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 - not the correct forum to deal with this. The NFCC#3 problem can be dealt with via a non-free-reduce tag or actually reducing the length etc if needed. The NFCC#9 issue has been debated without resolution elsewhere but note by Rybec gives a simple resolution - Peripitus (Talk) 22:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:2001 space travel.ogv (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Koavf (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#3b. Also fails WP:NFCC#9 on the page TimedText:2001 space travel.ogv.en.srt. Stefan2 (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes 3b by being low bitrate (it's from a DVD transfer) and passes 9, since it's used in an article. I have no clue how this is supposed to be failing either... Evidently, @Stefan2: does not understand what the TimedText namespace is or how it works. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you create a page in the TimedText namespace for a non-free file, then the non-free file automatically violates WP:NFCC#9 in the TimedText namespace. I'm not aware of any way to avoid this. WP:NFCC#3b is not only about the bit rate but also about the running time. Also, the special effects are repetitive, so it would be possible to reduce to a much shorter running time without losing any understanding. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I just started a discussion about this little fallacy on WT:NFCC. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sceptical that this is an actual problem, but if it's deemed to be, the timed text could just be replaced by "(no dialogue)" in the caption. —rybec 10:00, 22 January 2014 (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⚡ 00:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Husiatyn Reb Yitzchok.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Chesdovi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

There is no evidence of any pre-1966 publication, which is a requirement for it to be free in the United States. The first known publication is from 1997, and if that was the first time it was published, then the copyright expires in the United States in 2048 or later. Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c if unfree. Stefan2 (talk) 01:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It does not require pre-1966 "publication". Rather "if it entered the public domain in Israel prior to 1996" - and that is achieved 50 after from when the photograph was developed from the negative. As this man died in 1968, it is most likely this photo was taken and develpoed a few years before hand. Chesdovi (talk) 12:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that the photograph was developed before 1946. The man died in the 1960s, so the photograph could have been taken during the second half of the 1940s, during the 1950s or during the 1960s. Additionally, copyright expiration in Israel before 1996 isn't enough to guarantee copyright expiration in the United States. One additional requirement is that the photograph must have been published without copyright notice before 1 March 1989 or without copyright renewal before 1964. See Commons:COM:HIRTLE. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 13 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Forevermore Alternate.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by David Coverdale's White Snake (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid FUR--almost identical to standard cover. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:58, 13 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wizard of Odd scene.jpg.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mouseinphilly (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid FUR: it says that the article Phineas and Ferb (season 2) as a whole is dedicated specifically to a discussion of this screenshot, which is obviously not the case. The image is not even used in that article. Instead, it appears in Wizard of Odd, where it violates both WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10c. Stefan2 (talk) 14:23, 13 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tiger Electronics wristgame.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by MatthewHoobin (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: the advertisement isn't discussed critically. Stefan2 (talk) 14:27, 13 January 2014 (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⚡ 00:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Newsweek 22 September 1980.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Toksoz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: the cover isn't critically discussed in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#10c: despite the claim in the FUR, the article as a whole isn't dedicated specifically to a discussion of this cover. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Stefan2, thanks indeed that you notified about the issue in my message box.

First of all, let me tell you the background of this particular Newsweek cover and why it is placed on the main 12 September 1980 coup wiki page.

The original uploader, named in Turkish as (https://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kullanıcı:Docbaba), is in the Turkish wiki of the coup page. She/he uploaded the image, scanning directly the front cover of the 22 September 1980 Newsweek issue, on the Turkish wiki page on 3 September 2008.

While I was revising both Turkish and English pages and updating the dead-links, in the English one, there was only a Turkish cover of a nationwide newspaper called "Hürriyet". And the English translation [of this cover] was already written as " ...headline read 'The army has seized control' ".

While there already exists an international weekly-magazine cover [of the coup] in the Turkish wiki page, I thought that it could be a good and more neutral idea to re-upload this Newsweek cover in the English wiki and put them in the main page one under the other. I placed the Newsweek cover up; because it was an international news circulation and placed the Hurriyet cover down; because it was nationwide. There is not any other particular reason [on placement].

In the deletion list-page, you have written: "Fails WP:NFCC#8: the cover isn't critically discussed in the article. Fails WP:NFCC#10c: despite the claim in the FUR, the article as a whole isn't dedicated specifically to a discussion of this cover."

I cannot know what you thought when you were writing the reason above; I can only estimate what you thought, which, of course, I may be wrong about.

You may have thought that the Newsweek cover represents a one-sided point of view as it is written "Turkey's Night of the Generals"; when the Turkish "Hurriyet" newspaper is translated as " ...headline read 'The army has seized control' ". I think, Hurriyet's translation seems more neutral than the Newsweek cover. But please pay attention: Even though there seems one is less-neutral, there are two different publications from different points of view and different editorial boards [of the publishing companies]. More covers, more "editorial boards" and etc. mean more neutral.

Moreover, if there are another covers from vast variety of publishing institutions [early 1980s], from the covers of memoir-books of investigative journalists, from TV snapshots, etc. those must be uploaded in the main English wiki page.

Keep: It is clear from all my statements above; it is better to keep the Newsweek cover in the page. --Toksoz (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what your text has to do with the deletion rationale. There is no critical discussion about the cover in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So what is your own motivation considering your back-up tools through "WP:NFCC#8" and "WP:NFCC#10c"? Please be more specific.

I need to clarify the case a bit more in this way: Please check Occupy Wall Street's poster created by Adbusters. People in the very beginning [September 2011] were not only the 99%ers. There were many, many different political tendencies in the protest [at the beginning] but day by day one [or more than one group] became more dominant so this 99%ers are among them.

Please note that I gave the OWS's poster as an example because I don't know your own motivation.

I, personally, support the OWS movement. But as a wiki user, "neutrality" is much more important: There must be more covers about the movement; not only Adbuster's viewpoint.

I request you to be more specific. --Toksoz (talk) 16:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• delete clear case of decorative use of a magazine cover. The images adds nothing relevant to the understanding of the article. --damiens.rf 17:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dear Stefan2, damiens.rf and anyone who will participate in this discussion stream, please be more specific. Please write down clearer what your own motivation is within or without "WP:NFCC#8" and "WP:NFCC#10c" --Toksoz (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It fails WP:NFCC#8. What does this image adds to the reader's understanding of the 1980 Turkish coup d'état? --damiens.rf 19:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The image represents those who made the coup: Army. And what does this image adds to the reader's understanding of the Occupy Wall Street? --Toksoz (talk) 19:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess that's some kind of official image of the article's subject. I'm not sure. Again, can you explain what this magazine cover adds to the reader's understanding of the 1980 Turkish coup d'état? --damiens.rf 21:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Here is the point, damiens.rf. If you can explain that "some kind" part in your sentence, then I can explain what the Newsweek cover adds to the reader's understanding of the 1980 Turkish coup d'état.

Please note that I am not trying to make "ad hominem" here, I am not trying to make this discussion longer and longer.

There are many blurry sides of these images, covers, etc. in the wikipedia world. And I particularly pointed out that this Adbusters' OWS poster and the Newsweek cover in the 1980 coup have the same blurry effect.

Honestly speaking; you, Stefan2, I or anyone else will not be able to figure out what to do about these images in a fixed time.

If this discussion stream evolves into a kind of "voting" manner to decide on the existence of the images in the wiki world, I will continue to oppose [to delete] until there appear a handful of rational evidence.

So what are those "rational" attitudes to make real evidence? ; I don't know as you don't know what that "some kind" part in your sentence stands for.

But I know one thing; "voting" does not bring the genuine solution. --Toksoz (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete based on use in 1980 Turkish coup d'état which is primarily decorative. If kept, remove from List of Chiefs of the Turkish General Staff where it is unquestionably inappropriate as the use of a magazine cover in lieu of a photograph of a person on the cover. ✄ (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Check again "the 1980 Turkish coup d'état" page. I re-wrote the segment under the Newsweek cover as "The Chief of the Turkish General Staff between 1978 and 1983, Kenan Evren, assumed the post by leading the coup." So I hope, this info makes a little progress on what this cover adds to the reader's understanding of the coup.

If the explanation is still inappropriate, you can change/remove the image's position from the irrelevant categories of the wikipedia. You are right User:✄Stifle, the Newsweek cover is not appropriate in the List of Chiefs of the Turkish General Staff; there should be, at least, an official photograph taken by the government or a common photograph which does not contain his involvements and works done in his tenure. Therefore, I will re-upload this picture in the English wikipedia to change the Newsweek-cover from the list you provided.

But "the Newsweek cover" must stay in the coup page as I wrote the explanation above. --Toksoz (talk) 11:14, 14 January 2014 (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⚡ 00:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hurriyet 12 eylul 1980.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adoniscik (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: the cover isn't critically discussed in the article. Stefan2 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per nom.--Rapsar (talk) 19:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Please read the reasons written for the Newsweek cover above. Same motivations for the Hurriyet cover. --Toksoz (talk) 19:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, decorative fair use. ✄ (talk) 10:25, 14 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 13 January 2014 (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⚡ 00:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Graham, Will.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jonesy702 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFG: non-free gallery. Fails WP:NFCC#3a: only one character image is needed. Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - depicts multiple actors portraying the same character in different films and tv shows. The picture is to illustrate the article and only used for this. Jonesy702 (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing is that WP:NFCC#3a only permits a picture of one of the actors. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read the article, but can't see where it says that? Jonesy702 (talk) 23:30, 21 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ebenezer Ako-Adjei.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Osy (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 13 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Belt Cena US-1-.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nejibana17 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2014 (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⚡ 00:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:One of the early UK users of the first Pye Telecom two-way mobile radio.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PaulaMcKenna1985 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image isn't critically discussed, but the visual representation of the product in use informs the reader in a way the text cannot (what a radio looked like, how the user used it, and the context of 1940s clothing and vehicle are not fully replaceable by text.) In my opinion, this is enough to satisfy #8. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't discuss what the product looked like, so that is irrelevant for the understanding of the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2014 (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⚡ 00:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:The first Pye Telecom two-way radio base station.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PaulaMcKenna1985 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As I said for the user photo above, the image itself isn't critically discussed, but the radio is. The visual representation of the product in use informs the reader in a way the text cannot (in this case what a radio looked like, and how it was installed in a vehicle are not fully replaceable by text.) In my opinion, this is enough to satisfy #8. A known extant faithful installation (for example in a musuem or in a vintage vehicle) where a new photograph could be taken would make this replaceable. Does this exist? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 21:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't discuss what the product looked like, so that is irrelevant for the understanding of the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am speaking to aiding the understanding of the subject of the article. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:44, 19 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stefan2 (talk) 14:50, 13 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alive app appstore ranking.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Subirkumarsingh (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: the top chart isn't critically discussed. Stefan2 (talk) 15:00, 13 January 2014 (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: deleted - there needs to be a rationale for ALL of the images (20 I counted) as there is only a technical difference between a collage of 20 images and 20 separate. I can't see any argument below for why all, rather than one or a selection of few, of these non-free images are needed. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:American Broadcasting Company logos.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SethAllen623 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFG: non-free gallery. Stefan2 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This file does not follow the traditional format of a gallery, which is a repository for multiple image files: rather, it is a single image file that uses visual imagery to illustrate the network's on-screen identification over the years. If all these logos were explained in detail using text alone, the result would be significantly shoehorning content into the corresponding article that most Wikipedia editors would deem as unencyclopedic. Individual files for all of the network's visual identification cards would definitely be in excess violation of our non-free content criteria, particularly NFCC #3 which states that multiple non-free media files are not used if one such file can convey equivalent significant information. Aside from the gallery policy you brought up, this image is intended to comply with the main non-free content criteria and the fair use provisions of United States copyright law, which are the final basis for all uses of non-free content on Wikipedia. So, there is no need for this image to be deleted, as it serves its intended purpose on Wikipedia. --Seth Allen (talk) 17:11, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
  • See WP:MONTAGE. Combining multiple images in this way is no different to using any other kind of gallery format. There is also no sourced critical discussion about the individual logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So even montages are considered a gallery format... I see that now. And yet, most of these are nothing more than identification cards showing the different ways in which the ABC Circle logo has been presented on-air over the years. Mere network IDs are not supposed to be treated as encyclopedic content. The existence of these identification cards can be verified by this page (I do not consider it a fansite or a user-generated page, so I see it as at least reliable), but the textual discussion of them, even there, is to some extent limited. No need for these in this encyclopedia; I guess this really has a need to be deleted, and if the same kind of montage had been used to discuss the visual identity evolution of any other television network (such as CBS, NBC, or any of the minor broadcast networks), I suppose it would also be subjected to discussion and eventual deletion. --Seth Allen (talk) 23:26, January 13, 2014 (UTC)
• Keep this is carefully designed and discussed in the 'Visual identity' section article in detail, and uses the minimum number and resolution of images. I don't understand the appeal to WP:NFG which says that each gallery should be dealt with case by case. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:02, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Compare with WP:NFLISTS: if you have a list of logos, then you can't include pictures of all of them. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't all of them. There must be hundreds of idents and other logos of ABC. These are merely a selection of significant ones. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:47, 19 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sangster's.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Darth007 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Claimed to be a "logo", but is a bottle. ViperSnake151  Talk  16:27, 13 January 2014 (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⚡ 00:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Luis Muñoz Marín.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jmundo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We have free images of this guy. damiens.rf 16:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and Advise. Advise to the nominator Mr. Damiens: Do not use language ("this guy") that may be considered demeaning or offensive to others. Luis Muñoz Marín is not a "guy", he is the former honorable Governor of Puerto Rico. Your uncivility is under scrutiny at WP:ANI already. Please watch your language. Thank you. Mercy11 (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is one free image of Luis Muñoz Marín available already under OTRS ticket. Mercy11 (talk) 03:27, 14 January 2014 (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⚡ 00:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think that a leaked picture does not belong to Wikipedia. Stryn (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image is on every website article about the phone, and is a useful addition to the article. It's been here for a month, and has not done any harm. Leaks may be the only images of the phone we get to see, due to Microsoft's impending acquisition of Nokia. --RaviC (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So? If it's on every website it does not mean that it's suitable to Wikipedia. Wikipedia does not allow every kind of images. It's not an official image of the phone. We don't need to hurry, just wait for the official pictures. --Stryn (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is the official image. @evleaks, through his sources, always leaks the official press photos. I don't remember any policy at Wikipedia of not hosting leaked images. If there is such a policy, then I agree, it should be removed. Finally, whether it will actually come out is any one's guess, as the MS acquisition could be closed at any moment once China has green lighted the move. --RaviC (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fails WP:NFCC in Nokia. That article is not specifically about this model, and can easily be sufficiently illustrated by showing models which are available on the market. The image seems OK in Nokia Normandy; the model is not available on the market, and there do not seem to be other images available. However, if AfD closes as delete, then we can't keep the image. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:54, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#4. Stifle (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that makes sense. Using that guideline, we can replace the press image with one of one of the leaked images of a working prototype taken by the Weibo users, since the individual who has taken the photo (and is thus the copyright holder) has "published or publicly displayed outside Wikipedia". --RaviC (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Howard Markel, black and white photograph.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WolverineHistorian (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Subject Howard Markel is alive and hence free image is quite possible to be available. In such case, the rationale doesn't really provide any strong reason to keep the image failing WP:NFCC#8. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 18:16, 13 January 2014 (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 Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Source information is incomplete, and image is not necessary for the understanding of the article. It's just a poorly sourced non-free infobox decoration. damiens.rf 18:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Its crown copywrite as it was taken by the Royal Navy, if i remember correctly this image already survived an AFD when i created the article. Its rational for fair use is clearly listed on the talk page, all photographs of the battle would fall under crown copyright because the only people with cameras at the scene of the battle were royal navy personel. Therefore there is no public domain alternative to the photograph in question.XavierGreen (talk) 18:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We need verifiable source info even to be sure that this image really shows what you says it shows. But in any case, I fail to see how this picture helps in the understanding of the article. It fails WP:NFCC#8. --damiens.rf 20:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The picture shows royal navy rigid hull inflatable boats surrounding a surrendered pirate dhow. The average reader has no idea what an RHIB, a Dhow, or a somali pirate vessel looks like. The picture provides the reader with an accurate visual context of the aftermath of the action.XavierGreen (talk) 00:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

From the article's text, I would say it's not that important to know how a RHIB, a Dhow, or a somali pirate vessel looks like. But if we're really worried about it, there's still no reason to use non-free material to show what a Rigid-hulled inflatable boat, a Dhow or a somali pirate boat looks like. We have free alternatives. --damiens.rf 12:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are no free alternatives as to what this particular piratical vessel looks like. There are also virtually no free images (i personally don't know of any) depicting the action of pirates surrendering to the royal navy. Given that this was the first surface action with fatalities fought by the royal navy since the Falklands War, i think it is important to have an image of the engagement depicted in the article.XavierGreen (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does the reader need to know how exactly this particular piratical vessel looked like to fully understand the topic about that event? How the particularities of this vessel were relevant to the event? And also, why does the reader need to see a photo of the engagement to understand the event?

While a photo does no harm to the understanding, by being non-free material, it should more essential for the understanding of the article. And a photo of the boats at the sea are not. I don't have much difficult to understand articles about 17th century piracy incidents, despite the lack of photos. --damiens.rf 13:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Following your logic, we wouldn't have the 1000s of FU portrait face images we have in bio articles simply because "the reader need [not] know how exactly this particular [person] looked like to fully understand the topic about [him/her]". Or we might have FU face images of only those people whose faces say something about the article (like, say, Scarface). And we all know that is just not the case. Mercy11 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is essential to have a picture, the word dhow can refer to vessels of many different sizes from large open ocean going vessels to small coastal ones. This action was unusual in that rather than having a firefight with a small open speedboat as previous actions had, this one saw a larger dhow engage british forces. As for 17th century piracy incidents, the reader is left largely unaware as to the exact nature of the vessel without an accurate image. If photos did exist of the vessels (they obviously don't in virtually all instances as photography was not invented until the 1800's) in question it would be of great use to the reader in fully understanding the events that took place in the article. No matter how lengthy a description is, it is still by no means more accurate than an actual photograph of what is being described. I also agree that the same logic applied to bio articles applies here.XavierGreen (talk) 02:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The source information is complete as all the fields required are populated. It is debatable that the image is "not necessary to the understanding of the article" since images do add to the appreciation of any textual description. It certainly isn't "decoration", as claimed, since the image is about and directly relates to the subject of the article. The fact that it is non-free is inconsequential as it is presumably the only such image available and it is correctly licensed under FU provisions. Mercy11 (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure images do add to the appreciation of any textual description, but our criteria for non-free content usage is a little bit stricter. Also, being "the only such image available" just covers one of the criterion, and not the one that is being disputed here. --damiens.rf 14:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, Wikipedia NFC is a "little bit stricter", but a little bit stricter than what??? The answer is a little bit stricter than US copyright law. It is not a "little bit stricter" than some imaginary threshold of appreciation of the event set personally by an individual nominator and independent of the community. We need to diffrentiate between those two scenarios so that a delete nomination can be judged fairly. Mercy11 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8 as the image does not add to readers' understanding of the article and/or its removal would not be detrimental to that understanding. ✄ (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Debatable, POV. Mercy11 (talk) 02:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you saying the above comment violates WP:POV? Would you elaborate on that? (sorry if I misunderstood you). --damiens.rf 14:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:POV (in wikilinks and preceeded by "WP", as you used it) has a very specific meaning at WP. Whereas POV as I used it means "debatable". You used the "WP:POV" format, not me. Mercy11 (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:
  • It is dubious whether the image satisfies WP:NFCC#8. I think that the article would be just as readable without this image.
  • It is dubious whether the image satisfies WP:NFCC#2 due to different sources being given on different pages:
    1. [1] = the Ministry of Defence of some unspecified country (probably the UK)
    2. [2] = Press Association (PA)
    3. [3] = Agence France-Presse (AFP)

  If the correct source is PA or AFP, then the image fails WP:NFCC#2. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image was produced by the British Royal Navy, it was given out in press packets to the media when the action occured (hence why it can be found on various different news pages. The appropriate details are listed on its page.XavierGreen (talk) 02:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That, in effect, puts it in the Public Domain. Go ahead and per instructions at the image's nomination page, change its statuts to "PD". Mercy11 (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No Mercy11, I don't think government press packs are (in effect) public domain, except (usually) the US federal government. ((Non-free Crown copyright)) probably applies here, but really we should get hold of the original press pack to check, rather than lift it from a newspaper site, as the terms offered there may be different. The photo could even have been taken by an onboard civilian press photographer. If no-one finds the original source and the republication terms, then it should be deleted, as publication here may harm a photographer's commercial interests. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 19:56, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It was taken by the government. The telegraph, which is a british publication cited the ministry of defense (ie the royal navy) as the photographer.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by XavierGreen (talk • contribs) 03:04, 8 February 2014‎

That helps a lot XavierGreen. We now need to find out which set of terms this is offered under, before we can resolve NfCC#2 commercial opportunities. See http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/Copyright.fwx Apart from that I am convinced it satisfies all the other NFCC requirements, including 'contextual signficance'. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Result This is Open Government License at higher resolution!!!! photo download page at MOD Full marks to the mandarins for free content! Someone please do the relevant upload and tag --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 11:30, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Better link? http://www.defenceimagery.mod.uk/fotoweb/Grid.fwx?SF_GROUP1_BOOLEAN=and&SF_FIELD1_GROUP=1&SF_FIELD1_MATCHTYPE=exact&SF_FIELD1=45149776.jpg --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:29, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete already there commons:File:Pirates Surrender to Royal Marine Boarding Teams MOD 45149776.jpg so I tagged it for speedy ((Now Commons)). --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy was declined "NowCommons declined; different crop and tint". But we shouldn't rely on newspapers to do our retouching, as it can create a new derivative copyright in the UK. Wikimedians should retouch ourselves. Retouch doesn't satisfy non-free content criteria, so delete. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:20, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be eligible for F8, a file must be identical in every way, excepting metadata and files of the same format of lower resolution. My decline of the F8 was thus procedural, and I have made no comment as to whether it should be deleted here. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:35, 9 February 2014 (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⚡ 00:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:TuesdayNightMusicClub-Alternate.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mixplusik (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid FUR--substantially similar to standard cover. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

A better version of this image is available at commons. This one is orphan. damiens.rf 19:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is nothing wrong with the image (licensing, etc) per se. Having more that one PD image of thh same individual but from two different dates is useful - perhaps the text can be expanded later to include that epoch in his life, etc. The fact it is an orphan has never been positively proven to be a rationale for deletion, and it take much more effort to upload a PD image than it does to nominate it for deletion. "Better version" is subjective and "in the eyes of the beholder." A "Keep", IMO. Mercy11 (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Indeed, at first I though it was two versions of the same picture, but I was wrong. They are similar but different pictures. This one should just be copied to commons. --damiens.rf 12:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Commons. ✄ (talk) 10:27, 14 January 2014 (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⚡ 00:00, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clem.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We don't have enough information about this image copyright status. The "source information" is just a link to a webpage hosted by webshoting service tripod.com. damiens.rf 20:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: How are any of those nomination claims any reason to delete it? Mercy11 (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to know the copyright status of a photography before claiming fair use. WP:NFCC#10 covers that. --damiens.rf 13:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The image is properly sourced as it can be seen. Links are acceptable and, in fact, encouraged field population methods. Those two things is all that matters here. The nominator appear to hold a grinch against tripod, without giving any evidence why he doesn't like them when we are in the age of cloud computing, and web hosting is ancient and medieval history by comparison. Mercy11 (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The image is not properly sourced at all. We need to know where the photography originally came from. It's author and/or current copyright holder is important to let us know if the image passes WP:NFCC#2, for instance. We currently just have a broken link to a website that once used the image.

  I fail to understand your cloud-computing argument. The problem with Tripod pages is that anyone could upload anything there. A link to a tripod page give us no information about the image's origin or copyright status. It just says where the Wikipedian found the image. --damiens.rf 13:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - for now, to see if the uploader can remember where he uploaded it from. Mercy11 (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it is likely from its age and low quality that this is a copyright expired anonymous, abandoned or not-renewed work, but we don't know and the burden is on the uploader to provide proper sourcing (what archive has the original, any way to trace who the photographer was or original publication date) - and if it turns out to be a previously unpublished work, then copyright will last for many decades yet. Uploader now has had 3 weeks to contact the tripod site owner, so we can guess that their research has drawn a blank.--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:05, 8 February 2014 (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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:12, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lucian Adams.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We have free images of this guy. We don't need to use this non-free picture to decorate those articles. damiens.rf 20:13, 13 January 2014 (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 latest revision only - Peripitus (Talk) 22:07, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marcario Garcia.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No evidence this drawing is "the work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee". The source site claims copyright. damiens.rf 20:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I cannot see where the site in question claims copyright. Even if it did, it would be an faulty claim anyway because all the other pics there are of US soldiers in their standard Armed Forces portrait. The site cannot claim copyright over US Government standard armed forces PD images. Mercy11 (talk) 01:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The source site clearly says "Copyright © 1999 - 2013 HomeOfHeroes.com - All Rights Reserved". And when we click on the image, we see they saying "Photo Courtesy of HomeOfHeroes.com" and even "ALL RIGHTS RESERVED - If you reproduce the above photograph, please credit: HomeOfHeroes.com".

  If this is a standard Armed Forces portrait, we should find and use the reference that says so (like a .mil website using the image). --damiens.rf 13:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Use the following instead which are 100% sure public domain: [5] [6] —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. I have uploaded a public domain version of this very same file. We need an administrator to delete the file history though 'cuz the other derivative works are not in public domain. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 16:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work, Ahnoneemoos! Now just the old revisions should be deleted. By the way, that was really weird from the homeofheroes.com website... I'll take a look in other files from this source. --damiens.rf 18:10, 14 January 2014 (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 for the new article on the single - Peripitus (Talk) 22:05, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:V S J Record Cover.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Decorative album cover. damiens.rf 20:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There is nothing "decorative" about an album cover that's used to illustrate the subject of the article in question. Mercy11 (talk) 02:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it just me, or you just created the "article in question" and pasted the photo there? It was being used to decorate a section in another article by the time I nominated it for deletion. --damiens.rf 13:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The photo is surgically precise: it shows both the song (En Mi Viejo San Juan) and the exact individual (Noel Estrada) who composed it. As such it exactly portrays the subject matter of the article En Mi Viejo San Juan. It is not decorative, it is precisely illustrative of the subject matter. Also, please note that this is not a discography -- it is one article, about one song, that is perfectly illustrated by this one photo. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 04:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is standard that an image of an album/single cover can be used in the article about that album/single. ✄ (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The argument presented by Nelsondenis248 tells it all. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFCC#10c: the FUR is for the wrong article. Would be acceptable in the article in which it currently is used if someone writes a proper FUR, though. Unsuitable in the article indicated in the FUR, see footnote to WP:NFCI §1. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent observation Stefan. That problem, however, is now a moot point. Per WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM, that oversight was rectified. Mercy11 (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is the photo a cover of the album with the same name or the cover of the single? Erick (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not the uploader, but several factors lead me to believe it is the photo of a single. Some of those factors are: Estrada made his living as a composer not a singer, and this was - to my knowlegde - his only recording as a singer; LP albums in Puerto Rico at the time (1943) were extrememly rare, but not so with singles (this didn't change until the late 1960s); the cover does not show any other songs (of course not conclusive by itself, but still worth noting). Mercy11 (talk) 03:20, 5 February 2014 (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: deleted 2 revisions, kept the latest - Peripitus (Talk) 22:02, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Felix-longoria-photo-01.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Not enough reason to believe this photo "is a work of a U.S. Army soldier or employee". Source is just a random webiste. damiens.rf 20:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep with caveat. Replaced with [7] which was retrieved from [8] which makes it 100% public domain. File history must be deleted however. —Ahnoneemoos (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good work. Only older versions should be deleted now. --damiens.rf 14:14, 15 January 2014 (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⚡ 23:04, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

No reason to believe this image is a work of a United States Department of State employee. Source is a broken link to an Spanish site. damiens.rf 20:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Broken link wasn't broken at one time. Failure of nominator to do his homework. Use the WayBack engine first; then nominate if that had failed. A clear WP:AGF policy violation. Mercy11 (talk) 02:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • What? --damiens.rf 13:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Working link here. Looks like a photo from a radio interview, so conceivable to assume that the photographer might have been someone who was working for the radio station. Insufficient evidence that the photographer was employed by the US government. One of the images on the page (the poster for The Road (2009 film)) is clearly not a government work. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:15, 18 January 2014 (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: Deleted - poor sourcing (I am sure some diligence could find the copyright holder/photographer), no non-free rationales for the articles it is used in, Mercy11 has now changed the image to an incorrect licence (PD-1923 for a far younger image). Peripitus (Talk) 22:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albizu2 in prison.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jmundo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unnecessary non-free image of an important event. The image is not necessary to understand that this guy was arrested. Also, source information is incomplete. damiens.rf 20:37, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The photo is PD. An iconic photo whose unknown author has been lost to history due to political repression in Puerto Rico at the time (See, e.g., Puerto Rico Gag Law.) Photo has no known author and as such its copyright has never been assessed by anyone. Mercy11 (talk) 02:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's PD, it can be kept. --damiens.rf 14:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The photo has important historical value, because it shows the physical condition of Albizu Campos during his imprisonment at La Princesa penitentiary. Campos was subjected to horrific treatment which led to his cerebral thrombosis on March 27, 1956. A detailed treatment of this subject matter (with excellent footnotes) appears here: [9]. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The picture is historical and iconic. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's really an historical and iconic picture, it should be kept and discussed in the article. With references, of course. Is this picture actually discussed in some texts that could be used as reliable sources? --damiens.rf 14:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFCC#10c in all articles in which it is used. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Those using it in articles must write Fair Use Rationales for each article (criterion 10). This documents the subject's imprisonment in ways that text cannot. Finally, is the author really unknown? I tracked down the source web page and it doesn't say where that professor got the photo from.[10] It would be great to get a GLAM expert to research properly sourced photos of this controversial and poorly documented event. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 09:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F8 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:05, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-free image used to decorate some articles. We don't need to see this lady being arrested to understand she was arrested. damiens.rf 20:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I re-sized and re-positioned the photo within the Lolita Lebron article to render it less "decorative." Please note however, that on its own merit, this is not a "decorative" photo. It documents a dramatic political and historical moment, which is also the turning point in this woman's life. Whether one agrees with her politics or not - the photo captures and demonstrates a key moment, which goes to the core of the article in which it (the photo) appears. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can agree that the photo depicts an historical moment. But still, I don't see why would we need to use non-free imagery to educate our readers about that historical moment. --damiens.rf 14:14, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because a free equivalent is not available nor possible, because the subject as well as all the (older than her) policemen there are all dead, so a skit replacement -even if we were willing to do one- would not be possible. Mercy11 (talk) 02:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We already have an image showing what she looks like. And, while I agree that we could not reproduce a picture of her, with those policemen, I wonder why would we want to do that? The relevant on-topic information this image contains is already conveyed by the article's (free) text. --damiens.rf 14:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Except that her article wouldn't exist if she had not attacked Congress and been arrested. As such the "under arrest" image is central to the fundamental existence of the article - the image is the article. BTW, I can't remember the "free text" rebuttal you are using exists anywhere in Wikipedia policies. Mercy11 (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not arguing for the mentioning of her arrest (an historic event) to be removed from Wikipedia. I'm arguing for the removal of a non-free photo of the arrest, that is not an historic image, as her article would exist regardless of the existence of the photo. --damiens.rf 19:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Damiens, the comment right below this one (by Jmundo) informed us that this photo is housed in the Library of Congress. This comment by Jmundo was posted nearly 27 hours before yours. Please take this information into account, before stating that the photo "is not an historic image." Thank you. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 21:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The historical image is housed in the Library of Congress. There is no loss of commercial opportunities because "AP/Wide World does not control the copying of AP/Wide World images housed in the Library of Congress". Furthermore the Library clearly allows the use of this image under "fair use". [11]--Jmundo (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if it passes WP:NFCC#2, this is not the criterion being disputed in this nomination. --damiens.rf 14:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Besides, what the LOC says about this photo is that it's part of a collection where "the majority of the photographs were gathered from diverse sources including wire services, commercial photo studios, publicity photo distributors, and amateur photographers. These photographs may be restricted by copyright". But still, the nomination is about another point. --damiens.rf 14:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please note the specific description of this file. The image is an AP photograph housed in LOC, more precise it belongs to the New York World-Telegram Collection. According to LOC:"In an attempt to determine if AP/Wide World registered any copyrights and if those copyrights were renewed, Specialists in the Prints and Photographs Division of the Library of Congress searched the Copyright Office files. It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed." We even host one image from the collection as a feature picture [12]. --Jmundo (talk) 00:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This photo is from the "New York World-Telegram & Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection" and not from "AP/Wide World", as implied wrongly in the file description page at Wikipedia. See the file description at LOC for the real information.

Different rules and concerns apply to each collection (See Rights and Restrictions for AP/Wide World and Rights and Restrictions for New York World...)

In any case, being part of any of these collections does not qualify an image as free (or historic). The Louis Armstrong picture we host is indeed from "Ap/Wide World", but is free because LOC says specifically about it "No copyright restriction known. Staff photographer reproduction rights transferred to Library of Congress through Instrument of Gift"[13]. --damiens.rf 14:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is an AP photo from the New York World Collection. Please read your own link (the notes section). I'm done arguing with you,I suggest that in the future you have more care and diligence when nominating files for deletion. This is not a game. --Jmundo (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I DID say the photo was from the "New York World..." collection. What is your problem? --damiens.rf 15:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The image is of a historical moment. This is one picture that shows us what a thousand words can't. Tony the Marine (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being a picture of a historical moment does not fulfills our criteria for non-free content acceptability. WP:ITSHISTORIC explains that better than I could. --damiens.rf 14:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Could the nominator please say which NFCC this image does not meet in their opinion? As for NFCC#8, this image documents the incident in a way that complements text, by allowing the viewer to gain an impression of the clothing and uniforms, demeanour and physical appearance of the subjects. It is not decorative. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 15:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Damiens, are you working with a team of wikibuddies behind the scenes when you say "our" criteria? Because so far as I can read here the only one arguing in favor of deleting this photo is one person - you. If I remember my 3rd grade English grammar correctly, "we" is for more than 1, and "[it] does not fulfill my criteria" is for 1, you alone. Mercy11 (talk) 16:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Mercy11, please assume good faith. "Our criteria" are the ten criteria of the English Wikipedia community and are listed at WP:NFCC.
• Since AP would have had to register copyright renewal in 1981/1982, I think that this statement may make this discussion moot: "It was found that only a few images were registered for copyright and those copyrights were not renewed". I see little risk in keeping this image as a free public domain image. My reading of the LOC's search is that this photo probably went into the public domain in 1982.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 16:55, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • I moved it to Wikimedia Commons commons:File:Lolita Lebron.jpg --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8: not critically discussed. We already have another image in the infobox, and we can't use two per WP:NFCC#3a. Also fails WP:NFCC#10c in one article. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm somewhat persuaded that this image is free per Hroðulf's reasoning above. The image is part of the New York World-Telegram & Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection and the AP images contained therein are, according to the Library of Congress, probably not under copyright because the copyright wasn't renewed. If that's the case then the fair-use questions are irrelevant. Mackensen (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because, from the above discussion, it seems that the photo is free and it is available on Commons. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2014 (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: Deleted as replaceable fair use. It strikes me that an editor of Wikipedia could create a new (free) image that would be equally as valid a depoction as this copyrighted one - Peripitus (Talk)

File:JUAN BOBO I Can Read book cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Nelsondenis248 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

replaceable non-free image. the article says that " For nearly two centuries a vast collection of books, songs, riddles and folktales have developed around him". Why do we need to use a non-free book cover? damiens.rf 22:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The image has a valid license. Its usage is appropriate and properly illustrates the overall article. Nelsondenis248 (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:. The image is used only to depict the subject of the article - entirely within FU law. Copyright FU policy doesn't go by what an article says, so any judgment made based on what a Wikipedia editor wrote is poor rationale, poor use of judgment and just plain silly. The fact that matters here is that the image is FU, that it has an appropriate licensing rationale as it acknowlegdes and admits that it is copyrighted, that its license and licensing comply with all terms and policies, and it rightfully demands use under FU provisions. Mercy11 (talk) 02:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject of the article is a two-hundred years old folkloric figure. Why do we need copyrighted protected non-free material to depict that? --damiens.rf 14:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not sure I follow you. Is your issue with the "folkloric figure" element or with the "200 year old" element? That is, are you saying it would be OK if it was a non-folkloric 200 year old figure, or are you saying it would be OK if it was a more recent folkloric figure? Mercy11 (talk) 17:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • If it's an "200 year old folkloric figure", it's possible to illustrate it with free alternatives. --damiens.rf 19:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Poor Juan Bobo, loved by Puerto Ricans - as Nelson states "the image has a valid license." Tony the Marine (talk) 19:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saying it "has a valid license", even twice, doesn't covers the problems raised in the nomination. Please, Tony and Nelson, why do we need to use copyrighted protected non-free material to depict a two-hundred years old folkloric figure? --damiens.rf 14:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is replaceable. Since we are making a free encyclopedia, we don't use FU images where they are replaceable by free images. There must be countless images of Juan Bobo that are out of copyright, or that can be drawn anew and contributed to the commons. It may be useful to represent the kind of 20th/21st century books that feature the character, but for this, someone can visit to a bookshop or library, scatter relevant books on a table, and photograph them, to create a new and probably free image. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 14:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If the character has been around for so long, then there are necessarily images available which are no longer in copyright. Stifle (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2014 (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.