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The result of the discussion was: Speedy Keep/withdrawn by nom. I've been convinced that it is not a violation of any policies. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 20:57, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ramallah-lynch01.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MathKnight (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violates NFCC. Photo of living person and also, it is tagged as historical image but the image itself is not the subject of commentary. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 03:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Key historical image for 2000 Ramallah lynching. For POV reasons, many have been attempting to WP:game the system remove this image from Wikipedia. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:12, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm purely speaking from a copyright standpoint. Do you have any rebuttals as to why this image doesn't violate NFCC rather than attempting to attack what you assume my intentions are, even though you're assumptions are false? Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:17, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what your intentions are, and I assume your actions are being done in good faith. Just putting this issue in a larger context. Plot Spoiler (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well I'm saying it violates WP:NFC#UUI, particularly #6 and #7 and possibly #1 and #5. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 04:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFC#UUI isn't policy, it's a guideline. It is superseded by WP:NFCC, which is a legal policy. Traditionally, non-free content is argued using NFCC rather than NFC because it is nearly impossible to enforce violations of a guideline, while it is a duty to enforce violations of one of the seven legal policies. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:27, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Irreplacable image of an historic event. MathKnight 06:40, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

 Note: The user above has a conflict of interest, having served in the Israeli police force and being an Israeli. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 18:36, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you comprehend WP:conflict of interest policy. The standards for COI are much narrower than you are interpreting them. Very troubling that you think the mere fact that this editor is ethnically Israeli constitutes COI in this situation. Plot Spoiler (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't mean it to the extents of the policy, but in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, people tend to have extremely strong beliefs. Ramaksoud2000 ^{(Talk to me)} 19:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The gist of the entire NFCC is in the beginning of point 1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose.". This line is where the 'taboo', if you will, on using images of living people comes from, but it's also where arguments for using images of living people comes from, and there is a precident of using non-free images of living people to illustrate specific events (as opposed to simply serving as a main infobox image for an article on the person themselves). Ultimately what this case comes down to in an interpretation of whether or not the image meets NFCC #8, and I believe that it does, per the statement in the FUR "The most identifiable picture from the Ramallah lynching, who became a symbol for the act and demonstrating this historic event.". Therefore I am saying that this should be kept. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:27, 19 May 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Al Hirschfeld Alfred Hitchcock Green.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Robyn42 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violates WP:NFCC#8: Not needed for understanding the article. Stefan2 (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete essentially in there for purely decorative purposes. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:10, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have discussed the image's significance in the article. I have posted the proposed text I would like to add to the article, in the appropriate section, in the "talk" page for this imageRobyn42 (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is my proposed text that I think would have explained the image's significance a lot better. It would go with the image in the "Television, Radio, and Books" section during the discussion of the TV show "Alfred Hitchcock Presents":

"In 1957, TV Guide commissioned Al Hirschfeld to do a painting of Alfred Hitchcock for their cover. Hirschfeld took this opportunity to portray Hitchcock in green, in keeping with the macabre subject matter and style for which Hitchcock was known. Therein Hirschfeld drew upon a poetic license that no photographer could have taken. The National Portrait Gallery later purchased the painting because it so effectively captured Hitchcock's character and image."

I agree that the image wasn't explained well enough, but I think this text, along with the image, would add alot to the article in illuminating Hitchock's American TV career and his public image in the United StatesRobyn42 (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Part of an extensive promotional campaign on behalf of the gallery holding rights to Hirschfeld's work. The supporting text is entirely unsourced, subjective, and laced with peacockery. Failure to meet NFCC requirements is clear. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2013 (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; the photo is replaceable per WP:NFCC#1. Diannaa (talk) 03:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:BaltimorePoliceBadge.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mick man34 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Tagged for having no licence for the photographic aspects of the image, but the tag was removed without adding any licence for the photographic aspects of it. Stefan2 (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- Reason for deleting is insufficient. The tag claimed that the propper licensing information wasn't their. I put the correct licensing information and removed the tag because the tag was incorrect. Plus, the image is needed for visual identification of the Baltimore Police Departments badge. --Mick man34 (talk) 11:52, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Valid fair use image, but it really should have the name of the photographer (who would hold a copyright over the photograph itself, although it is non-free no matter what) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • An image like this needs two licence tags: one for the photo and one for the underlying badge. Also, the photo licence has to be a free licence as the photo part is replaceable per WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:00, 19 May 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Catholic block original lyrics.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Violetcries (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violates WP:NFCC#8: Not needed for understanding the article. Stefan2 (talk) 10:50, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:41, 19 May 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:09, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Y (Jaejoong album).jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Lareine (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The image of the alternate/repackage/additional album cover is not discussed within the text nor sourced by third party references, hence not subject to critical commentary per WP:NFCI and fails WP:NFCCP#8. For further details see the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 25#File:BornToDieParadise.png regarding the alternate cover of Lana Del Rey's Born to Die, where the deletion was also upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2012 October 12. -Michaela den (talk) 13:31, 19 May 2013 (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 INeverCry 19:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dop in Mars Needs Women.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Does not pass NFCC #8: no contextual significance, no in-article discussion of the scene or (if we look at the new FUR, production values) which require images.  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:29, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:31, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as scene is discussed in article but only the image can convey the scene's aesthetic and context properly to modern audiences. - Dravecky (talk) 14:38, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as the image directly refers to the cheesy production values, in fact, that was the point of the entire article, to show an example of a low-budget Sci-Fi work. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "The production was clearly low-budget as seen by the use of existing office space standing in for scientific centers." Blatant WP:OR, which goes against policy and should not be counted towards "contextual significance". The entirety of the discussion of budget is:

Faced with the inevitable meager budget, he resorted to using available spaces, including office buildings to serve as NASA headquarters. The typical shoddy production values of a B film were evident, with the Southland Life Insurance Building visible as the Martians drive among the humans; other prominent local landmarks including the Southern Methodist University were also featured." I fail to see how having.

This does not discuss the scene, nor does it provide any context in which an image of the scene would be necessary — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:48, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The scene is set in an office building is now described in the caption as: "Using their transponder, Dop, the Martian leader "materialized" in the "Space Center", attempting to explain his mission on Earth. The scene in an office at the George Bush Intercontinental Airport shows the clearly low-budget production values in using existing office space standing in for scientific centers." Here is the original article that provided the reference source:

Mars Needs Women (1968)

A military station intercepts and decodes a three-word message, "Mars needs women." Soon a delegation of five Martians, led by one-time Disney child star Tommy Kirk, comes to Earth on a mission to redress the imbalance. It seems that Martians have a chromosomal deficiency that produces only male babies, so the team is here to recruit - or more accurately capture--our best and brightest females, i.e., a stripper, a stewardess, and a brainy Pulitzer Prize winner played by Yvonne Craig, aka Batgirl on TV's Batman series. Needless to say, the Martians encounter strong resistance on the part of Earth authorities, and they even learn a thing or two about the value of true love.

Mars Needs Women (1967) was filmed on the very cheap (reportedly $20,000) over a two-week period in 1966 by self-described schlockmeister Larry Buchanan. After a stint writing for television's The Gabby Hayes Show, Buchanan served as assistant director to Fred Zinnemann on The Men (1950) and George Cukor on The Marrying Kind (1952). He also created and starred in the Peabody Award-winning shortThe Cowboy (1951), his last brush with critical acclaim. He then moved into writing, directing, and producing exploitation films, shoestring productions that touched on racial tensions, teen sex, and backwoods incest. After shooting a story about strippers in his native Texas at a Dallas nightclub owned by Lee Harvey Oswald's killer Jack Ruby, he embarked on a series of films loosely based on real celebrities and historical events, beginning with The Trial of Lee Harvey Oswald (1964), an account of what might have happened had Oswald lived and faced trial for the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Buchanan moved back to Texas in the 1960s, and Mars Needs Women was filmed there. Those familiar with Dallas recognize several buildings in the city and on the campus of Southern Methodist University, and anyone who has been to George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston will know that the "Space Center" in the movie is now the revolving restaurant atop the Marriott hotel there.

Due to lack of sufficient lighting instruments, the film had to be undercranked (shot at a slower frames-per-minute rate) when natural light conditions were poor. To keep the action from being unnaturally fast when projected at normal speeds, the actors were instructed to compensate by moving more slowly. Buchanan also made extensive use of stock footage, particularly from military films, including long takes of X-15 aircraft in action.

Mars Needs Women was distributed directly to television by schlock specialists American International, producers of the beach party movies of the early 60s and a string of psychedelic-themed B pictures later in the decade. It was also the company where Roger Corman made his first big name with a series of films based on the stories of Edgar Allan Poe. The television branch of the company, responsible for bringing Mars Needs Women to unsuspecting viewers, imported and dubbed a lot of foreign horror, sci-fi, and sword-and-sandal adventures for the American small screen.

Tommy Kirk started his career at 13, first on stage, then television. He first gained attention as the adolescent star of such Disney blockbusters as Old Yeller (1957), The Shaggy Dog (1959), and The Absent-Minded Professor (1961). A few years later, he appeared in several youth-oriented comedies, opposite such teen queens as Annette Funicello and Deborah Walley. His career slowly skidded to a halt after Disney executives became aware of his homosexuality. He was also fired from the John Wayne film The Sons of Katie Elder (1965) after being busted for marijuana. Kirk later started a successful business and turned up in occasional B movies as late as 2001.

Judging from subsequent releases, Mars never succeeded well in its missions. In 2011, Disney released the animated comedy-sci-fi adventure Mars Needs Moms, based on the 2007 children's book by Berkeley Breathed, creator of the comic strip "Bloom County." The title of Mars Needs Women has also been referenced or used in songs by musicians as diverse as metal rocker Rob Zombie, electronic experimentalists Meat Beat Manifesto, roots fusion-revivalists Bela Fleck and the Flecktones, and Belgium's Novastar. And never fear, ladies; you're not the only ones in jeopardy. A gay adult movie based itself on the premise that Mars Needs Men (2005). On an episode of The Simpsons animated TV series, the Springfield Googleplex cinema advertises the film "Mars Needs Towels." And Frank Zappa spoke satirically for Britain's Isle of Man in 1977 with the song "Manx Needs Women."

Director: Larry Buchanan Producer: Larry Buchanan Screenplay: Larry Buchanan Cinematography: Robert C. Jessup Editing: Larry Buchanan Original Music: Ronald Stein (uncredited) Cast: Tommy Kirk (Dop/Mr. Fast), Yvonne Craig (Dr. Bolen), Larry Tanner (Fellow Martian), Bubbles Cash (abducted stripper), Byron Lord (Col. Bob Page). C-83m. by Rob Nixon FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you watch the film, a lengthy scene takes place in the "Space Center" that has the camera firmly focused on a loudspeaker, a clear indication of "padding" the scene. Most of the "action" that follows concerns characters talking to themselves, then to the alien, interspersed with stock footage of Air Force fighters bombers and even the X-15 taking off to intercept other aliens. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obviously. Just a few people standing around a desk. The article does not discuss people standing around a desk and you don't need an image to understand that people stood around a desk. Clear failure of WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeat: Retain, the image clearly indicates the use of an office that stood in for a space center, the example of the low-budget production values that were employed. FWiW Bzuk (talk) As per: WP:NFCC#8, a non-free-use rationale was provided, and it enhances the user's understanding of the low production values, including star Tommy Kirk, outfitted in a poorly-fitted "wet suit", employed on a cheesy Sci-Fi film. What more is needed? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Ultimately, while I'm someone that tries to get as many non-free images off of the project as possible, as it stands now the image, which is discussed in specific detail in the article, meets the criteria. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:09, 19 May 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:08, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

considering the color aberrations, the scratching and other damage to the image, and the uploader's extensive history of having content deleted and running into copyright issues, I find the own work claim on this image to be sufficiently dubious as to ask for it to be deleted. My best guess is that this is a photograph of a photograph, in which case it's a derivative work and has to be presumed non-free. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:04, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• given Schey died in 1913, any photographs of him would be PD its definately not the work Ajayvius there is no known way to could have been taken in 2009 Gnangarra 07:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Gnangarra. At worst it's a reproduction of a PD image and therefore itself PD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete This is in the public domain if it was published before 1923, but the uploader didn't specify when or where it was published, so it can't be determined whether the photo was published at that time. How can we tell that this wasn't hiding in a drawer until recently? --Stefan2 (talk) 09:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • PD-Australia specifies that copyright subsists for 50 years after the photo was taken, being published wasnt/isnt a requirement. The URAA did not restore copyright in the US to images where the term of its copyright in the country of origin had already expired. As Schey died in 1913 copyright had expired before 1964 which is 32 years before the URAA date so therefore the image itself is PD. Gnangarra 09:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, restoration was not needed if the photo never had entered the public domain in the United States for the first place. If a photo wasn't published before 1 March 1989, or if it was published in compliance with US copyright formalities, then it is protected by copyright in the United States regardless of the copyright status in the source country on the URAA date. See Commons:Commons:Subsisting copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • ((PD-Australia)) is sufficient for the image to be uploaded to WP, though I would delete based Ajayvius information unless an actual source can be identified. Gnangarra 10:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • ((PD-Australia)) is not sufficient as it explains the copyright status in Australia whereas Wikipedia demands information about the copyright status in the United States. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:12, 22 May 2013 (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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

considering the size of the image, the jpeg compression damage, and the uploader's extensive history of having content deleted and running into copyright issues, I find the own work claim on this image to be sufficiently dubious as to ask for it to be deleted. My best guess is that this is a crop of someone else's photograph, and must be presumed non-free. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, so small as to be useless at any rate. Jerram is still alive so this wouldn't even be permissible as fair use. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:43, 22 May 2013 (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.