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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ErnestLucasGuest.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FunkyCanute (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Decorative non-free image. There's already a non-free image being used to identify the main subject of the article. We don't need to portray him in every one of his daily situations. Damiens.rf 16:51, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no good reason for deleting this image. Most biographical articles contain more than one image of the subject. Two images in one article hardly consitutes 'every one of his daily situations'. The man died aged 90. There aren't 32,850 images of him. Images are used to illustrate the subject and by having a (small) number of images, the article gains from illustrating the subject in different contexts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FunkyCanute (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --B (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Delete as decorative use of non-free photo: The photo is used 2/3 of the way down the page not in the infobox. In this position it does not significantly increase reader understanding of the article, and the adjacent text needs no illustration for reader understanding. So the use fails WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 05:00, 18 June 2011 (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: No consensus needed. Orphaned, non-free image will be automatically deleted as tagged. –Dream out loud (talk) 19:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zee Marathi.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Iam4Lost (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

A BadJPEG superseded by File:Zee Marathi Logo.png §§§§ Alquerytalk 02:03, 15 June 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:UNIVERSAL MIRROR INFINITY.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Harryroger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

OR, LQ, no stated purpose or encyc. use Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Kook science at its finest. Fails WP:OR if you need a policy-based reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jack jacobs.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Burnqq (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non free image lacking a complete source, is said to be from some unspecified newspaper cover. Used to illustrate a bio and some other articles. Fails WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#10 in all articles and WP:NFCC#8 outside the bio. damiens.rf 13:12, 15 June 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dymockathleticbadge.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by EPR2006 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, seems to be Unencyclopedic, likely copyvio (coat of arms for org established 2006) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:21, 15 June 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tugger45.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Eastonguy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned; needs to be rotated for any use. Quite possibly unfree based on the date on the sign, regardless of the licensing of the image itself. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:30, 15 June 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TBF photo 8.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cc2673 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Average-to-low quality image of someone playing a guitar. Article about the band was deleted. Orphaned, no encyclopedic use since we presumably have much better images of people playing guitar. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:35, 15 June 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grandwideshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cc2673 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Average-to-low quality image of a band. Article about the band was deleted. Orphaned, no encyclopedic use since we presumably have much better images of bands performing. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:36, 15 June 2011 (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: closed as irrelevant', as the image is present on commons at the name listed immediately above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:39, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saas 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Abbity (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned is not a reason to delete a free image. We have few images illustrating bondage pants. Renamed File:Saas bondage pants.jpg and moved to Commons. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The file was moved from File:Saas 2.jpg to File:Saas bondage pants.jpg by JohnnyMrNinja (talk · contribs) at 15:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 16 June 2011 (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: closed as irrelevant', as the image is present on commons at the name listed immediately above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saas 1.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Abbity (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 16:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned is not a reason to delete a free image. We have few images illustrating bondage pants. Renamed File:Saas bondage pants 1.jpg and moved to Commons. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 15:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: The file was moved from File:Saas 1.JPG to File:Saas bondage pants 1.jpg by JohnnyMrNinja (talk · contribs) at 15:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT⚡ 17:07, 16 June 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2001 ASO SK Special Effects Oscar.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chairman21 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The Oscar is copyrighted and already have a picture of it. We would be hardly justified in using this one as non-free. damiens.rf 17:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment & Keep. This is a photo of one particular Oscar, precisely the only one won by Stanley Kubrick. It has been registered by the uploader as a free image since the person who took the photo released it for use. However, the Academy has pretty strict rules on displays of images of the Oscar. It is focused on the uses of the Oscar for advertising, but there are many other restrictions as well. Here is Item 20 of the material on their copyright notice page under the heading Editorial Use (source Oscar Regulations and Legal Notices

News and editorial uses of Academy symbols and marks in stories and articles appearing in newspapers, periodicals, digital publications, web sites and on television or in motion pictures, are subject to the following conditions:

all published representations of the Award of Merit statuette, including photographs, drawings and other likenesses, must include the legend “©A.M.P.A.S.®” to provide notice of copyright, trademark and service mark registration, and

neither the marks “Academy Award®” nor “Oscar®” may be used to describe awards given by organizations other than the Academy. (An award may be described as “the Uruguayan equivalent of the Oscar Award,” but not as “the Uruguayan Oscar.”)

It seems that as long as we add “©A.M.P.A.S.®” to the caption we are OK.--WickerGuy (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just added “©A.M.P.A.S.®” to the picture caption in the article.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you fully understood the issue. Academy's restrictions make this a non-free image and, as such, it should only be used in accordance with WP:NFCC, which I is something I believe we can't do. --damiens.rf 19:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At first, this seems like a bit of a stretch to me, but I could be wrong. We are certainly in compliance with the Academy's own regulations. (They say "No reproduction, replica, drawing, photograph, derivative work or other copy of the Award of Merit statuette may be made or used by any manufacturer, advertiser, organization or individual except in accordance with these regulations."- Emphasis added) However, WP does indeed state that anything classified as "non-commercial use only" is to be classified as non-free. (See Wikipedia:Non-free content), precisely because WP wants to be redistributable for even commercial use (same page). So, you may be right. But I would like to hear some other opinions.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:02, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The photograph was taken in Ghent, and there is no freedom of panorama in Belgium (in case anyone's wondering...I was).[1] Possibly outside the scope of this FFD unless someone can do some quick research, but I wonder whether there were copyright notices on the Oscars given out before 1978 (that is, if the statuette hasn't changed substantially since then). If not, then it probably would've lapsed into the public domain.[2] postdlf (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply Regardless of the laws where the photo was taken, WP is bound by the laws of Florida, USA. And if in doubt, assume earlier statues WERE copyrighted. I'm more interested in the stipulation that says
  

Permission is hereby granted for use of the representation of the statuette in newspapers, periodicals and on television only in legitimate news articles or feature stories which refer to the annual Academy Awards as an event, or in stories or articles which refer to the Academy as an organization or to specific achievements for which the Academy Award has been given (Emphasis added).

The Academy sued some folks in Monte Carlo for some Oscar replicas used at a party, and I'm sure they don't like the fact that you can buy Oscar statues in Hong Kong. They're very unlikely to be unhappy with this usage, given the above, but Jimmy Wales wants it to be possible to redistribute WP for commercial purposes, so this may still be trouble.--WickerGuy (talk) 22:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as long as they get to decide who can use the image and for what purposes, we're stuck to NFCC usage, no matter how fair or permissive the Academy guys may look. --damiens.rf 22:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, you've completely misinterpreted the regulations: "... symbols and marks in stories and articles..." refers to editors using a symbol or a mark (not a photograph) of the Oscar, like a TV Station logo on a TV screen, as if the article or photograph were officially sanction, originating from the Academy. ie I haven't put any symbol or mark on my photograph of the Academy/an Oscar/etc. My photograph is not a symbol or mark of the Oscar.

20. a. is correct and the “©A.M.P.A.S.®” (without the quote marks!) needs to appear on the SK page.

20. b. is completely irrelevant. This is about a genuine Academy Award awarded by the AMPAS itself.

Under American law 'fair use', my photograph doesn't even qualify for examination as I've already given permission for it's use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman21 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and at the head of the regs they refer to "reproductions of the statuette" (like the kind shown in Hong Kong shops), or unauthorized use of "service marks" & "design marks". I suspect you are correct. Good call.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Restore) Keep as Academy regulations seem to be mainly concerned with trademarks, service marks, symbols, and actual statue reproductions.--WickerGuy (talk) 12:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your logic baffles me. You were the one to bring the Academy regulations into discussion. They have nothing to do with the concerns raised in this nomination. Please make some effort to understand that the statuette is copyrighted and so will be any pictures of it. If the Academy regulations are not concerned with copyright, then they are irrelevant for our current discussion. --damiens.rf 15:59, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a third voice in this discussion and someone from a very high level of WP.. Generally, if a statue is copyrighted, an image/photo is allowed if we are discussing the statue, though not if we are discussing the subject of the statue. (See WP:NFC#UUI Number 9). This regulation was framed for statues that are works of art, such as say the wax statues of the Beatles at Madame Tussauds. (You obviously cannot use a photo of the Tussauds statues of the Beatles in an article on the Beatles.) But we really aren't discussing either one here, we are discussing the award for which the statue is symbol (which the Academy is happy with). I think this is a grey area in which we need the voice of someone from a very high level of WP. However, I will strike out my restored keep for now.--WickerGuy (talk) 16:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing gray outside of your head. We can only use stuff here if they are Freely licensed or in accordance to nfcc. This image is not freely licensed. It's a derivative work of a copyrighted work. It makes no difference if the Academy is happy with our current use. It's still non-free and can only be used under nfcc.

As stated in the nomination, we can only argue for keeping this image by either proving it is free or by providing a valid non-free use rationale. Academy's non-free permission has no say on that. Even if they implore us to use the image, it would also have to comply with NFCC#8. --damiens.rf 17:14, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Every Oscar looks the same, and there's not even anything interesting about the way in which this one is displayed. So I don't see how this satisfies WP:NFCC#8, if (and it seems so) the statuette is copyrighted and if (and it seems so) the AMPAS does not release its likeness under a free license (as WP defines it). If you could've gotten a picture of just the text engraved on the base, that would've been a completely different story. postdlf (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This issue reminds me of another use of copyrighted objects, and in a FA no less -this article and this article both use many many photos of copyrighted merit badges. It was determined in the FA review that photos of the copyrighted badges was allowed, even if they were all NFC. I'm not sure if that translates directly to this issue, but it seems to me that if all those copyrighted badges can pass muster in a FA, the Oscar image is perfectly acceptable under fair use. Since the photographer in this case has given permission for free use, the copyright and NFC issues are moot.

OTOH, I agree with postdlf that a pic of the whole statue is less interesting and relevant than a close-up of the plaque with SK's name on it would be to the article. Everybody knows what an Oscar statue looks like, after all. Shirtwaist ^chat 22:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please talk to a copyright lawyer about this. You clearly don't understand the difference between copyright versus image reproduction and where the boundaries cross and where the exceptions exist. A photograph of a copyrighted image does not transfer its copyright to the photograph. The photograph in question is my copyright and no-one can add themselves to it or take away my copyright from it.

The photograph is fair use as it documents an item that was on display in a public place. No-one has to seek permission from the objects/people photographed for reproduction. Obviously, otherwise the President's Inauguration ceremony could not be transmitted, TV launch of the shuttle would be banned, all photos taken of a high street would have to be censored, etc. The law provides for this. The wording of the AMPAS clearly shows their determination not to allow reproductions of the statue itself, or for anyone to profit from it's image, pass themselves off as Oscar winners, etc. It has no provision for stopping 3rd parties from documenting it progress through every day life. In any case AMPAS would have no jurisdiction over 3rd parties and would do itself more harm trying to control 3rd party images of its statue. The same goes for any company. CocaCola does not sue people for taking photos of rusting coke cans on a beach, although it wishes it could. Both the statue and the subject of the statue are discussed on the SK page at the same time, so its inclusion is under the 'fair use law'.

My photograph is not a derivative work of a copyrighted work. Photographs cannot be derivative. Only a work created from scratch can be derivative. And of course it comes under the free license. The Oscar shows (only just) Stanley Kubrick's name when viewed at full resolution. So it is relevant and unique to other images of the Oscar. In addition it is the first time it has ever been displayed and therefore photographed in public, with a prop from the very film that it was awarded to. That juxtaposition, within the exhibition dedicated to him, makes it very relevant to the SK page. A picture of only the base's engraving does not prove it is a/the Oscar in question, which is why no close-up image was uploaded by myself.

'Everybody' does not know what an Oscar looks like, so to speak. Every year millions of people see an image of one for the first time. More so with Kubrick's Oscar pertaining to those specifically interested in Stanley Kubrick and seeking out information about him and his work. Still, I think this should be run past a copyright lawyer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman21 (talk • contribs) 14:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Photographs cannot be derivative. Only a work created from scratch can be derivative." I think these sentences highlight the errors in your comment more than any others; both statements are incorrect and without any support, and (perhaps more relevant here) contrary to the policy that the Wikimedia Foundation has set.[3] But as you concede that reliance upon fair use is required for your photograph to be noninfringing, regardless of what we understand a derivative to be, an image claimed under fair use is subject to Wikipedia's non-free content policy, which is more strict than fair use permits. So your photograph needs to satisfy the non-free content criteria to be usable here. postdlf (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Just looked at the Commons:Derivative_works page you linked to, Postdlf. Looks like the photograph does qualify for removal. Didn't realise how different your 'derivative' is to mine. Thanks for the heads up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman21 (talk • contribs) 01:03, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta admit that Commons:Derivative_works is pretty persuasive here. I think I'll go remove the image from the SK article. Sniff. My eyes are dry now. I'll miss it. Say, gotta photo of just that ape costume?--WickerGuy (talk) 10:49, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to include an paragraph about the SK exhibition. Can I send you all the pics from the Ghent exhibition and you can tell me which will pass the Commons:Derivative_works test? If so, could you leave your email here? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman21 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but if you post them to a Flickr account or something similar, and then leave a link to your gallery on my talk page, I'd be happy to take a look and comment. BTW, please end your comments with four tildes to leave a signature and timestamp: ~~~~ postdlf (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the tilde heads up. I've uploaded to Panoramio, http://www.panoramio.com/user/468476 or http://www.panoramio.com/photo/54386447 ˜˜˜˜ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chairman21 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 18 June 2011 (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 a violation of WP:NFCC#8. There is nothing in this image which can not be conveyed similarly in the text of the article (since it's a scan of text), and seeing the layout of the list does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Additionally, "its omission [is not] detrimental to that understanding." ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:NY Times Best Seller List May 25 1980.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Milowent (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Procedural relisting of discussion from Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 23#File:NY Times Best Seller List May 25 1980.jpg to obtain clearer consensus. I am Neutral. FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Still keep because it meets every requirement for the use of non-free content, and the editors involved in the article think its presence is of benefit. Really guys - you want to take a principled stand on this one?. You don't think that illustrating what the subject of an article looks like "significantly increases the readers understanding" of it? I do hope I'm not alone in feeling that this reveals a significant failure of perspective. Thparkth (talk) 22:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's a point in voting again. The relisting is suppose to gather more enlightening opinions, and not to rehash the original discussion (We wait the DRV to do that). --damiens.rf 23:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The collapsing of the original comments makes it a little unclear whether this is an extension of the original FFD discussion or a completely new listing. In any case the original discussion ran for three weeks - far in excess of the 7 days required - and it seems unlikely that it will bring about a consensus to delete at this point. Thparkth (talk) 01:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the case of non-free images, we need a consensus to justify keeping, and not the other way round. --damiens.rf 06:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know you would like that to be true, but it is not. see also. Thparkth (talk) 10:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments: what happened, i thought this was already closed? You need me to get Bill Keller to tell you guys favoring deletion that your interpretation of fair use is ridiculous?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 11:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I need you to get Bill Keller to tell you guy that this nomination has nothing to do with fair use. --damiens.rf 15:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be tiresome to hear anymore blather about this image that no one in the history of the world from the beginning til the end will ever complain about except a very few wikipedia editors.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 22:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I think readers would benefit from seeing what the list actually looks like...in an article about the list - hello?. But it does need to be cleaned up, straightened, and re-posted at least. Shirtwaist ^chat 22:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Shirtwaist. This is an easy one; it's the subject of the article, so not seeing what the subject looks like is a detriment to the reader's understanding. The visual presentation and format of the list cannot be adequately conveyed in a text description. There is also no possibility of a free replacement here, and the list used is 31 years old and so we are not supplanting any current commercial opportunities. There's a good encyclopedic reason to use this image, and no compelling reason not to. postdlf (talk) 15:19, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, etc. What is this really supposed to be showing? The New York Times' typeface? That doesn't add anything to the understanding of the topic. It's not even a particular date? Maybe the first list would be of some use, but not some random date. Wknight94 ^talk 02:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not every single subject needs an example to visually identify it. Something like a film or a CD with an identifiable cover seems reasonable, even the front page of a newspaper seems reasonable. However, this is simply a picture of a list. Its not got anything more in it. Its a picture of a two column bit from a newspaper, showing a list. People who lack the knowledge of English to understand what the word "list" means probably couldn't find Wikipedia anyways. Seriously, the list itself doesn't have unique visual identifying characteristics which only a picture could adequately show. This completely and utterly fails the NFCC criteria on several points, especially #8. There's really no significant visual identifier for the best seller list: Its a two column list with some standard typefaces used the New York Times. There's nothing here that is being conveyed. --Jayron32 04:37, 30 June 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:B.R.K.Raju.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Redaloes (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned vanity photo, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:10, 15 June 2011 (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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Annie hall scene.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TakuyaMurata (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Decorative generic movie screenshot. damiens.rf 21:15, 15 June 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Taxi Driver still 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Postdlf (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free movie shot showing a famous actress playing an award wining character. The image is used decoratively in the article about the actress (the movie and the character are barely mentioned, the character look is never mentioned other than its age) and in another article where its just as non-necessary. damiens.rf 21:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I uploaded it six years ago when image policies were quite different and have had no connection to it since. Please post notices of this FFD in the two articles that use it, and in the third you removed it from. postdlf (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too lazy right now. Maybe latter. And anyone who watched the article where I removed it from will notice my edit summary. There is no fur for that article. --damiens.rf 22:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I can't really add those notices since I'm forbidden to edit articles about living people. Too bad. --damiens.rf 22:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strictly speaking, since the editor that single-handedly imposed the ban stablished that I should make "no edits that add, change or remove any information about a living person on any page", I've already violated the ban by saying in the nomination that Jodie Foster won an award by this role. Thanks God I have not even tried to describe what the other article is about. It's hard to do that without violating BLP even if you're not a bad-faith-user like me. --damiens.rf 22:49, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete decorative and unnecessary in one article, overuse in the other. Thparkth (talk) 01:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A canonical image of a character in what is still one of this actress' best-known roles. If anything justfies "fair use", this would be it.

Also a trout to the nominator for refusing to carry out a full nomination with notifications on the grounds that they're, 'Too lazy right now.' Not helped by them then seeking to hide behind a topic ban as an excuse for why they can leave the job half-done in such a disruptive fashion. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In both articles the text about her role in the film is perfectly understandable without being illustrated by this photo; so the use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8. —teb728 t c 05:20, 18 June 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:1-para-menthene-8-thiol.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Zeamays (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This is just an anchor. It is proposed that the entire contents of Category:Raster Chemical Structures - currently 639 images are deleted. These images have been singled out as poor quality, unused, chemical structures (all PNG and SVG images are in a separate category) A full discussion is being held at Category_talk:Unclassified_Chemical_Structures#Category:Raster_Chemical_Structures_-_Delete_now.3F. It was suggested to post a notice here so that there was full transparency. It is requested that any comments be also posted at Category_talk:Unclassified_Chemical_Structures#Category:Raster_Chemical_Structures_-_Delete_now.3F. It is anticipated that the admins posting on that page will take care of the actual deletion. All uploaders were notified.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 22:22, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the image you selected certainly isn't poor quality. I'll make further comments at the location you say. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not particularly bad quality per se, but has been replaced with a better one without being tagged, which is why it isn't being used in any articles. None of the listed files are being used in any articles, and there is little prospect of any of them being used. They're all easily replaceable. --Slashme (talk) 08:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

JPG/GIF compression is not at all appropriate for this type of image; that alone makes these files "poor quality" from a technical standpoint. Furthermore, from the chemistry standpoint, all of these images are inferior to the ones that have replaced them (e.g. many did not show stereochemistry, such as this anchor example) and several are inaccurate or just plain wrong. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 11:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To most chemists, the selected image would be considered incorrect. In a skeletal formula such as this, it is standard practice to explicitly depict hydrogen atoms on heteroatoms. In this case "S" should be "SH". -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. And for the record: Per nom. --Leyo 18:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Ed, nom and others (delete). --Yikrazuul (talk) 19:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep un-orphaned images. There are some images in this category that are not orphaned, e.g. they were used in Wikipedia:Reference Desk/Science questions that are now archived. (Archives are important, cuz they can be searched, as well.) I question the sanity of this nomination. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:11, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least you have to state which ones they are. They might be replaced by alternatives in a higher quality. --Leyo 17:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But these images weren't used on articles, but still used for discussions like projects, talk pages, general userpage discussions, and yes, reference desk questions. These images in this case are not going to be converted to .svg for feasibility purposes, but they should remain for historical purposes especially when they are not orphaned. If they are not orphaned they should not be deleted at all. Note to the closing administrator: There are many unorphaned images in this category, way too many to list. Delete with caution. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 18:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, Still, not a difficult task to run through again - Linky will load up 200 at a time for me in FF4. I've removed images from the category that are in talk page archives. They were

File:Verkunarmatilokaloka.jpg

File:UO3.gif

File:Trans-bromination.JPG

File:Prasterone.gif

File:Phosphorus tribromide.jpg

File:Nylpolchain.jpg

File:Monomerreaction4.jpg

File:Monomerreaction3.jpg

File:Monomerreaction2.jpg

File:Monomerreaction.jpg

File:Methylammonium ion.JPG

File:Ketaminpics.gif

File:Hydration-bromination.JPG

File:EWGquestion.jpg

File:Enone-alkene.jpg

File:Cyclic carbonate and allies.jpg

File:Beta-D-Fructofuranose smaller.jpg

File:Benzylpiperazine.jpg

File:Allylic Rearrangments.jpg

Now all the images are unused as planned.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you say one cannot convert to svg for "feasibility purposes" - there is less than 30 minutes construction for the lot (ignoring the top one, which is a bit esoteric) - some may be already done on commons.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 00:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, the first image (the "esoteric" one) was replaced by File:Mechanismofactionfornrti.jpg by the uploader him/herself (probably because the original file name was in Icelandic). Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:45, 23 June 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cancellation-sign 7-27-1981.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Oanabay04 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFC#5 and WP:NFC#8. Image is just a photograph of a sign full of text and does not have much encyclopedic value. The image is not necessary to complement the context of the article and can easily be mentioned in prose as "a sign was displayed that said..." or something similar. –Dream out loud (talk) 22:33, 15 June 2011 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:60freeway.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mikeetc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

an orphaned jpeg image map §§§§ Alquerytalk 23:42, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to commons quality is reasonable, it's readable. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the next image should be used in this image's place, even if the highlighting of the separate portion is not needed in an article, it can just be noted in the caption and not in the article. §§§§ Alquerytalk 01:06, 18 June 2011 (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 F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:60pomonafreeway.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mikeetc (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

an almost-duplicate of above image §§§§ Alquerytalk 23:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to commons quality is reasonable, it's readable; it also highlights a different aspect of the highway. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn If you think it's needed, it can be moved. §§§§ Alquerytalk 01:06, 18 June 2011 (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.