< May 26	May 28 >

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 as as free image - Peripitus (Talk) 09:40, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this is actually non-free (there is contradictory information), its function can be replaced by text (WP:NFCC#1), and in addition, this particular version of an EBS slide is not itself the subject of sourced commentary (WP:NFCC#8). SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, PD-USGov. From reading Emergency Broadcast System, it appears to me that it is a work of FCC, which is part of the federal government. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:33, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:12, 31 May 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

album cover that is largely just a cropped version of the other album cover in the same article. The differences can easily be described with text alone—without sigificantly impairing reader's understanding of the topic—and so this image fails WP:NFCC#1. It's additiona does not significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic and it also fails WP:NFCC#8. Peripitus (Talk) 09:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jheald (talk) 14:46, 28 May 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image used to show there was a sticker ? Adds nothing significant to reader's understanding of the topic - fails WP:NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 09:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sticker is featured on the single's cover. I took the pic myself to show that it was released as a double-A sided single. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 00:21, 28 May 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: not deleted --B (talk) 13:26, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover that is largely just a cropped version of the other album cover in the same article. The differences can easily be described with text alone—without sigificantly impairing reader's understanding of the topic—and so this image fails WP:NFCC#1. It's additiona does not significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic and it also fails WP:NFCC#8. Peripitus (Talk) 09:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lean to keep. While it might be a crop of the same photo (also apparently treated and made monochrome), the visual effect created by the very different framing is very different compared to the "European" cover. This one is much tighter, much tenser, and in my view is a much higher impact photo. Given that the two photos have such different feel; and also that a case may well be made for seeing this one as the more primary, widely distributed image, my instinct is that the image does add something significant to the article over and above the other, so should be kept. Jheald (talk) 14:54, 28 May 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 ⚡ 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover that is largely the same as the other album cover in the same article. The differences (text added) can easily be described with text alone—without sigificantly impairing reader's understanding of the topic—and so this image fails WP:NFCC#1. It's additiona does not significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic and it also fails WP:NFCC#8. Peripitus (Talk) 09:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Though I hope that when you nom such images for deletion, you do at least note the differences in text on the talk page, so the information is not lost when the image subsequently is deleted. Jheald (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I could find a reliable source that discussed the differences then I could write about it - otherwise all I can do is original research. Peripitus (Talk) 09:43, 5 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover that is largely the same as the other album cover in the same article. The differences (it's blue rather than greyscale) can easily be described with text alone—without sigificantly impairing reader's understanding of the topic—and so this image fails WP:NFCC#1. It's additiona does not significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic and it also fails WP:NFCC#8. Peripitus (Talk) 10:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Since this is the cover for the original US release, the other image is the one that should be removed. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 19:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete other cover, per DCEdwards above (and please note how the other cover was different at least on the talk page, so the information is not lost). Jheald (talk) 15:00, 28 May 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 ⚡ 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover that is largely the same as the other album cover in the same article. The differences (background colour) can easily be described with text alone—without sigificantly impairing reader's understanding of the topic—and so this image fails WP:NFCC#1. It's additiona does not significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic and it also fails WP:NFCC#8. Peripitus (Talk) 10:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think I'd be minded to keep the black one, and delete the beige one and the "clouds" one. Again, if deleting these, please do actually describe the differences in the article so the information is not lost, rather than just saying the differences "can be" so described. Jheald (talk) 15:05, 28 May 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 ⚡ 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover that is largely the same as the other album cover in the same article. The differences (background colour) can easily be described with text alone—without sigificantly impairing reader's understanding of the topic—and so this image fails WP:NFCC#1. It's additiona does not significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic and it also fails WP:NFCC#8. Peripitus (Talk) 10:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above Jheald (talk) 15:05, 28 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Contested semi-speedy. The fact she appeared in the show is worth discussing, yes, but it is not clear why a non-free image is needed. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Jheald (talk) 15:07, 28 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The fact the band appeared in the show is worth discussing, yes, but it is not clear why a non-free image is needed. J Milburn (talk) 10:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Jheald (talk) 15:07, 28 May 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 ⚡ 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover that is largely the same as the other album cover in the same article. The differences (text added) can easily be described with text alone—without sigificantly impairing reader's understanding of the topic—and so this image fails WP:NFCC#1. It's additiona does not significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic and it also fails WP:NFCC#8. Peripitus (Talk) 10:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one or the other, per nom; though I'm not quite sure which. Keep the clean one, which looks better and is original? Or keep the subsequent cover, which shows how the band's name and the title was conveyed? Not sure. Jheald (talk) 15:11, 28 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Album cover is used in the article about the band... I guess that the album itself isn't notable enough for its own article, but then I don't see why we need a non-free image used to identify it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 12:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For better or worse, it's decided that we don't do album images in lists like this. Jheald (talk) 15:12, 28 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free book cover used in a gallery in an article that barely mention the book. Damiens.rf 16:05, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free book cover used in a gallery in an article that barely mention the book. Damiens.rf 16:06, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessay non-free image. We don't have to show an image of a guy playing baseball to make the point he played baseball. Damiens.rf 16:09, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image of a famous couple being used just to make the point they were married. Source is a copyright violating fan website. Damiens.rf 17:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The image is a historically significant photo of a famous couple, as verified in content and sources within the article; the image is only being used for informational purposes; and its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article. Cind.amuse 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Could you please provide a link to a policy based definition of "unnecessary" outside of subjective opinion? Could you also provide a referral to your psychic that lets you know the motive of the editor that uploaded image? Your assistance is greatly appreciated. Thanks, Cind.amuse 17:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To pass WP:NFCC #8, you need to be able to explain what it is that this image adds to reader understanding that would justify our using it here (and would justify it in a U.S. court of law), when we do not have the copyright holder's permission. Policy deliberately leaves open what that justification might be; but it has to be something real and significant, that one learns from seeing the photo, which otherwise one wouldn't understand just from the text of the article. Jheald (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep That suggestion just above poses a dilemma--if we can explain it in words, we wouldn't need the picture. This argument can be used to remove all fair use content, and is therefore contrary to the policy that fair use content can be acceptable. The picture is there to indicate the nature of the relationship in a way that can only be described by pictures. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. One can (and should) indicate what aspect of the topic it is that one believes the picture is improving reader understanding with respect to, even if one can't communicate what that improved understanding is without it. For example, you are already saying it is the nature of the relationship that the image helps communicate, which is a start. But can you clarify further what about the nature of the relationship the reader will understand better as a result of seeing this photo? That is what is really needed to make an NFCC #8 case. If you can do that, and the claim isn't convincingly rebutted, then the image should be kept. Jheald (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They were a couple, sure, and her fame is no doubt mostly due to him. However, just because it's important, doesn't mean that a non-free image is needed- we have to ask whether the image adds anything to the article itself. It's not at all clear that it does. A free image of Ringo would be suitable to use in its place- he doesn't stop being her husband just because she's not in shot. J Milburn (talk) 17:27, 30 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by File:My Little Pony Friendship is Magic logo.svg -IsaacAA (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Per WP:SD#F1. SWFlash (talk · contribs) 01:04, 28 May 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 ⚡ 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover. It's existence is just barely mentioned in one of the two articles it's used in. Damiens.rf 18:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely inappropriate on Events leading to the Falklands War. Possibly appropriate on Falklands War, where the purpose is to contrast the spirit of mass-media reporting in Argentina, the UK, and the U.S. Jheald (talk) 15:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't get it. Isn't the headlines what really matters there? There's general mention about the use of fake photos by Argentine media, but the use of three magazine covers seems a bit too much. In the specific case of this Newsweek cover, neither the cover image or the magazine coverage about the events is ever mentioned in the article, probably because it was not uniquely relevant. --Damiens.rf 15:57, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am really not seeing what this image is adding to any of the articles in which it is used. J Milburn (talk) 17:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Falklands War article is a hornets' nest, Argentineans can claim it's pro-British and Britons can claim it's anti-British. So it's a balance, which had been debated again and again at the talk page. "Newsweek" is an American magazine, "The Sun" is a British tabloid and "Gente" is an Argentine one. Therefore the three front-pages. The Newsweek front-page catches the spirit of 1982 more than words do. The Star Wars movie Empire Strikes Back was released in 1980, and the sequences with the mighty imperial fleet were comparable with the British Task Force in 1982. If you weren't born then, you'll of course don't get the picture. A solitary text saying that Newsweek had a headline... isn't able to transform the American view of "fighting over a few icy rocks". BTW I think it's strange to have this discussion here, and not on the Falklands War talk page. People watching that page have a better knowledge, regarding the subject. The "Files for deletion"-page is a more backwater section of Wikipedia. --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can see Jheald's point about the different reporting methods, though perhaps that is more that NewsWeek felt the Star Wars reference would be catchier in the US. The image is just an image, the only important part is the text which can be adequately described with text. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please be aware of the grossly inappropriate canvassing here. J Milburn (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How is mentioning the proposed deletion on the talk pages of articles where the image is being used, canvassing? That is exactly the right audience. (edit: the wording should have been neutral though) (Hohum ^@) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep And for the record not notifying the Talk Pages of articles where images are about to be removed is unhelpful as deletion is then decided by people without domain knowledge of the subject. Drawing attention to a discussion that had not been publicised is not canvassing, though NE should have stated his case better. Again we see an example of one of the iconic press images from the Falklands War being proposed for deletion, its used here as a subject for commentary. The argument that you can replace an image with a textual description is not a compelling reason for deletion. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:34, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's used "as a subject for commentary"? Where's the commentary? And yes, "that you can replace an image with a textual description" most certainly is a "compelling reason for deletion"- it's what NFCC#1 is about. You say that the use of an image should be determined by those with "domain knowledge of the subject", but then showing that you quite clearly do not understand the policies on the subject. J Milburn (talk) 09:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really feel personal attacks are germane to the matter at hand, having had to regularly defend images against deletion nominations on Falklands topics I am sadly rather familiar with the policy and have more of an understanding than I ever really wanted. The image is there as a subject of commentary concerning press coverage of the war. If you're saying a text description could replace it as is, then really no it can't. However, once could write a lengthy essay describing the image in intimate detail and some construe that this means any image can be replaced with a textual description. This isn't a valid argument and certainly not what is intended by NFCC#1. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to describe the image in "intimate detail". What's being argued here is exactly that the image's "intimate detail" are not encyclopedic relevant. --damiens.rf 16:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand that comment. We're arguing for the use of the image in describing the press coverage of the war. The Falklands War is notable in many respects for that press coverage. Are you trying to argue this is not "encyclopedic relevant"? I presume you meant "encyclopedic content" Wee Curry Monster talk 16:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The media coverage is important and should be discussed in the article, but this is not enough for this specific non-free image to be acceptable in the article where the discussion takes place. It's being argued that the headline text of this cover is notable, but we don't need to use non-free material to tell the reader what the headline text was. If the cover photo was the relevant stuff that would be different, since we would need the cover image to convey such visual (and not just textual) information. --damiens.rf 23:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was the headlines that were used and the cover photo is relevant as it shows the task force en route. Hence, the headline "The Empire strikes back". The imagery is intrinsically related to the headline. Did you not realise what the image conveyed? Wee Curry Monster talk 08:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for use on Falklands War. Directly relevant to the article. The number of words devoted to it is not a measure of relevance. It is an iconic representation of US media coverage of the war. There is a valid non free use rationale for this article. (Hohum ^@) 23:42, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact it is "relevant" is not really disputed, the question is whether it meets NFCC#8. In what way does seeing this image significantly add to reader understanding? J Milburn (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is always a subjective assessment whether or not a non free image is needed on Wikipedia. If you are aware of the Falklands War subject - it is. If you are evaluating hundreds of images regarding widely different subjects - it must be difficult to understand why. BTW I'm unable to understand why it is wrong to inform contributors depending of the images about your schemes of deleting them. Perhaps you'll prefer to have these discussions in peace, without interference from domain users. All we have to know is the bot message: "Removing "The empire strikes back newsweek.jpg", it has been deleted by Administrator because: Per Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 27" --Regards, Necessary Evil (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Warning interested users is acceptable. Calling it a "Jihad on Image", maybe not. See WP:CANVASS. --damiens.rf 23:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Perhaps that may reveal a sense of frustration that users weren't warned of the nomination rather than WP:CANVASS. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly inappropriate in the main Falklands War article, where it isn't even mentioned. In the "Events leading up" article there's a bit of a better claim, but still, the image is not necessary for understanding the text. The impact of the title page depends on the double pun on "empire", which is entirely understandable through words alone, and the mere fact that any close-up picture of a big warship will look like a strong emblem of power and aggression – but that too is trivially easy to imagine from just a description in words; the visual details of the image (i.e. exactly what ship was pictured, from what perspective, etc.) is pretty irrelevant for the point being made. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:28, 8 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: keep. Despite the complete lack of understanding of our non-free content policy demonstrated by some of those arguing to keep the image, it's clear that this photo itself is significant (not merely the event it depicts), which justifies keeping it. --B (talk) 13:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free photo captures an important event in the life of an important man. Nevertheless, the imagery is not necessary for a proper understanding of the event in question. Damiens.rf 18:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With slack-jawed incredulity, I'm protesting this on the tagger's talk page. [1] --Moni3 (talk) 20:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image belongs to Corbis Images[2]. It can only be used if the text is actually about the photo itself, and not about the events it captures. The article mentions the photo was taken against a prohibition by some judge. If this somewhat made the photo itself subject of commentary by reliable sources, them the article could be extended to include such commentary (or an article about the photo created). But our currently use not only fails WP:NFCC#8, but the much worse WP:NFCC#2. --Damiens.rf 20:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have no authority to be tagging these images. You're involved and you need to step out. --Moni3 (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know of any restrictions preventing me from tagging any files. --Damiens.rf 21:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, "involved" and "no authority" are pretty nonsensical charges here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

holding off from a vote yet – I'd have tended towards "keep", as the visual presence of the image really does make the verbal description understood in a more powerful way, but the fact that it's from a commercial agency makes it problematic. I'd like to give the article editors a chance to clarify if it is indeed the case that the image itself (this photograph, as a photographic work, rather than just the scene it depicts) is such a notable thing it could be the object of substantial sourced commentary. If not, it will have to go under WP:CSD#F7b. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article identifies (with sourcing) this photo itself as having a significant historical impact. This was the moment that reverberated, and this was the unique news photo syndicated of it. More text in the article describing that would be useful, but on the assumption of it being forthcoming this should be a clear keep. Jheald (talk) 15:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I am not seeing evidence of that yet. I am seeing sources where eyewitnesses comment on the event, and I am seeing that some other eyewitness (not the one that the sources are from) also happened to make a photograph of that moment. None of the sources cited is talking about this photograph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:15, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious encyclopedic value in Emmett Till. Subjective criteria like "the imagery is not necessary for a proper understanding of the event in question" do not mix well with a crusade for ideological purity. Slack-jawed incredulity is not an unreasonable reaction. This is getting disruptive. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is nothing "subjective" in criterion WP:CSD#F7b: "images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary". There needs to be a clear case of transformative use; i.e. the photographic work, not just the scene it depicts, must be the subject of commentary, not just a vehicle for illustrating commentary about the scene. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:44, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everything here is subjective, but Wikipedians pretend it's not and argue about it just not to be proven wrong. It's quite clear Damiens.rf put up a large number of images, most of which could be deleted. But Damiens did not read this article, the sources mentioned in the fair use rationale, or the previous image reviews during assessment processes for this image and the two below during FAC. Damiens is imposing his own opinions about what he thinks should be deleted, beyond the sources used in the article and beyond the Wikipedia processes of image reviews for GAs and FAs. In this case, his carelessness and lack of attention to details in the articles and sources present this conflict, now with other editors interpreting fair use rationale to more subjective standards about what should be included.

I get this--how can I not after so many years here? --but I still rail against it because not only does it just parade our self esteem issues around, but removing this image would so very clearly decrease the quality of the article, this one and the ones below. Because we just have to be right even when content is at stake. It's as if the gaping holes in our collective self esteem make Wikipedians demand that content be mediocre. Avoid unpleasantness, tag images, tag articles, never improve. As for the editors who are doing their best to adhere to all the standards set by this site and improve content as much as possible, condescend to them, accuse them of owning articles, criticize their methods, and just assail articles and files over and over. --Moni3 (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moni, do the easy thing: Show us the sources that discuss the iconic status of this image, or use these sources to write about the image in the article. Judging from your post, this would by much easier than arguing with an stubborn guy like me. It's a Corbis Images photo, man. We can't use it just because it improves "quality of the article". --Damiens.rf 19:01, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did the thing already and it was done before you tagged the image. Till's great-uncle stood up in court to identify the man who invaded his house and took his great nephew and then murdered him. Five quotes are in the article, three in the prose and two in the caption, to explain the historic nature of the moment captured in the photo by people who were either in the courtroom or historian opinion. Ernest Withers defied the judge's orders to take the shot. This is all cited in the article and the image fair use rationale. What more would you like personally, if only to cement the idea that this is completely subjective and I'm no longer matching Wikipedia's standards for writing articles and sourcing--both the prose and the images in the article--but yours alone? --Moni3 (talk) 21:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm afraid you still fail to understand the most basic point here: the difference between the image and the thing it shows. You have sources and citations about the thing it shows (the historic situation), but you still haven't brought anything about the image itself (the specific photographic work). You'll need exactly this; that's what image is the subject of commentary means. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFC#F7b (commercial news agency pic), and with regret, because I really do see the value of the image for the article. But unfortunately this value is not the kind of value we can claim proper "fair use" for. I was hoping we'd actually find what Moni said there was, sourced analytical commentary on the image itself, but apparently that was a misunderstanding and it now looks as if it isn't forthcoming. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:39, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A very similar issue is currently under discussion and without consensus, here: [3] What basic point am I not getting? It's rather apparent to me that the way you're !voting (not a vote, you know) is not policy, but something you feel strongly about regardless of Wikipedia consensus (such as it is) has decided. That, and I still don't agree with your interpretation. To assuage whatever ideal you have would be to make an article about an image or conflate a section to make it about the image. Is this the only way a fair use historical image could be included in your opinion? Sources say actually quite a bit about the image and the scene it depicts. I wouldn't have included it otherwise. In the overall scheme of the subject, Emmett Till, sources address the image and the scene, but you personally want to see more prose about this image. You would like to place undue weight on the image to satisfy something rather esoteric that is not clear.

Other people can see this is a clusterfuck, right? No one seems to know what the hell is going on and yet everyone is addressing this as if they know for sure what is. --Moni3 (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly right. Editors who focus largely or entirely on images are insisting that writers add text to articles about fair-use images they want to use—text about the image itself, not about the event it depicts—regardless of good writing, or UNDUE, or common sense, or any other editorial consideration. They are insisting on this to satisfy a rule that the image be the "subject of commentary," a rule that someone added to a Wikipedia guideline (not even a policy) without discussion; one that has no consensus outside this small group; and which bears no relation to what fair use means anywhere else in the real world. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:41, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find some sources talking about the photographer and the specific photograph (Moni will doubtless be able to provide more). But the ones I found are here: [4], [5], [6]. If more detail is needed, please let me know. Carcharoth (talk) 02:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the image, and please restore some common sense to our non-free content guideline. The image depicts a watershed moment, as the image page explains. There are no copyright issues in the sense that someone is going to object; and the image is very low resolution. Damiens, it almost certainly does not belong to Corbis Images; these companies often slap copyright tags on images. Finally, the article does not have to discuss the image itself, rather than the events it depicts. See this RfC for a current discussion of that point. This was something that was added to the guideline without discussion, and that guideline anyway isn't mandatory. Editors are going to be driven away by this kind of heavy-handed application of rules that make no sense. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 02:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong in several ways. The rule is not some undiscussed addition to a guideline; it's a WP:CSD, and it was well-established practice long before it was formally added there. I know you have been campaigning against the "subject of commentary" clauses in various places, but in the particular case of commercial news agency images this is a very strongly rooted policy and not negotiable. Next, the claim that it doesn't belong to Corbis is completely unsubstantiated: it was made by a professional photo journalist, it came into the possession of a journalistic photo archive, and that archive was taken over by Corbis. It is also not true that our rule has "no relation to what fair use means anywhere else in the real world": the rule is our way of ensuring that the use is "transformational", which it otherwise wouldn't be; this is a well-known and central notion in fair-use law. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: without seeking to push the outcome one way or the other, I have added a section [7] to the current discussion at WT:NFC, to specifically ask for comments on WP:CSD#F7b . It would be useful if anyone with strong views one way or the other on CSD#F7b were to state them there, to review whether as a community we think it is appropriate. Jheald (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FPAS is correct. We even have an article on the archive in question: Bettmann Archive. Also an article on the photographer: Ernest Withers. Though strangely the Corbis page doesn't credit Withers. BTW, does anyone have time to comment on the links I provided above? Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If nothing else on Wikipedia proves this, this discussion should invalidate any comment where "X is correct". No one here seems to be correct and how you can assert someone is escapes me. Although I'm realizing that the assertiveness used by Damiens and Future Perfect is a result of confusion; if the policy isn't clear and there is significant disagreement, replace clarity with authoritative language to make it seem as if you're right(er) than who you're disagreeing with. I'm fairly convinced no one knows what the hell is going on here.

I used the Houck and Grindy source (link 1) for the Till article, but that and the second link are inaccessible to me. I saw the third. What feedback were you requesting for these links? --Moni3 (talk) 21:02, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, tell us all what the hell is going on here. --damiens.rf 21:25, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Through the sweet, sweet nectar of sarcasm, there's actually a grain of value in your question. What The Hell Is Going On is only my experience and perspective. That's all anyone can bring unless you also have a law degree with a specialty in copyright law. I don't; you don't seem to either. That you and other editors are treating your experience and perspective as Absolute Truth is a fallacy and it impedes true collaboration and communication. I don't understand your version of What The Hell Is Going On because you haven't shared it and I don't know you.

These images have value in these articles; sources say so. I'm quite honestly and earnestly dedicated to doing the correct thing here and I value quality of content over anything else. You should recognize this and it would help if you would also acknowledge it. I'm not opposing you because I think you're a dick. I don't understand how you can possibly be so sure of something that legal experts aren't sure of. In the absence of any true understanding of your motivations, all I can surmise is that you are compensating for the lack of clarity about this policy by being assertive and undeservedly authoritative.

Ok, so I'm trying to do the right thing. The images have value in the articles and the policy (even the law) is unclear, even to legal experts. So make a suggestion about what you think is necessary--and be very clear about this--in the article or on the image summary page to keep these images. If you've posted this, I've missed it. The discussion is spread over so many pages that I can't keep track of it. If you don't know what to suggest, say so. If you would rather not suggest anything because you don't know, say so. At some point we'll have to cover why your suggestions should be followed rather than the editors' opinions I have already consulted, but first things first. --Moni3 (talk) 16:58, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do this to keep the photo: Always following Wikipedia:Reliable Sources, and Wikipedia:No Original Research, make the article discuss the importance of this photo. Not the importance of event in the photo, but the importance of the photo itself. --damiens.rf 17:42, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moni, when I said "FPAS is correct", I meant he (and Damiens) are correct that this is an image held by Corbis. Whether they have exclusive rights over the image is another matter - it depends on the exact terms under which they acquired the image (it is most likely that it passed from the estate of the photographer to the archive managed by Corbis, but you would need to confirm that). It would make a small difference if, for instance, the original upload we have here was a scan from a book containing the photograph that was published before the image became part of the Bettmann Archive. You scanned it from a book published in 1991. What would help is to know when the photo became part of the Bettmann Archive. That is why I'm still undecided on the actual deletion request. Carcharoth (talk) 00:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would who owns the image factor into your decision? --Moni3 (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. If the fair-use (and non-free use) rationales are good enough, it shouldn't matter who has the rights to the image. What I'm trying to work out, though, is the history of the rights for this image. Some of the photographs by Ernest Withers, for example, appear to be managed by something called the 'Decaneas Archive', while others are available through something called the 'Panopticon Gallery'. It is possible the rights to his images got split up among different entities (or retained by a central entity and distributed to others for marketing purposes only). I believe strongly that in order to make an informed decision about an image, we need to know as much about the provenance and history as possible, though sadly that is not always available. Carcharoth (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC) There is another point as well, which I will make below.[reply]

Keep - I've been undecided on this, but am provisionally suggesting that this image be kept for the following reasons:
- (i) Sources (that I gave above) are available that talk about the image and the photographer, not just the event.
- (ii) This image is a low-res scan from a book published in 1991. This was before Corbis (founded 1989) acquired the Bettmann Archive (in 1995) so the image copied here was not at that time a Corbis image. It is not clear who had the rights to the image in 1991 (Moni should check the book for any credit line). In any case the upload is a scan from a book, not a copy of the scan on the Corbis website, so the relevant criterion may not apply here.
- (iii) There is some doubt in my mind as to whether Corbis have exclusive rights to the image.
Hopefully the above points will be discussed before this image deletion discussion is closed. Carcharoth (talk) 00:30, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Confirming my 'keep' comment, following the sources quoted below by Moni, which also confirm the route the picture took from Withers to Corbis (via the Chicago Defender, the United Press International Archive, and the Bettmann Archive), which is to say that this picture, covertly snapped in a Mississippi courtroom, is now in cold storage in a former limestone quarry in western Pennsylvania (presuming the original negative is what ended up in the archive). Carcharoth (talk) 23:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that this is copyrighted ? Not a dumb question but I am perplexed. The image was taken by a staff photographer of The Chicago Defender in 1955 so was clearly (c) Chicago Defender. I presume that they registered the copyright appropriately so it would have come up for renewal 28 years later (1983) - a period for which there are online records (here). I've searched for quite a while and though I can see that some material from 1954/55 etc from this publication was renewed (cartoons, work by Langston Hughes and a serial all of which are owned by parties other than the Defender), I cannot see any renewal for the 1955 editions of the paper nor for images owned by the paper from that time. If I had more experience with the qualities of the data in the archive I would say that the copyright for the edition containing this image, and hence for this work-for-hire image, were not renewed and the image is ((PD-US-not renewed)). That Corbis is happily collecting fees for use of this image would then be amusing rather than compel us towards WP:CSD#F7 - they were formed after the copyright should have been renewed on this image and I can't see that the Bettmann archive acquired it before that date either. I am tempted towards a view that this image is public domain, but as stated I lack the experience with US copyright renewal searching to be sure - Peripitus (Talk) 13:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether Ernest Withers (the photographer in question) was working for The Chicago Defender, or was a freelancer who sold his picture to them but retained the copyright. If the latter, surely the rights would have remained with him and passed to his estate on his death? Have a look at this statement from the Library of Congress:
  "Photographs by Ernest Withers may be restricted by copyright. Ernest Withers expressed interest in the use of his images. Works created after January 1, 1978 are protected by copyright during the photographer's lifetime, plus seventy years. For images created prior to January 1, 1978, a copyright search should be conducted. In addition, privacy and publicity rights may apply to the portraits. Ernest Withers’ estate is represented by: Tony Decaneas, Panopticon Gallery of Photography."
  Whether that applies only to the Library of Congress collection of images by Withers, or to other ones as well, I don't know. That helpful information from the LoC does explain the references I found to the Decaneas Archive and Panopticon Gallery, but it still leaves unanswered the question of who exactly has the rights to this image. My suspicion is that it went from the Chicago Defender to UPI (United Press International) and thence into the Bettmann Archive, and thence to Corbis. But possibly it shouldn't have done! The only other Withers-related images I could find on the Corbis site were this and this, which makes me wonder how that other Withers image got onto the Corbis site (remember, it is not credited to Withers on the Corbis site, and so doesn't appear in searches under his name). Carcharoth (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not sure also. He certainly was sent on assignments by the Chicago Defender (amongst other papers) but was this one. If it was it is (probably) a work-for-hire and my search is relevant. He did freelance work and sold the imaqes to multiple publications in other instances, was this one of those. I'm tempted to the view that this was an assignment for the Defender and the image is, based on my other searches, free. If only US copyright law hadn't evolved to be so convoluted ! - Peripitus (Talk) 11:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Some more information on Withers here. Someone should expand the article on him, as there is a long and distinguished career there, and lots of sources available. Carcharoth (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peripitus's arguments appear sound and I can't find any copyright info either. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unique historical image, discussed in article, and Peripitus' arguments regarding the copyright status seem sound. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may had better said keep! - I like it so keep it for whatever reason you see fit. --damiens.rf 04:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Don't be so demeaning. He agrees with the above logic and, just because he disagrees with you, doesn't mean it's an WP:ILIKEIT !vote. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't understand much about copyright renewals to have a say on Peripitus reasoning, other than that I hope them to be correct. But we should be careful not to let our wishful thinking to interfere with our votes, as the users voting keep per Peripitus seem more confident about his arguments that he himself felt comfortable to be. --damiens.rf 04:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No one here is merely "hoping" he's correct. We can form reasonable opinions backed up with facts which disagree with your own opinions. Consider the fact you might be wrong on this one. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on either or not this image is free. I put that clearly. Pay more attention the posts you plan to belittle. --damiens.rf 15:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, let me make it clearer: consider the fact that you might be wrong that Sarek's opinion was "keep! - I like it so keep it for whatever reason you see fit". — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In response to a comment left by Carcharoth on my talk page, I'm adding this. I may add more as I come across more information. --Moni3 (talk) 23:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source commentary on the image

Houck & Grindy: "Perhaps the detail that received the most prominent play involved Wright's willingness to stand and point to Milam and Bryant as the men who had abducted his great-nephew. With a forceful 'thar he', Wright did what Mississippi blacks were not supposed to do: confront a white man, under oath, with an alleged crime, before a room full of hostile witnesses no less. It was a gesture immortalized in an 'illegal' photograph taken by the Chicago Defender's Ernest Withers." (p. 83)

Whitfield: "The moment was an epiphany in the eclipse of Jim Crow in the Deep South. Testifying for the state, Moses Wright points out the two defendants in the Sumner courthouse as the abductors of Emmett Till. When the district attorney asked for identification, the 64-year-old sharecropper first acknowledged J. W. Milam and said, "Thar he", and then pointed to Roy Bryant. During the trial Writght was in hiding, afterwards he fled the state. But his testimony signified that the intimidation of Delta blacks was no longer as effective as in the past." (photo insert, pp. 6-7.)

Whitfield dedicates more than a page to Wright's testimony--too much to reproduce here--and the groundbreaking, nature-shifting symbolism of what he did. A representative quote: "By compelling the State of Mississippi to put the half-brothers on trial, Wright had raised not only his own stature but elevated that of other subjugated Negroes as well. 'The county in which he had toiled and which he is now resigned to leaving (Murray Kempton of the New York Post is quoted) will never be the same for what he has done." (pp. 38-39.) I don't suppose it's a foregone conclusion that Wright was indeed threatened more than once before his testimony, he had not slept in his own house since Milam and Bryant kidnapped Till, and he had at this point acknowledged that he would have to move and never return to Mississippi.

Mamie Till Mobley and Christopher Benson: "There were black photographers like David Jackson of Ebony and Jet, who would come face-to-face with a gun-toting white band. And there was Ernest Withers, who shot for the Defender, and who would risk a judge's contempt to capture the single most significant photograph of the entire trial." (p. 159) "At the black press table, off to the left, behind the rail, and near the window, Ernest Withers, the photographer shooting for the Defender, was also waiting for that moment. Ernest Withers knew that that moment meant, and what it would mean. It was a defiant moment that had to be preserved, even if the judge had restricted picture taking. So Ernest Withers pointed his camera very carefully, aimed it between the people in front of him, straight through the opening, right at Papa Mose. That's where everybody else's attention was drawn, too. Nobody, it seemed, was watching the black press table at that moment. At least you might hope that would be the case. So, with hope, with patience, and with a steady hand, Ernest Withers waited for the moment.

As Papa Mose pointed, he felt the rush of anger in that room. The heat of the moment. As he would put it later, he could feel the blood of all those white people boiling. But there was scarcely a peep from the crowd. In fact, it was so quiet in the courtroom, you could hear the gentle whirring sound of the ceiling fans stirring the hot air. That, and a single click of a camera shutter over at the black press table. Papa Mose stood straight a firm against the weight of that room. 'There he is,' he said, as he pointed directly at J. W. Milam. 'And there is Mr. Bryant.'...

As he did, from a spot near the jury, artist Franklin McMahon was preparing for Life magazine a drawing of the same dramatic event photographed by Withers. While he finished his work, McMahon heard a juror mutter a reference to Papa Mose: 'Sambo, Sambo.' " (pp. 174-175.)

Whitfield cites the image to UPI/Bettman photos. Mamie Till Mobley cites it to Bettman/Corbis.

The above shows the photo itself is notable. The photo itself is worth mentioning in the article. We have the source. Once its done, the photo can stay. I will write a valid non-free-use rationmale myself.

But if we're lazy to write some encyclopedic work about this famous photo, we can't use this famous photo, and we can keep it just in case.--damiens.rf 05:37, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least two of the above sources are already in the article, and were at the time you nominated the image. See here and here. I understand you are asking for more to be added about the image or the history behind the creation of the image and the effect it had (and I think it could be done, especially about how Withers waited for the right moment to take the photo), but there is a valid argument that GA- and FA-level articles are carefully balanced to present the correct proportions of coverage within an article for various aspects of the topic covered by the article (this is called WP:NPOV). Adding more about the image might disrupt this (I don't think adding a little bit more would matter too much, but that is only my personal opinion).

It is possible that detail about Withers and him taking this image might be better placed in the Ernest Withers article. Can the "sourced commentary" on a non-free image be spread over several pages, including those other than where the image is located? The other option (I suggested on a user talk page a few days ago) is to have extra sourced commentary (over and above what would be justified for a good or featured article) on the image page, which is a logical place to have extra details about the history and effect of the photo, in the absence of an article about the photo (not every photo will have enough to justify a separate article). To put that another way, some photos can be mentioned (with sourced commentary) in several articles, but minimal use would suggest it only be used in one of the articles.

Regarding the writing of non-free rationales, if you think a non-free rationale can be improved, it is best to talk about that with the original writer of the non-free rationale, as that spreads best practice - the art of writing a valid non-free rationale is not something that should be made a specialist role to be done by editors who specialise in image issues. It is best done by those writing the articles the images are to be used in, with helpful advice where needed. Carcharoth (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I leave to you the decision about where to write about the photo. But we can't use this photo in a place other than the one where the photo itself is discussed. It's not acceptable to freely use Corbis' property (excluding the promising PD theory above) just because it's the perfect illustration for our text. --damiens.rf 14:46, 8 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free newspaper cover being used just to make the point that a given event was covered by the newspaper. Damiens.rf 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With slack-jawed incredulity, I'm protesting this on the tagger's talk page. [8] --Moni3 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whether this is copyrightable is questionable. If you cropped out everything below "FACES DEATH," it is definitely PD-ineligible as three simple phrases. Indeed it fails NFCC, but as a free image it would be pretty useful. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:48, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Would the same words set in similar fonts and layouts be an acceptable original substitute? This wouldn't be hard to do over. I'd prefer to have an authentic image, myself, but the original could always be cited as a source. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable event, the cover of the newspaper with images and typeset shows the impact of the event beter than words can do. - DonCalo (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—the "above the banner" treatment of the headline is an important detail used to attach significance to the headline itself, meaning dropping the image would lose important intangible detail. The image is used in an article to illustrate the impact of the assassinations on the city at large, as discussed in the article. Imzadi 1979 → 18:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Is the idea that the San Francisco Examiner's headline was specially different something that is usually agreed in literature about it or is it something that some wikipedian came out with? The idea that the layout was somewhat unique and an evidence of the special significance of the event sounds like original research. --Damiens.rf 18:40, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would support cropping, as above, so that this is unambiguously PD. J Milburn (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Me too — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:48, 6 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free newspaper cover being used just to make the point that a given event was covered by the newspaper. Damiens.rf 19:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable event, the cover of the newspaper with images and typeset shows the impact of the event beter than words can do. - DonCalo (talk) 07:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, the event is notable, but what is this picture adding? We can understand the event without needing to see how this one newspaper covered the issue. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 30 May 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: Kept, but I am removing from one article that there is no rationale for it to be in - Peripitus (Talk) 09:30, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free photograph copied from a news source captures an important event, a riot that made history. That said, we don't need to see this specific image to understand anything relevant and particular about the riot. Our use is also clearly non-transformative. Damiens.rf 19:07, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Serious wtf?! going on here. [9] --Moni3 (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:: This webpage suggests there could be some history about this photo (other than simply about the events of the photo). The webpage itself is not a reliable source and contain too few information anyway. But if someone is interested, please do some research and write about the photo in the article. Our current use is not allowable. --Damiens.rf 21:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. This is an ANI. You have no idea what you're talking about. --Moni3 (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obvious encyclopedic value. Unlikely there are many more photos extant of this important event. Deletion is proposed on purely subjective criteria, and would appear disruptive. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 22:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Events can not be fully understood without pictures of them. If there is no apparent dree images, we are justified in using the best one available under fair use. DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event with no known free alternatives, and aids reader's understanding as an iconic photograph of the event (NFCC #1 and #8). As for "Our use is also clearly non-transformative," transformation is only a possible justification, and fair use law is highly in our favor in all four of the criteria. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- AS said above, if the image is iconic of the fact, the article should cover this. We can't simply use it as an illustration of the event. --Damiens.rf 05:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable event with no known free alternatives. - DonCalo (talk) 07:43, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not about WP:NFCC#1. We can't ignore WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8, that is what the nomination is actually concerned with. --Damiens.rf 08:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—this photo clearly passes muster with the policy on fair-use media, contrary to the combative assertions of the nominator. The photo is discussed in the article on the riots, and the photo itself enhances a reader's understanding of the events. Imzadi 1979 → 18:19, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wrong- The photo is not discussed in the article on the riots. All it ever says is "The only photograph taken during the first night of the riots shows the homeless youth that slept in nearby Christopher Park, scuffling with police". It's also not discussed in the other article it's transcluded. being used. It's also not discussed in LGBT rights in the United States. In both articles, the event is discussed, and thephoto serves as an illustration of the event. Sorry if I sound "combative" sometimes but we can't stand opinions based on false information. --Damiens.rf 18:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is mildly interesting that this very image and its justification were approved specifically at Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, discussing the fair use image criteria. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I got some good feedback about how to write fair use rationales from this image. Such as it was...Damiens, how would you change the advice Elcobbola gave in that dispatch? What stronger point do you think needs to be made in the prose about this image? Again, my point is that you would be influencing how much emphasis is made in the prose instead of the sources, so again, we're back to what you want to see. What would satisfy you personally? --Moni3 (talk) 21:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Short and simple: Do the sources talk about the photo or about the moment captured on the photo? The later would "satisfy me personally". --Damiens.rf 15:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The text at Signpost commends this image's FUR in that it describes a valid purpose of use. While I agree in commending the text used as purpose of use, mainly because it makes clear what's about the visual aspects of this image that make it relevant to the article, the Signpost (and featured article) reviewers failed in not notice that, without support from reliable sources, that text constitutes original research. The text says the image is used because "it illustrates the beginning of the riots, showing the type of people who participated: primarily young men with more liberal clothing and hair, contrasting with the conservative appearance of the police. The value differences between riot participants and the police is reflected in this image, and directly led to the cause of the riots.". This is the kind of prose I would tag with ^{[original research?]} if I were to read it in any article without a reference link.

This is not to say the image is unusable. If reliable sources are found to support the thesis some Wikipedian created for the rationale, I would withdraw the nomination.

Big picture is, featured article reviewers and Signpost regulars, while great editors, are not necessarily experts in NFCC. Nobody is, by the way. --Damiens.rf 15:32, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The purpose (necessity) for this image in the Stonewall Riots article is well-articulated by the rationale. Although it would certainly be optimal, there is currently no requirement that an image be the subject of sourced commentary. Further, I’d be curious for Damiens to produce a non-free image with a rationale that is sourced, where such source discusses the both image’s contents and the editor’s rationale for including the image in the publication. It is implied (“without support from reliable sources, that text constitutes original research”) that such sourcing is required for a rationale to be valid. This is patent nonsense, with no basis in practice or policy. Rationales are not encyclopedic content as contemplated by WP:RS/WP:OR, rather mandated editorial discussions (i.e. the decision to use one image over another – or at all – in a given article is an unstated editorial decision made in nearly every article; in the case of non-free content, however, usage restrictions require that considerations underlying those decisions to be presented in the form of a rationale). Concerns thus appear to be based on a fringe belief and a profound misunderstanding and misapplication of NFCC and sourcing policies. Эlcobbola _talk 16:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The rationale draws a lot of conclusions from the clothing of the people depicted on the photo. Yes, these conclusion need to come from reliable sources, otherwise they are original research. --Damiens.rf 18:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that accurately speaking the restriction WP:NOR applies strictly to article text, not to non-article material such as editorial discussions or discussions of "significance". In particular, discussions of significance for NFCC #8 are community assessments, where individual views and personal comments are considered and which it is for the closing admin to weigh. Jheald (talk) 22:15, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Elcobbola. The image itself does not have to be the subject of sourced commentary. Please see the current RfC about that very point. It's a misunderstanding that someone added to the non-free guideline some time ago without discussion, and it is causing a lot of confusion. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per SlimVirgin. No one supports this Damiens...again... — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:18, 31 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are free images of Eliot Ness Damiens.rf 19:21, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's a portrait of Eliot Ness on Commons that's "just as good", and would work just as well in the only article using this. This doesn't tell us anything more about him. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 03:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This one does appear to be unnecessary and easily replaceable, as well as not particularly illustrative.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:49, 31 May 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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many free images of Witold Pilecki. We don't need a non-free mugshot just to illustrate the information that he was an inmate at Auschwitz. Damiens.rf 19:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm unclear about who might be claiming to own copyrights in mugshots from Auschwitz, but the file page indicates that permission was secured from someone. Encyclopedically used in five articles. The file's page indicates, first, that this image has been through this wringer before, suggesting that speedy keep might be appropriate; the grounds were apparently the same then as now. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- When and where has this image has been through this wringer before? I am interested in reading such discussion. --Damiens.rf 16:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. - DonCalo (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Horrific, yes, but we have free images of the subject. This does not add in any great way, odd claim of "permission" or not. Unless we can get some evidence to the contrary, we should treat this as non-free. J Milburn (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that it is an image of the subject in an important, notable location. That we don't have free versions of, and it is more relevant than other images of the subject for certain articles (sections). See below for details. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:00, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is the only image of him we have from the crucial Auschwitz period. It is very useful in contexts of articles such as the Auschwitz bombing debate. The website that was the source for the image went down, and we are currently the only online source for this important historical image (low-res, used with permission, and it is rather doubtful the author of Auschwitz mugshot will ever be identified - not too mention step up and request that we take the image down... meta:copyright paranoia raises its ugly head in this request, too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ajh1492 (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First there is the permission given. Second, there is 5 different uses of the image in 5 different articles. I could maybe sort of understand if someone was arguing that one or two of these five instances does not fulfill the free image rationale. However it seems that at least several instances of the use do in fact satisfy the free rational criteria (usage in "Auschwitz concentration camp" and "Auschwitz bombing debate" most certainly qualifies). There's no basis for deleting the image as it is being used correctly in at least two articles.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- They're being used just to make the point the guy was in Auschwitz. We don't need an image for that kind of information. Actually, the image itself does not show he was in Auschwitz. It also does not show he was "the only volunteer inmate of Auschwitz", as the copy'n pasted rationales claims as the purpose of use. How does this image pass WP:NFCC#8? --damiens.rf 17:24, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you think that the permission was given by the copyright holder? Presumably, the photo was taken by Nazi guards. Whatever website this came from is almost certainly not the copyright holder. I don't see any reasonable way that this photo should be used on most of its articles ... MAYBE the article about the guy himself, but not the other four. --B (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, not even in articles about the guy, since we already have free images of him. --damiens.rf 14:45, 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free photo of living people posing. Damiens.rf 19:27, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecesary non-free photo of an archaeologist "planning excavations". Damiens.rf 19:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP-only release is not sufficient. Jheald (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Besides what Jheald already said, the "subject of the article" (the [[Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter

]] and its excavation) is not the primary subject of the photo, and its "archeological importance" is not evident from the photo (where it's only visible as a field of stakes). Zetawoof (ζ) 05:02, 30 May 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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free photo of a meeting of notable man. The image itself is not necessary for a proper understanding of the relevant meeting event. Damiens.rf 19:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep appears to be a valid use of the image, in addition to permission having been given.Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:48, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - image simply shows three people meeting, is not mentioned in the article, and adds nothing of significance to reader's understanding. Article already has an adequate non-free image of him - Peripitus (Talk) 09:27, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we can perfectly well understand the article without a non-free image of this meeting. J Milburn (talk) 23:24, 5 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free photo showing important men at an important event. Nevertheless, the event can be properly understood without the aid of this image. It's just shows two men standing. Damiens.rf 19:31, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of some people posing. It's not really helpful to the understanding of the article. Damiens.rf 19:33, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of rights releasing Damiens.rf 19:33, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are free images of this man. Damiens.rf 19:36, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image of an important man at a press conference. The image itself is not of much help to the understanding of the text. Damiens.rf 19:36, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative use of a non-free poster. Damiens.rf 19:37, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nnecessary non-free photo showing three important men at an important event. Nevertheless, the event can be properly understood without the aid of this image. It's just shows two men standing. Damiens.rf 19:38, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative use of a non-free photo. Damiens.rf 19:40, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image showing worked working in the construction of a notable building. The image itself i snot of much help since there's nothing special about the way these worker work. Damiens.rf 19:42, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are free images of this guy. Damiens.rf 19:43, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are free images of Dennis Kucinich. Damiens.rf 19:44, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free photo of two man together. Damiens.rf 19:44, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free photo of people holding guns is not really helpful to the understanding of the article about the shooting. Damiens.rf 19:47, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable event, image illustrates intensity of the event. - DonCalo (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, the event is notable. But what this illustates beyond the fact that armed police took cover (which is fairly obvious) is not clear. J Milburn (talk) 17:39, 30 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencessary non-free image of reporters interviewing a man. Damiens.rf 19:49, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable person, no free image available. - DonCalo (talk) 08:06, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That argument may hold some water in the biography of the subject; however, we are perfectly able to understand the shooting without knowing what he looked like. J Milburn (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Disclosure - there were indeed a bio for the subject where the image was used, but I boldly redirected to the article about the event due to and the complete lack of information and evidence of independent notability. You can review that at Fred Evans (radical militant). --Damiens.rf 17:49, 30 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a living guy. Damiens.rf 19:51, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This beautiful non-free photo of a soldier and a close street is not really necessary for the understanding of the article about the Hough Riots. Damiens.rf 20:03, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free photo. No relevant encyclopedic information here. Damiens.rf 20:04, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free photo of a burning house is not necessary for the understanding of the relevant events discussed in the article. Damiens.rf 20:05, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image of a living guy. Damiens.rf 20:20, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image used in a gallery. Damiens.rf 20:21, 27 May 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 F7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image copied from Getty Images do illustrate the text about the event if captures. Damiens.rf 20:24, 27 May 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 F7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image copied from Getty Images to illustrate the text about the event if captures. Damiens.rf 20:25, 27 May 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 F7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image copied from Getty Images do illustrate the text about the event if captures. Damiens.rf 20:26, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader gone, orphan file, unknown person Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:29, 27 May 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 F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:08, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is not PD in the U.S.. It's from 1944, the author could not have died before 1941 (there are the rules if I understand the template properly). Image belongs to Getty Images and is being used to illustrate the text about the event if captures. Damiens.rf 20:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable event, the image shows the impact of the event beter than words can do. - DonCalo (talk) 07:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Please, make sure you have a minimum understanding of what WP:NFCC is all about before trying to contribute to such a discussion. You just said we should use an unlicensed photo from a image agency to illustrate our text about an event just because the photo is a good illustration for the event? --Damiens.rf 08:32, 29 May 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 F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image copied from Getty Images do illustrate the text about the event if captures. Damiens.rf 21:18, 27 May 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 F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image is not PD in the U.S.. It's from 1944, the author could not have died before 1941 (there are the rules if I understand the template properly). Image belongs to Getty Images and is being used to illustrate the text about the event if captures. Damiens.rf 21:28, 27 May 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 F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image copied from Getty Images do illustrate the text about the event if captures. Damiens.rf 21:31, 27 May 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 F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image copied from Getty Images do illustrate the text about the event if captures. Damiens.rf 21:31, 27 May 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File page used as article Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Looks like promotion of a non notable song. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:21, 29 May 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 both - neither image had a rationale for the articles they were used in, a state of affairs that has existed for long enough. Should someone see a compelling need for either image and constructs an appropriate rationale the this can be revisited. Peripitus (Talk) 04:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only article for which there was a fair use rationale for this image has been redirected. It's inclusion in the list article seems entirely gratuitous. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's now in the Message in a Bottle (Star Trek: Voyager) article. Nightscream (talk) 01:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That article now has three non-free screenshots, which is far too many, no matter how good the case for each may be. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this and/or File:USSPrometheusMVAMode.jpg, but we certainly can't keep both, they fail WP:NFCC#8. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 19:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be minded to keep this one, and delete File:USSPrometheusMVAMode.jpg; but I'd certainly listen to any arguments made out for the opposite. Jheald (talk) 19:28, 28 May 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.

May 27

File:Opeth LamentationsCD.jpg

File:Attitude-Golden Gun dbl A-side single.jpg

File:Mashmakhan and The Family.jpg

File:Ono-GPAC1.jpg

File:Ono-GPAC2.jpg

File:Cecily von Ziegesar makes a cameo.jpg

File:The Airborne Toxic Event performing in Gossip Girl.jpg

File:People Are People-cover.jpg

File:Awful.jpg

File:1426.cover.jpg

File:It's About the Money.jpg

File:Ged mich bb.jpg

File:Ringo Starr and wife Maureen.jpg

File:MLPFiM Logo.png

File:Moscone-Milk assassinations SF Examiner cover.gif

File:Ness-speech.jpg

File:SPP walk-about at Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC.JPG

File:Stanfield-Worley Bluff Shelter - DeJarnette.jpg

File:Stokes and MLK.jpg

File:Stokes-stanton.jpg

File:TL JKS SPS TOC.jpg

File:ShortListPhoto.jpg

File:Voinovich-cleveland.jpg

File:Voinovich-chart.jpg

File:Voinovich-campaign.jpg

File:Voinovich-mayor.jpg

File:Arcade-entrance.jpg

File:Terminal-tower-workers.jpg

File:Celebrezze-campaign.jpg

File:Boy Mayor.jpg

File:Forbes-kucinich.jpg

File:Glenville-shootout.jpg

File:Glenville.jpg

File:George-l-forbes.jpg

File:Hough Riots - National Guard.jpg

File:Cleveland Now.jpg

File:The Hough Riots.jpg

File:Damian Cassidy - Clonoe.jpg

File:Dale Mabry Field pr13614.jpg

File:DAD Troop Flag march.jpg

File:DAD exodus.jpg

File:Nazimuddin Suhrawardy.jpg

File:WebDSC 3832.jpg

File:Dead hindu 1946 DAD.jpg

File:DAD victims.jpg

File:DAD Prowling mob.jpg

File:DAD Food wait.jpg

File:DAD Clean up.jpg

File:Welded heart.JPG

File:USSPrometheus.jpg