:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and wow to noms actions deleting the image and fair use rationales[1] and effort to expunge an image of a gay murder victim that seems to align with their interest against LGBT murder victims that is rather chilling in its totality; as I've evidenced first hand elsewhere. -- Banjeboi 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This was discussed here less than six months ago (see link at top of this section); the result was keep. Good-faith zealot that I am, I am hesitant to call this second attempt tendentious editing, but I cannot help wondering if it might be. Rivertorch (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - significantly increase readers' understanding in the context of the E.O. Green School shooting; an image of the victim communicates significant information about his age. It isn't right, but people care more when a cute kid is murdered. The image shows that King was just that, a cute kid. It communicates something about his personality (correctly or incorrectly); it adds an "intangible" quality. Thus, it quite clearly enhances the reader's understanding about the context of this tragedy, as would a picture of McInerney. Guettarda (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as per previous discussion. Mish (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Most of the discussion above is about either the image is significant or not (WP:NFCC#8) for the article about the murder. Please not that this deletion nomination is concerned with either or not we are entitled to freely use an image from a news agency (WP:NFCC#2) just because we don't have anything better. (...and that the image is replaceable (WP:NFCC#1) when used as a illustration of Violence against LGBT people is completely different matter...) --Damiens.rf 00:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You said that Ventura County Star "charge[s] for using their photos", but the link you provided sells 4x6 and 8x10 photographs. In addition, it appears to be a crop of this image, not this one (look at the angle of his face). And according to this (pic. #2 in the gallery). According to the caption, that photo is "courtesy Greg King" (Larry's father). The site allows community members to upload their own photos, and their user agreement says that uploaders "retain all right, title and interest in your User Content". So (a) copyright appears to belong to the King family, (b) I can't see how this 30 KB file in any way infringes on the ability of the Ventura County Star to sell 4x6 or 8x10 photographs derived from this image and (c) since Ventura County Star appears not to own the rights to this image, I don't see how this is different to the fact that Flickr will sell you copies of photographs on that site. So I don't see how this violates NFCC#2. Guettarda (talk) 02:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • (response to Damiens.rf) You have nominated this article for deletion, which means you feel none of the fair use rationales are valid. However, concerning its use in E.O. Green School shooting, it's not that "we don't have anything better". It's that we don't have anything else that illustrates this individual, one of the two main subjects of the article. There is no free alternative. It is not replaceable except by a similarly copyrighted image. It doesn't matter that it's copyrighted to a news agency or a family member, it still must meet the same fair use criteria, and for at least one article (E.O. Green School shooting) I believe it does. -kotra (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per my comment immediately above (04:30, 8 May 2009). -kotra (talk) 04:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This image is not replaceable, as the subject is dead. It's not excessive use of non-free content, has been previously published, and is encyclopedic. It meets the image use policy, is used in an article, and only in articles. The description page has all the necessary details. That takes us to 8 of the NFCC passed. Two to go.
  Number 8 requires the image to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and requires that its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. I would say that the use on E.O. Green School shooting just about passes this criterion by identifying the victim. The use on Violence against LGBT people, however, is clearly decorative and not required for understanding.
  Criterion 2 mandates that the content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted material. That's where this one falls down. The copyright owner is a news agency that charges to reprint its work, and I cannot say with any confidence that our use doesn't conflict with that. While it may constitute fair use under US copyright law, Wikipedia policy is stricter. Nine out of ten NFCC won't do, it's got to pass them all.
  Therefore, my judgement is delete. I trust that the closing admin will take into account that my argument is based in policy rather than personal preference or casting aspersions on other users, and that it addresses all of the non-free content criteria. If the image is kept, it should undoubtedly be removed from Violence against LGBT people as inappropriate decorative use. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Stifle, but there is credible information that the original un-cropped image belongs to the King family, not a newspaper or agency. The image appears on a memorial site Remember Larry and copyright is claimed for the King family. Also, see Guettarda's comment above that reports the Ventura County Star posted the photo "courtesy Greg King". Since the photo has been posted on at least one free site, without selling copies or prints, there is no market value, so your delete rationale fails and the image is acceptable per WP:FAIR, WP:IUP, and WP:NFCC. Especially since the photo has received major cropping for it's inclusion here. There is no policy basis for deleting this image, or against it's inclusion in the E.O. Green School shooting article. However I do agree with removing it from Violence against LGBT people, as I believe it fails inclusion criteria in that article, per WP:NFCC #8, i.e. - it's more decorative than significant there. — Becksguy (talk) 10:30, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep WITH CAVEATS - yes for the school shooting article, but I do not believe that is fair use on the Violence against LGBT people as it's use there does not expand understanding of the issue. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:37, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If it is fair to use it in one, it is fair to use it in the other. It relates to the topic, the murder features as an example of of Violence against LGBT people, and puts a human face to that violence, in this case violence against children dealing with gender identity issues. Discussion about that page needs to take place independently of this request for deletion. Mish (talk) 18:08, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "If it is fair to use it in one, it is fair to use it in the other" - You couldn't be more wrong. Fair use and our non-free content criteria are considered on a case-by-case basis. Specially in regard to WP:NFCC#8. --Damiens.rf 19:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, but the point of that comment was in the rest of the statement: "It relates to the topic, the murder features as an example of of Violence against LGBT people, and puts a human face to that violence, in this case violence against children dealing with gender identity issues." The relevant points:-

1. No free equivalent - No other picture available of children murdered for expressing gender identity issues 2. Respect for commercial opportunities - It is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role 2.1. Minimal usage - Needs unpacking & discussing in this case (see relevant comments above) 4. Content - Meets general Wikipedia content standards and is encyclopedic. 7. Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding - Absolutely 8. Restrictions on location - It is in an article So, I can only see one item that is relevant for discussion - and I believe that has been covered already in the discussion above. OK? Now, can we move on please? Mish (talk) 19:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it does add to the Violence against LGBT people article, but so would example images of other victims (that don't have fair use issues). That is what I meant by decorative (I borrowed the word from Stifle). We should be applying the concept of "minimal usage", per WP:FAIR, and only using the image in the one article it applies to, the shooting article, not elsewhere. So no, I don't agree it's fair use for both articles. However, inclusion of the image at Violence against LGBT people is not part of this IfD nomination. That issue is being discussed at that talk page here. Probably dependent on this outcome, however. — Becksguy (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so, maybe you have not understood the significance of the picture. The only other contemporary image I have managed to find (so far) in Wikimedia Commons is of Shepard, who was a young gay man. This is a child with gender identity issues; these are qualitatively different. In one case, the violence is inflicted on the basis of assumptions about sexual practice, in the other on the basis of appearance and non-sexual behaviour. One is violence on the basis of sexuality, this is on the basis of gender pesentation. I am not keen of images of any dead children being used in this way, just out of respect, and would prefer images of adult victims - so ideally, we would also have an image of a female (lesbian or bisexual) victim of sexuality violence; for gender violence, female to male trans with gender identity issues (such as Brandon Teena) and male to female. When we have these, then the two archaic images could be rendered redundant, but even then the one under discussion features a type of violence being directed against one so young, and is very significant, and warrants a picture. Mish (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming you know the reason King was killed, and that the reason was a reaction to gender presentation. The reason, however, is not actually known (the trial is ongoing), as is clear from the article, and those who do think they know they reason usually say it's because he was gay (not transgender). As for King being transgender in the first place, that is open to debate (see my comments). Regardless, Becksguy is correct that fair use images should be used minimally. If an article has a link to E.O. Green School shooting, the image doesn't need to be in both places; if someone wants to learn more about King, they will go to the shooting article and see the image there. In addition, in a subject as broad as "unlawfully killed transgender people" or "violence against LGBT people", there is probably a free image somewhere that is just as relevant and informative. Lastly, and somewhat off-topic, describing transgender people as having "gender identity issues" is often offensive to transpeople; many are fully secure in their gender identity, be it male, female, trans, genderqueer, or none of the above. -kotra (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Children with gender identity issues can grow up gay or trans, and a boy going to school in a dress is a pretty good indication that he has issues about his gender identity. I'd cut and pasted too hastily while composing the other section, and that phrase was not meant to be there. I have crossed it out, but it is a bit of a deviation - it is not unreasonable to describe people with a daignosable GID as having gender identity issues, and I do so deliberately to avoid the medical use of the term 'disorder'. Will you be looking to find some images which include one of a child killed for exhibiting symptoms of GID of childhood? Good luck. The section cited by Damien leads to this: "Exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis if there is a broad consensus". The burden of proof is on those who seek to use the image, but the arguments are not being considered because discussion is not being engaged with. Perhaps an RfC is what is needed? Mish (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the point you make about the trial being ongoing is important, and being in another country I'd not fully appreciated that. That would be a more significant reason to minimise use of the image and other references to this case in Wikipedia until the outcome is known. I would certainly support its withdrawal on that basis, on the understanding that this could be discussed again once there is no possibility of the entry here prejudicing the case. Mish (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that the entry here might prejudice the case. There have been tons of opinions floating around in the media about the case, so it's unlikely that Wikipedia will have any effect on the judge/jury (nor is it our responsibility to worry about that sort of thing). My meaning was this: if you want a picture illustrating "a child killed for exhibiting symptoms of GID", this picture may not be even applicable. We don't know why he was killed; there are numerous theories, but nothing confirmed as yet.

As for having a gender identity that does not match one's assigned gender, King may or may not have fit the profile, and the definition of "transgender" is hazy enough that that profile may not even be applicable (GID ≠ transgender). King identified as gay, but I've seen no sources that say he identified as transgender, or having GID; for such terms, self-identification is paramount. Anyway, this is getting off-topic, so if there's anything else to add about this line of discussion, I recommend it be offered at a more appropriate place. -kotra (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't think you did mean that - but it occurred to me that it might, but people over at the relevant page have also reassured me that possible prejudice is not an issue we need to worry about. Maybe things work differently there - here reportage goes very quite once the suspect is charged, and resumes once the trial starts, in order not to risk prejudicing a jury, and thus the defendant's right to a fair trial. I have made my response on the TG issue at the place you suggested. I was surprised how long this has gone on, it is a very messy case. Mish (talk) 01:26, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep in E.O. Green School shooting, but remove from Violence against LGBT people as an NFCC#8 violation. I agree 100% with Stifle's analysis, above, except that I do not believe that the Ventura County Star holds the copyright to the image. Like all newspapers, the VCS commonly reprints images that they don't hold the copyright to -- the main page at this moment shows a screenshot from a Google map. The newspaper would have no reason to photograph this boy before his death. It's overwhelmingly likely that this is a family portrait, and the fact that the newspaper reprinted it is evidence that the copyright holders do not object to its use. No one has shown that the VCS even claims copyright, so I don't think NFCC#2 is an issue. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the only decision that is to be made on this page is whether to delete the photo. Discussion about appropriate placement of the photo, assuming it isn't deleted, should happen at the talk pages of the articles in question. Rivertorch (talk) 04:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are totally correct. — Becksguy (talk) 06:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not correct. This venue is often used to determine in what contexts an image passed NFCC#8. A non-free image will quite often pass our NFCC in one article, but not another. If you are dead-set on using the image where it does not pass our non-free content criteria, then I will recommend deletion instead.

• Strong Keep per the last time it was nominated for deletion by the same nom here. As to the nom's assertion that "we know of any freely available alternative", I'd ask him to provide such free alternative. Otherwise the child is dead and as such, there's no way a free alternative can be obtained. I'll also say it is highly inappropriate for the nom to be running around Wikiland removing the image from articles and removing Fair Use Rationales from the image page while this discussion is taking place. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 08:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "delete" - people seem intend on using this image to break our policies on NFCC so I think we need to delete it. I can almost see a fair use rationale for the shooting article but nowhere else. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem fair to vote to delete this image just because it's being used in another article. That's like blaming the victim. The other article is really a separate issue and I agree it shouldn't be there also, per FAIR and NFCC. — Becksguy (talk) 17:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• strong keep. Cameron is misrepresenting the reason for keeping, it is not being kept in order to break a policy, which shows he has not followed the disucssion. It is being used because it gives a human face to a form of crime that is unusual amongst these types of crimes. It is the killing of a minor dealing with these issues. Keep photo for now. Allow use in both locations where it is relevant, as the subject of one article and as one killed as a child for their gender and sexuality expression, of which I doubt there is an alternative image for anybody else. An alternative image should be sought for this case, or the publisher contacted to establish the position on copyright, and (if appropriate) permission sought from the originator of the photo. Until then, the serial deletion of this image from the relevant page by two contributors to this discussion (while it is still being discussed) needs to stop because that displays complete lack of goodwill or respect for the participants of the discussion, that discussion needs to be concluded here, discussion either moved to the talk page of the article, or resumed at a future date on that page. The decision to allow use of the photo was made some time ago, the issue of whether or not it can be used on a different page is not appropriate in this forum. Mish (talk) 10:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Expanding on MishMich's statement: considering that this child's murder prompted widespread support of hate crimes legislation, and that Newsweek described it as "the most prominent gay-bias crime since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard", I'd say its inclusion in the Violence against LGBT people article is most definitely appropriate. But I'll also say that that isn't why we're here on this page. This is a keep or delete discussion. Which article the image should or shouldn't be in, is irrelevant to this discussion. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 10:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So what that the murder "prompted widespread support of hate crimes legislation"? We don't need to see the boy's face to read and understand an article about violence against LGBT people. No matter how significant the boy's murder was, his face-expression during a museum visit is simply irrelevant to the article's subject. --Damiens.rf 05:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi Damiens, in the absence of images of him after he was shot in the head, it is the best we can do. I am sure some people would prefer an image of him that encapsulates the violence, just as there are people who prefer images of intersex people to focus on children's genitalia Intersex#Ambiguous_genitalia, but this is what is available. Even sourcing other images (all of which seem to stem from the memorial site) will not yield an image substantially different from this one. The repeated deletion of this image and serial deletion of other material from the page it features on do not strengthen your arguments, it just makes you look like a bully. I am staggered that anybody can put so much energy into in such an innocuous image, but nobody seems that concerned about the other one I referred to, and that Wikipedia policies and guidelines are used like weapons to justify the use of one image, and the erasure of the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MishMich (talk • contribs) 07:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't you simply understand that the article about "Violence Against LGBT People" does not need a picture of his face, genitalia or dead body? And do you understand that we only use copyright-protected images when we really need? --Damiens.rf 07:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Can't you simply understand that some people do not agree with you, and that it is still under discussion, and that throwing your toys out of the pram and insisting you are right is dictating, not discussing. Sure, the picture does not need to be located at the very top of the page, and a free image would be better, but as it is the most notable recent example, and is notable in its own right, a picture is needed. It is necessary because it shows that the topic is about human beings, and the violence essentially denies that humanity. Mish (talk) 08:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Any chance of a resolution on this one? I am getting a bit sick of the image being used like a ping-bong ball by repeated deletions before any consensus is reached. Seems a pretty aggressive approach, and just a tad disrespectful to the kid to treat his picture this way, so I'm not restoring while this discussion is still open. Mish (talk) 14:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussions now continue for seven days. And I don't see this one closing early. But edit warring is inappropriate in the violence article. — Becksguy (talk) 15:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it feels like its been around longer. I had a look on the memorial website gallery [2], and it is clear that the copyright for this image, as with the others of Larry there, lies with the family, and the copyright notice says that it cannot be used without their express written permission, and there is an e-mail address for contacting the family. Has anybody bothered to contact the family to ask what their feelings are about us using it here? Mish (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, BUT remove the image from all other pages except for E.O. Green School shooting. Copy and adjust information accordingly per File:Natalee Holloway yearbook photo.jpg, the top image in a Featured Article. --Moni3 (talk) 19:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fair use content can only be used when it is vital to an understanding of the article. In an article about a painting, a fair use image of the painting is acceptable to convey an artists style- something like postmodern describes a range, and lacks the specificity needed to convey basic information. The article is not about how the boy looks, or anything defensible like that. In an article about a school shooting, we have a fair use image of... nothing to do with that. It's not from the scene, it was taken we're not sure when. The article is on [[A School Shooting]] not [[This Kid]]. --M^ask? 08:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep of the photo and of its use in the Violence against LGBT people article. Arguments that the article is not about how the boy looks is entirely missing the point of homophobia, which has a great deal to do with how an individual looks and how that makes others feel. Frankly, it strikes me as a good deal more relevant to the understanding of homophobic violence than it is relevant to a random shooting—yet, of course, the point is that this wasn't a random shooting, it is being prosecuted as a hate crime, and this points out that hate crime laws protect children as well as adults. The article tells us that his middle school principal identified his appearance as an expression of his sexuality; Newsweek reports that the victim had asked the shooter to be his "valentine" days before the murder, again, clearly an expression of sexuality regardless of the degree of sincerity or irony. I don't understand what the ado is about whether he was "transgender" when clearly he fit under the LGBT umbrella in some fashion or other, which is quite the point of calling it LGBT instead of segregating "gay" from "transgender", right? This discussion about precisely how is beside the point. The understanding this photo increases is that young men sometimes exhibit feminine traits and are the victims of homophobia just like the dirty old men and debauched hedonists some people prefer to imagine the totality of LGBT people to be, people who grew up as straight children and "made some choice" in college or something. I'm not aware that anybody is nominating the knight von Hohenberg print for removal from the article, yet presumably the point of it is to show that this currently openly tolerated violence has happened throughout the dark ages. Well, homophobic antagonism happens throughout the spectrum of human ages as well. Looking at that boy's photo forces the viewer to contemplate the struggle for life of gay children, and to connect this murderous violence with lesser degrees of antagonism or opprobrium the majority of people direct toward "sissies" while telling themselves such treatment is benignly for the child's own good. This is not decorative use, it strikes me as deeply contextual. The boy was boldly courageous to present himself as he did and while I don't want to get too metaphysical, it seems a refutation of everything he was (or would you prefer a logical contradiction?) to censor or cast that as irrelevant from two articles dealing in various ways with the hate crime that allegedly took his life because of that self-expression. Today's featured picture at wikipedia is captioned "An African-American child at a segregated drinking fountain on a courthouse lawn, North Carolina, United States, 1938, an example of state racism, a type of institutional racism promoted by a government." Racial segregation contains three pictures, two of which are of children. Clearly the same point is being made there. Shall we remove that too? We all know what black children look like, right? But the literal image is only part of the point of the picture. Abrazame (talk) 10:26, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This image is the primary subject of an ongoing edit war in the Violence against LGBT people article, and that is not helpful in this IfD, or in that article. Reported for intervention. — Becksguy (talk) 11:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but realize that usage needs to be appropriate IAW WP:NFCC. Do not use randomly all over Wikipedia. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - per my comments elsewhere here, Kotra, Guettarda, Abrazame, Mish, Quadell, WhisperToMe, Allstar, others I may have missed, and an unanimous keep closure at the last IfD deletion discussion, which I include here by reference. This image clearly satisfies the requirements of WP:NFCC and WP:FAIR, and I find the claims that the image adds nothing to E.O. Green School shooting very un-compelling. If there is no need to have photos of bio related articles, then why does FA require images, per WP:FACR. Why did newspapers and other print sources spend multiple millions to incorporate photos, and later color photos, and continue to place photos of people on press? Why does practically every news source and website about the King shooting have a photo of him (and often of the killer)? If photos are not necessary for a understanding, then lets start deleting photos on all bio related articles, starting with Obama. People have a built in need to see what subjects of news stories look like, and that's why we include them. It provides information that cannot be included in the text, including demeanor and hints as to personality. It has been claimed that King was murdered because he appeared effeminate and self identified as gay, among other claims. That makes a picture of him clearly relevant, and it adds considerably to the article. There is nothing in the image that is libelous, defamatory, or humiliating. This particular image is a heavily cropped non-commercial family photo, from the family memorial site. It is owned by the family, as documented several places elsewhere here, including by me, and is clearly not a newspaper or agency photo with a market value. I disagree with the image inclusion in the Violence against LGBT people, as I think that violates "minimal usage" per WP:FAIR. But the image, in the shooting article, is entirely appropriate per custom and policy, as there is no way to get a free use version. I spend considerable time looking. — Becksguy (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete serves no useful purpose in any article it is included in Thisglad (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not even E.O. Green School shooting, which is basically about the murder of the boy? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 22:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So how does showing the photo "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic"? That is what use of a non-free image must do. —teb728 t c 22:54, 13 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RNCSbeach2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sintheeah26 (notify | contribs).

• Image is captioned as from Hotspotpics.com, and, as the uploader claims to be the subject, not the author, I doubt they own the rights to the image. J Milburn (talk) 18:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• No evidence that the uploader owns the rights to this image. All the more dubious since it's captioned from a commercial site. Guettarda (talk) 20:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree, it doesn't have evidence. Delete as unencyclopedic, incorrect license. American Eagle (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all of the above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:11, 13 May 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

File:AerialLACUSC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GC2009 (notify | contribs).

• Low resolution, arial shot. I suspect this image was taken from elsewhere without permission. J Milburn (talk) 18:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It does look a little suspicious. Guettarda (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• It does look dodgy, but I can't find it online anywhere, and I looked pretty thoroughly. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm not saying it isn't a webshot, but I took these photos (File:San Antonio International airport.JPG , File:T-43 Bobcats x5.JPG, File:Goodyear Test Track.jpg and a bunch of others that aren't uploaded) from the air, so it isn't entirely impossible. Unless we have something concrete, I say keep. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:19, 13 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jorn - Live in America Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ragehead91 (notify | contribs).

• The DVD release is mentioned only in passing, the cover is not mentioned at all. The cover adds nothing to the article, as it is very similar to the album cover, already used. Further, it is a very large resolution and has a substandard rationale. J Milburn (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not necessary for the article, doesn't meet our WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:20, 13 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Unused, unencyclopedic (possibly NSFW). —Bkell (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unused, appeared unencyclopaedic. Guettarda (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per Guettarda. American Eagle (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unused, UE. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:21, 13 May 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⚡ 02:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IAC holdings.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Samwb123 (notify | contribs).

• The use inherently fails WP:NFCC#3 for using more non-free images than are needed and WP:NFCC#8 because the use does not significantly increase readers’ understanding of the subject. —teb728 t c 21:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll add "replaceable (by free text)" to that. Delete. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What Stifle said. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:22, 13 May 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.