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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nepenthes insignis.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mgiganteus1 (notify | contribs).

• I'm not sure what more this non-free image adds over the free images at Nepenthes insignis. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not valid fair use, replaceable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Natologo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marcd30319 (notify | contribs).

• Just being used at Jerauld_Wright#Standing_Group_-_North_Atlantic_Treaty_Organization to show off NATO's logo. File:Flag of NATO.svg would be a more appropriate image but I doubt this usage would qualify for that. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Redundant non-free image. Use in Jerauld_Wright is not motivated anyway. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• At the time of imprisonment, I think the replaceability was more questionable but since he's been freed, I think this is now just a typical non-free picture of a living people that isn't permitted here. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zeldatmc triforcegbasp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JackSparrow Ninja (notify | contribs).

• As the articles notes, only 25,000 copies of this limited edition item were produced. However, at the same time, I think the description that it "is matte gold in color, with a Triforce logo stamped on the lid, and the Hyrule royal family crest printed on the lower right face" pretty much describes it and I don't think its omission would be particularly detrimental to the understand of the article as a whole. It's a very minor point to the larger article. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:51, 10 January 2010 (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 - apart from the keep arguments not being convincing as to how this image passes the non-free content criteria used to propose it be deleted (NFCC#3a, 1 and 8) I see that the image lacked a source or copyright holderPeripitus (Talk) 04:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:AllEagles@Halloffame.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs).

• Image is of living people; replaceable as the scene depicted does not require an image. ÷seresin 03:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. No free images of all seven current and former Eagles together for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction exist. This image is an historical and irreplaceable one, appropriately tagged, and no text alone can describe what the image conveys. Doc9871 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't see any reason to delete this. It's actually quite good. It should be used at the article to depict the specific reasons of the photo which for historical reasons would show it quite well. Is there something missing in the upload that is cause for concern? --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The article Eagles already has File:Eagles1972.jpg, File:Deperado3.jpg, File:Htelcal.jpg, File:Hocalitour.jpg non-free images. Iconic images of the band would be from their heyday, but an image of the band today with that many non-free images is just illustration. The image doesn't significant improve readers' understanding that the band make it into the Hall of Fame. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not transformative use so very questionable fair use claim. Not necessary for the articles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 14:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Image can be replace by individual image of the artists. Why the need to see them together? Rettetast (talk) 17:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Because it never happened before or since in the history of one of the most commercially successful musical acts of all time. Replacing this image with "individual image of the artists" is not why this image was included here in the first place. The "need to see them together" is unarguably an historic popular music event - do you want to argue copyright tags or interpretive reasons for importance? Anything can be described by text alone... Doc9871 (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional Comment - Again, not a WP:WAX argument, put a clearly established precedent. No fewer than seventeen (17) images on the FA article Nancy Reagan (besides the Infobox image) are on that page. What does this mean? It means that the standards that allow free images, and the ones that vaguely disallow properly-tagged fair-use images are woefully disparate. No "artistic interpretation" of what constitutes an FU image can reasonably be made for WP as a whole, as it is purely that: opinion. Seventeen different images of the same person in one FA article; and yet one properly-tagged non-free image (of which no free alternative exists) is "obsolete", simply because no free image exists (and can never exist)? Image tags exist for a reason, and this is why they are used, and this is why fair-use rationales are provided along with them... Doc9871 (talk) 10:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course the standards for free images and for non-free images are different. That's the whole point. With free images you can have as many as you like, to your heart's content. With non-free images you can have only what is absolutely indispensable. What's so difficult to understand about that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Absolutely indispensable"? Who decides that? What exactly makes an image "absolutely indispensable"? To whose standard is this held? The gulf between the "as many as you like, to your heart's content" and the "what is absolutely indispensable"... is that crystal clear to you? Flood articles with free images because they're free, regardless of their context? Omit any properly-tagged non-free image because some feel it's "dispensable"? Please, enlighten me... Doc9871 (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jimlaughingw-dogs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs).

• Image serves no purpose other than identification, and we already have a free an image. Also, source information is invalid (providing only "flickr.com"). ÷seresin 03:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • • Acquiesce - As the uploader, I cannot defend this image on my own against four administrators. Image was tagged in good faith and provided with fair-use rationale. I will not contest the exclusion of this image; just speedily delete it... Doc9871 (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to close the discussion properly, Rettetast? This seems an improper way to close this subject, especially as one of the editors involved in the discussions. I would have preferred an unbiased closing administrator to properly archive this discussion in the proper manner before image deletion... Doc9871 (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AnomieBOT closes such discussions regulary. When you say "just speedily delete it" it will get speedily deleted. If you withdraw the consent I will undelete. Rettetast (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that typing "just speedily delete it" was asking one of the opposing editors (who also happens to be an administrator with deletion privileges) to "jump the gun" before AnomieBOT or the closing admin could get to it. Is this a precedence that should be followed often? Should any admin actively involved (and opposed to the inclusion of the content) unofficially close a discussion as you did? You tell me... Doc9871 (talk) 11:00, 12 January 2010 (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 as failing WP:NFCC#8 in the that image does not significantly increase reader's understanding. - Peripitus (Talk) 04:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young Jim.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs).

• Image serves no purpose other than identification (we do not require a picture of Morrison as a youth), and we already have a free an image. Also, source information is invalid (providing only "flickr.com"). ÷seresin 03:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Keeping in line with Featured Articles such as Ronald Reagan, Charles Darwin, and a host of others; images of a deceased subject at an earlier period of their life are not "required", but rather serve to better illustrate the subject, and are not ruled out because a single "free image" of the subject exists. Doc9871 (talk) 09:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe the images at Reagan and Darwin are all free licenses, unlike this image here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree. There are no free images of Jim Morrison as a youth - my point in illustrating the FA articles was to address the "requiring" of pictures of Morrison as a youth. As no free images of Morrison as a youth exist, excluding properly tagged fair-use images simply because no free alternative exists seems unfair and counterintuitive to the process of tagging non-free fair-use images for their inclusion in WP. Doc9871 (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While FA articles allow for images of his youth, that doesn't mean all images of his youth should be allowed under fair-use doctrine. Those articles have those images because they have free images. Otherwise they are largely illustrative. That doesn't mean illustration alone is a justification for non-free images. It's just being used to illustrate him in his youth, but at that young an age, he wasn't famous yet. I could understand an iconic image of how he looked (like File:Jim Morrisonsinging.jpg) with the Doors but a random image of him doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -You're absolutely correct about the fact that it merely illustrates him in his youth (& has no caption, truly proper crediting or mention of the image in the article, which is are all correctable mistakes). My only real point was the fact that we do not have any free images of him as a youth, and if we did, this wouldn't be an issue. Why do we have an image of, say, Adolf Hitler as an infant? Because it's a public domain image, taken long ago and way before he was famous (well, infamous). It only serves to illustrate him as a youth, but since he's a significant figure, it's allowed. The rules governing copyrighted non-free issues are in place, and I' not arguing against the rules. If it were "free", I just couldn't see this problem. But there are no free images, so it appears we won't have them... Doc9871 (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hitler Image Baby Image Okayed Because It's Public Domain; No Baby Pics If Non-Free!" - Please, any editor (esp. admins), can I put this headline up? This isn't a WP:WAX argument; this is precedence. Does Hitler as a baby "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." NO! But... it's free. Should it be removed? NO! (and it's free, so good luck there...) If no free image of a subject can be reasonably found or created, can it be reasonably included with proper tags and "fair-use rationale?" NO! Because... its not free... Doc9871 (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Ricky81682's convincing argumentation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Ricky81682. Rettetast (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The photograph of Jim Morrison the adolescent provides useful material (sparse as it may be) toward approaching the subject of Jim Morrison the adult. Morrison's prominent role as a singular, iconoclastic figure in the arts of the sixties can be seen to amplify significantly potential value of this photo record. Kedali(talk) 13:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gram Parsons At Altamont.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs).

• Image serves no purpose other than identification, and we already have an image in the article. Also, source information is invalid (providing only "flickr.com"). ÷seresin 03:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This image of a deceased subject (of which no free images can be created), performing at a historic event, and with said image being located in the portion of the article mentioning said event, is wholly irreplaceable, and does more (as such) than serve merely as identification. Doc9871 (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article just says that Parsons was there but the image doesn't really add to that. The event was historical, the person but the photograph itself is not historical. It doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" as required. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - If the image were "free", would you still have the same argument? There are no free images of this subject, especially for the historical event illustrated. How is the image not historically important if "The event was historical, the person..." are? Doc9871 (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the image had a free license, the dispute would be content only and that's for the article talk page. We are talking about using somebody's copyrighted image (although a license of just "flickr" really isn't helping). The image isn't historically significant because nobody is going to be talking about that image. For example, File:Malcomxm1carbine3gr.gif is a historically significant image. The person is historically significant, I'm not sure if the particular window is that important, but the image itself is significant. At Gram Parsons, the entire description of the event is the Burrito Brothers were booked as the opening act of the infamous Altamont Music Festival. Playing a short set including "Six Days on the Road" and "Bony Moronie", Parsons left on one of the final helicopters and attempted to pick up Michelle Phillips. That doesn't require using somebody's copyrighted image. I see there are no free images. We have File:Gram Parsons promo.jpg to show what he looked like. We are supposed to minimize our fair use. This image doesn't add to that. Is it to show that he played music? That he played a guitar? That he actually did play there? What is its purpose other than a nice illustration? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; image is neither of iconic value, nor the object of analysis and commentary, nor necessary to understand the content of the surrounding article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Rettetast (talk) 17:13, 11 January 2010 (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 as far too poorly sourced. Despite the nine days since this debate began we still have no better source than "flickr". It is clear that a well sourced image that meets the content guidelines and policies can be found - Peripitus (Talk) 12:18, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jim and Pamela1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs).

• Image uploaded to serve for purposes of identification, is now orphaned as superior image is used for identification in the article. Also, source information is invalid (providing only "flickr.com"). ÷seresin 03:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My switch of images has been reverted. This does not change much ; the image source is still invalid. ÷seresin 04:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The source can be made valid. Why is the substituted image "superior"? I uploaded both, and orphaned the one substituted as inferior over the image of Courson with Morrison. The two (Pam and Jim) were inexorably linked, and no one would know who Pamela Courson was if not for the connection to Jim Morrison. I see no reason to exclude the previous image from the article, or to move for its deletion from WP... Doc9871 (talk) 08:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The other image is File:Pamela Courson.jpg. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Discuss which image first at Talk:Pamela Courson and then have the other one deleted. No preference for me either way. Otherwise, both images have poor sourcing so that's not the issue (unless someone is suggesting deleting both). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Courson was not a spotlight seeker and there are no free use images out there. This is a shame, but there certainly does need to be an image on this page and this is a good image. The one added when this one was removed is of poorer quality. She's dead, she won't be posing for more photos. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional Delete, unless copyright situation can be clarified. Source provided ("flickr") is insufficient and, even if clarified, certainly doesn't represent the true copyright holder. Would be acceptable in my view if this turns out to be a genuine promotional image (fairly likely, by the looks of it), but may be problematic if it's anything like a commercial news media image where NFCC#2 would come into play. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have now also nominated File:Pamela Courson.jpg. Conditional Delete both according to the rationale above; otherwise keep one and delete the other, to be chosen by editors of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Could a little time be given on this one to attempt to correct the copyright information? I am certain it is not a media image, and am already attempting to locate the proper credit. An immediate deletion isn't warranted yet, is it? Doc9871 (talk) 04:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • This will be open until at least the 17th. If you haven't fixed the sourcing yet, but it is apparent you are trying, I am sure the closing administrator will make provisions. ÷seresin 04:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note that WP:NFC, specifically WP:NFCC #10a, doesn't actually require the copyright holder; it merely requests this information "if possible". If the image is acceptable for identification, it's not clear that there are grounds for deletion. Jheald (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a matter of commonsense, #10a means there needs to be enough information to allow a reasonable assessment of the other criteria, in those domains where such an assessment might depend on the copyright status. This is mostly the case with NFCC#2 ("commercial opportunities"), which cannot be assessed if we don't know whose opportunities are at stake. In the absence of a reasonably realistic idea about copyright status, NFCC2 must by default be assumed to be breached. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it means we make an assessment on the balance of probabilities as to whether there is any evidence the image is likely to have a significant commercial value. In your terminology, we use common sense. Is there any evidence the image is likely to have a significant commercial value? Jheald (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I could have just as easily used the photo of Jim & Pam from the cover of Angels Dance and Angels Die (again, to simply illustrate what a deceased subject, of which no free images exist, looks like). This image would have "possibly" been easier to give the copyright information for. However, this image was better, and was clearly taken from the same photo sessions anyway. Would this have made a difference (the book cover photo vs. this one)? I don't think so. One single identifying image, properly tagged, where no free images exist. Image tagging and fair-use rationale folks: it's there for a reason, especially for deceased subjects of which no free images can be created. Nothing hard to understand about that... Doc9871 (talk) 11:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per problems with the sourcing. Rettetast (talk) 17:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Doc9871 and Wildhartlivie. CuriousEric (talk) 13:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BernardLeadon1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs).

• FU image of a living person; replaceable. ÷seresin 03:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acquiesce - As the uploader, I do not contest that this is a copyrighted image of a living individual, and as such, according to WP guidelines, is replaceable by a free image if one can be found. Image was tagged in good faith and provided with fair-use rationale.

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BigHeadShot wht2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs).

• FU image of living person; replaceable. ÷seresin 03:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Acquiesce - As the uploader, I do not contest that this is a copyrighted image of a living individual, and as such, according to WP guidelines, is replaceable by a free image if one can be found. Image was tagged in good faith and provided with fair-use rationale.

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RMeisner2005-01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs).

• Noted as being PD, yet it is from a fansite which notes that The materials on this site are copyrighted to their individual owners and may not be used for commercial purposes without said owner's consent. No indication made that this is a PD image. It is invalid as FU as the subject is living. ÷seresin 03:54, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheNelsonfamily.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ted Wilkes (notify | contribs).

• Dubious licensing information. Noted on file page as This file is in the public domain, because it was created for promotional purposes. which is a non sequitur to begin with. Looking at the website's About Us page, the author seems to have no grasp of public domain, noting what webmasters may only use 10 of "his" images and must provide a link to his site (a stipulation which is not possible if the images are public domain). He also notes that only some of the images are PD (which, as shown, he probably does not understand) while others still have copyright (his explanation of these copyrights also seem misguided). He does not note which ones are under copyright, so there is no reason to believe that this one is PD (if it even is). So image ownership is unclear. ÷seresin 04:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:021-LOGO.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Irazfan (notify | contribs).

• OR, no article or encyc. use stated Skier Dude (talk) 06:39, 10 January 2010 (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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason for deletion just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT⚡ 17:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:File name.ext (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:File name.ext listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).

• {deleted}

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 - largely because the deletion rationale is too malformed for an informed opinion. - Peripitus (Talk) 12:50, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:German Empire, Wilhelminian second version.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:German Empire, Wilhelminian second version.PNG listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).

• identicle duplicate of the original version; third version has better colour. This is the colour of France not Germany; The colour of Germany is BLACK Vadac (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment France is not coloured in as Germany, and I don't see what Black has to do with anything. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment you haven't pointed to a first or a third version, what are these files that you are talking about?? 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Commons, it's not copyrighted. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2010 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hughes01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ravkhinda (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned and unencyclopedic personal photo | Uncle Milty | talk | 18:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I "vote" to keep the photo. It may not be a portrait (those have copyright problems), but it shows the character of the man. He is willing to wear a tee shirt with a message, and it doesn't "hurt" anyone. As a personal photo, it has probably been donated by the subject himself. "doesn't seem likely to be useful" is such a subjective viewpoint of the editor. If there is a "better" shot out there, then yes, upload it. Perhaps one of him in the gym, in his sweats, or even ringside before a match.--JHenryMartin (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What photo are you "voting" to keep? Your description doesn't match the photo discussed in this section. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 01:33, 16 January 2010 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zail Singh.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Messhermit (notify | contribs).

• Prior usage at Indian presidential election, 1982 was not appropriate. The image could reasonably be used at Zail Singh but we have File:Mohar&Gianiji.jpg. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-free, not needed. --Apoc2400 (talk) 02:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kiev Golden Gate early20c card.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Irpen (notify | contribs).

• Licensing is extremely questionable as all we have a LiveJournal scan of a postcard with no specific date. As the page Template:PD-Russia indicates, it may be public domain but that depends on its date of publication. At the same time, the article Golden Gate (Kiev) is about a historic gateway. We have free image File:Golden-gate-2008.jpg about its current look at non-free image File:ZolotyeVorotastar.jpg for how it used to look. I'm not sure what this adds other than illustration. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RoyJenkins.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Duffy2032 (notify | contribs).

• No specific rationale is offered for the use of this non-free image. I believe that there is good reason to believe that the image will be replaceable, most probably by ((PD-USGov)) ones from the US National Archives but there are other options. Jenkins visited Washington DC on business on multiple occasions to meet with members of the US government, for example in 1968 and 1969 while he was finance minister. There's a picture on the Library of Congress site. And there are photographs on Flickr albeit no free ones at this time. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a possible image with a resolution higher than 2 pixels? Since if there is I'd be happy to replace the current one, however, after looking all over the LOC website, it doesn't look like there is. I also think that the rationale offered on the page is sufficient, as it is the same reasoning we use on tons of other fair use images.--[[User: Duffy2032|Duffy2032]] (talk) 20:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Free photo on Flickr: [1], uploaded as File:Roy Jenkins, Chancellor of Oxford.jpg. --Apoc2400 (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's photoshopped I think: it seems to be lacking Camera-generated EXIF metadata. But this is not, and if we haven't asked Darrell Godliman if he's be willing to release this image under an attribution license, we haven't come close to exhausting the possibilities of finding a free image. Jenkins's political career began in 1948, so that it is quite possible that there are also Crown Copyright photos out there, the terms of which have expired. As of now, that would be anything taken - not published - prior to 1 June 1957, or published on or before 31 December 1959.

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zallinger-allosaurus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Konstable (notify | contribs).

• The usage at The World We Live In seems to be just illustration. Fails NFCC#8 as it's presence doesn't seem like it would significantly increase readers' understanding of the articles published. The cover page for the serial would be appropriate but a random page from it doesn't seem like it is. Ricky81682 (talk) 20:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Replace with an image of the cover of the book that was collected from the articles. Jheald (talk) 20:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 07:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Rationale states that image is not replaceable as project still in early stages of construction. The City Council site shows current contractor's photographs of the project. It seems to me that the current state of work is sufficiently far advanced that a free picture can give a good impression of the project and its final state. And I'm not entirely convinced that a non-free image of something as banal as an overpass can meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "early stages" of construction was something I missed, I've since corrected that. However, there are no free images as far as I'm aware of the project. The CC licensed images on Flickr are incompatible with Wikipedia due to NC. An image of the overpass under construction may be acceptable, but like I said before, there doesn't seem to be a free alternative. But I'm not convinced that this image could be considered "banal", the overpass is a lot longer some bridges in the Vancouver area.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 22:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I wasn't clear - and apparently I wasn't. I'm not suggesting we should use any of the existing images (although CC-BY-NC is much better than all rights reserved really). Replaceable means "replaceable by someone with a camera on the spot". Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An image of the construction would suffice and can easily be created. Rettetast (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2010 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-16e block60 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Henrickson (notify | contribs).

• See the archived source website: "All Gallery contents are copyright of ther [sic] owners. Everything else ©1998-2006 Brickshelf L.L.C. All rights reserved." The Evil IP address (talk) 22:07, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Appears to be a cropped version of http://img512.imageshack.us/img512/5972/f16eblock60jl2.jpg so possibly not the copyright holder. MilborneOne (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There's certainly no reason to retain an image of uncertain status: DefenseImagery.mil has an image here and one here and here ... If this is deleted there is a copy on Commons also at File:F-16e block60.jpg I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 16 January 2010 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Supranational European Bodies.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by danrowe (notify | contribs).

• Low quality. High quality one in use: 200px Wdcf (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2010 (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 - Though I can see that arguments such as those used below by Edgepedia, may hold sway for some images, the consensus here is that the image is adequately replaced, without significantly impairing reader's understanding of the topic, by the free image File:Michelle Ryan at the BAFTA's.jpg. - Peripitus (Talk) 13:02, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Christina de Souza.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wolf of Fenric (notify | contribs).

• Image was nominated for semi-speedy deletion due to a disputed non-free content rationale by user:Stifle. user:Edokter contested this. The image was deleted in May 2009 by user:PhilKnight who noted the existence of free content such as File:Michelle Ryan at the BAFTA's.jpg in his summary. There matters remained until two weeks ago when Edokter undeleted the image. He didn't remove the tagging so that I was rather puzzled when I came across this while plodding through Category:Publicity photographs with no terms. My first reaction was to redelete the image, so I did. But this was, on reflection, the Wrong Thing to do. So I have reverted myself and now bring the matter here. I think the image was deleted for good cause. I think it should have stayed deleted. But what do you think? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Given the rationaled purpose of "[t]o illustrate the appearance of the character", the libre media available (File:Michelle Ryan at the BAFTA's.jpg) illustrates the pertinent actress with no discernible differences such as would warrant using another's copyrighted work; fails WP:NFCC#1 handily. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 23:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agree with analysis by pd_THOR (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 00:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Just like you cannot use a non-free image of a fictional character to depict a living person, you cannot use a (free) image of a living person (out of character) to depict a fictional character; both instnces violate WP:BLP. And since there is no free alternative to depict the character, no suitable free replacement image can be used to replace this one. If you use the BAFTA image, you have to label it as being the actress portrying the role, not the character being portrayed, which is the image's purpose to begin with. — Edokter • Talk • 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am not convinced that Edokter is correct that using an image of the person to illustrate the character violates BLP (in fact I have no idea from where he derived such a notion). I have always been of the opinion that when a character looks substantially the same as the actor a FU image is unjustified. ÷seresin 01:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per pd_THOR. I don't get Edokter's BLP argument. Would he care to explain more specifically were WP:BLP says this? Rettetast (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Thanks to Angus for opening this discussion, and giving a summary of the story so far. Unsurprisingly, as the admin who deleted it last time, I still think it should be deleted. I think pd_Thor has summarized the reasons well. Lastly, I don't consider using a photograph of the actress to be a BLP violation, especially if the image caption explains the situation. PhilKnight (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my original suggestion and pd_THOR's analysis. With all due respect, a reference to BLP is utterly misinformed. Stifle (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may not be a literal interpretation, but it is not OK to misrepresent people for whatever purpose by using images of actors to represent people (in fact, BLP is cited all the time when removing character images from actor's pages), so it should not be OK to represent characters using images of real people. — Edokter • Talk • 00:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Though the issue is tangential and of little bearing, I am interested in seeing evidence of such image removals. ÷seresin 01:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image (File:Michelle Ryan at the BAFTA's.jpg) being suggested, would need a caption such as Michelle Ryan, shown here at the 2009 BAFTA Awards played Lady Christina de Souza and I believe that has been accepted. However, does this illustrate the appearance of the character, the rationale for this image? The article goes into some depth about the characterisation of the part - "an adrenaline junkie", "very sassy and charismatic", "chasing the next high" and "very much in control". A photo of the character showing the clothes chosen, makeup, how lighting is used, the actor's body language etc. shows how the director, actor and production team have (or haven't) used their skills in creating the character. There is so much more to a character than an image of the actor can ever show. Edgepedia (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • For an illustration, there are a series of images of the characters Michelle Ryan has played here Edgepedia (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I thought we were long past the point of nominating images of characters on the supposed ground that they could be replaced by images of actors. File:Michelle Ryan at the BAFTA's.jpg is not a suitable substitute, as the clothes are quite unlike anything the character wore. Jheald (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't the acceptable use examples of the non-free content policy (WP:NFC#Images) require "critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television" for using copyrighted screenshots of the same? For the rationaled purpose of "[t]o illustrate the appearance of the character", the article would need reliably sourced critical commentary on the character's unique physical appearance and how it differs from that of the actress to warrant the NFC usage. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an image of what the subject of the article looks like, just like the image at Captain James T. Kirk is an image of what the subject of that article looks like. That's acceptable grounds for passing NFCC#8 (going back even to its very earliest forms [2]). An image being used to show the appearance of the very subject of the article is even better fair use than one just being used in connection with a point being made in the article. Besides, when WP:NFCI requires commentary specifically on the image itself, it says so directly. For screenshots this (deliberately) is not what is says; rather it requires that there is "critical commentary" (i.e. a serious attempt to write encyclopedic content [3]) on the subject of the image - in this case the character Christina de Souza. You might also like to look up Bill Graham Archives vs. Dorling Kindersley, which was a significant touchstone for the early discussions that established the policy in this area. Jheald (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (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.