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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albanian flag.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Alban marku (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

superseded by File:Flag of Albania.svg Jon Kolbert (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:08, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Photo of AC 759 near landing on taxiway at SFO.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jimmyhtz (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

To be honest I am not sure about the copyright status of this. As I posted on the talk page, from the NTSB website [1]:

In the case of copyrighted photographs, illustrations or other pictorial materials and images, although the NTSB may have placed the image in an NTSB public domain report, recommendation or other document, the NTSB's use does not constitute permission for the public, in turn, to use the material without complying with copyright laws. It is the user's responsibility to contact copyright holders and obtain permission to use the material. Therefore, with the exception of photographs, illustrations, and other pictorial materials and images created by the NTSB, copyrighted photographs, illustrations and other pictorial materials and images found on the NTSB web site should not be reused without permission.

This image comes from the report [2] where it has the appelation

The top diagram is from Harris Symphony OpsVue radar track data analysis, and the bottom picture is from the SFO airport video.

So it is not clear to me that this image is actually the work of the NTSB, thus not clear to me that it is indeed in the public domain. CapitalSasha ~ talk 04:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I concur with CapitalSasha's analysis. The copyright status of the image is, at best, unclear. That it appears in an NTSB report does not make it a work of the federal government. It is a common and understandable mistake that our volunteers make from time to time that since something is found on a government website, it must be free. We see this with FBI wanted posters too that use local jurisdiction booking photos for FBI purposes. Most jurisdictions retain rights to those images. We have no evidence here that the images that comprise this composite were both released into the public domain (as would be the case with most federal government works). Therefore, we must assume they are still under copyright. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote on the talk page, I emailed the NTSB for clarification. But in the absense of the response from them I think your proposal for the course of action is correct. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:46, 10 August 2017 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:Young Ismail Agha, ten days after repatriation from Guantanamo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Geo Swan (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

I uploaded this image, and I am taking the unusual step of listing it here myself to forestall edit warring. The individual who first removed it from Muhammad Ismail Agha keeps removing, keeps claiming, to the best of my understanding, that it is such an obvious lapse from WP:NFCC that they don't have to explicitly say which NFCC criteria it doesn't measure up to.

Administrator Explicit urged exciser (twice [3] [4]) to initiate an FFD discussion themselves, but they preferred to keep excising the image from the article.

In my initial fair use rationale I explained that Agha's age was in dispute. It was an important issue as the USA confined youths with adults in Guantanamo, which was a violation of international law. In my opinion no verbal description is a substitute for an image, where readers could form their own opinion as to how young he looks.

In dicussions like this those favoring delete argue that, when an individual isn't dead, it would be theoretically possible for a wikipedia volunteer to travel to where the individual lived, locate his or her home, stalk him like a paparazzi, and the post a freely distributable image. Well, in this particular case: (1) Any wikipedia volunteer who flew to Kandahar, to find Agha, would be on a suicide mission; (2) Any image taken of him after 2004 won't capture how young he looked in 2004; (3) Since there hasn't been any further reporting about him, from Afghanistan, since 2004, there is good chance he was KIA. Geo Swan (talk) 11:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the other involved user, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, and paraphrasing my comments from the talkpage.

I don't see a particularly young boy when I see that image - I'd have guessed he was significantly over 15. And there's a reasonable amount of clarity about his age - DoD documents claim he was born in 1988, journalists who interviewed him after his release indicate he was 13 in December 2002 and either 14 or 15 in Feb 2004, so it's not really a big deal. This is more of a historic thing, where the DoD previously apparently claimed he was born in 1984 (conveniently making him 18 on capture), but those days are behind us now, and the article makes no claim that he was born then. So I don't see that this creates a pressing need to use a non-free image of him. Bromley86 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this non-free image adds anything to the article. The rationale that "Ismail Agha's age remains in dispute. This image allows reader to form their own opinion. US forces, in Afghanistan, maintained a "kill or capture list". Given that there has been no on-site reporting of this individual, since 2004, there is a strong possibility he is dead." is full of assumptions and biases. Additionally, the source is incorrect and should be updated to reflect the actual news paper it was taken from. Allowing the reader to form their own opinion is problematic rationale as the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide facts not quasi-trivia. I believe this would fall under #7 on the unacceptable uses of images "A photo from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article.". The image is not the subject of sourced commentary. Also please comment on the content not the editors from now on. CommotioCerebri (talk) 16:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Per the previous two comments and because "helpful" in forming an opinion about a controversy mentioned in the text does not even approach being a valid NFCC rationale. "This picture makes you more likely to agree with me in a political dispute involving the article subject" has nothing to do with our nonfree use policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 13:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Any speculation about his death is just that; speculation. We have no idea if he is alive or dead. His last known status was alive, therefore we presume he is alive. Since he is alive, any picture of him must exceed WP:NFCC #1 and Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy. With few exceptions, we do not permit the use of non-free images for illustration purposes of living people. If this image were of historical importance, we might use it. But, that's not the case here. The prose of the article does not discuss the image, much less discussing the image using reliable sources to support it. The argument the image is needed to support discussion of a dispute about minor children being held with adults at Guantanamo fails on multiple counts; first, there is no such dispute discussed in the article (much less with reliable sources), and second the image does nothing to convey age. We have no way of verifying his age to the granularity level necessary to support such a discussion from a photograph. Thus, the image is useless to such a discussion, even if it did exist. The argument that we can not get a free image of him falls flat as well. The idea that going to Afghanistan to photograph Taliban as a "suicide mission" is provably false, as there are plenty of photos of Taliban out there. That we can't get a photo of him because he is dead is, as noted, just speculation. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:13, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the arguments given above unless it can be clearly shown in accordance with WP:BDP that this person is indeed dead and the file is being used per item 10 of WP:NFCI. This is something being discused as WP:BLPN#Allegedly dead BLP and WP:BLPN#Robert Conroy Goldston and it appears that the consensus on this is quite strong in favor of BDP. This means that Wikipedia policy tells use we need to treat Agha as still living until reliable sources tell us he isn't.

Simply wanting to use this photo for identification purposes is not going to comply with WP:NFCC#1 unless it can be demonstrated that this is one of the exceptions generally allowed per item 1 of WP:NFC#UUI. Moreover, WP:NFCC#8 asks us to use non-free content only when doing so will significantly improves the reader's understand of the article so that omitting the file would be detrimental to that understanding. Adding cited critical commentary of this image and how it shows that children were being detained as adults to the article would go a long way in justifying the file's non-free use per NFCC#1 and NFCC#8.

A non-free use rationale (nfur) is supposed explain how the particular use of a particular file in a particular article satisfies WP:NFCCP. Any claims made in the nfur should actually be covered in the article and supported by citations; otherwise, you can basically write whatever OR/SYN you want in a nfur and claim that non-free use is justified. In my opinion, trying to add WP:OR or WP:SYN to an article via an image is just as wrong as trying to add such things to the article as text. There's no real way to tell how old this person truly is from looking at the picture, and claiming it's needed so that readers can form their own opinion on his age is basically the definition of decorative use when it comes to the NFCCP, -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nonfree image in BLP. Also, we should always keep in mind that not having an image at all is also an acceptable outcome, and if taking a free one would currently be extremely difficult, we can wait. Of course if reliable sources confirm that he was in fact killed, that changes things, but speculation that he might have been does not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:56, 10 August 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) – Train2104 (t • c) 00:26, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

File:SDSS NGC 262 sdss.org.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bennoro (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log). 

Image data is claimed to be Non-commerical only. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, ShakespeareFan00

I added that image because NGC 262 is an important galaxy (said to be the biggest) and the photo that was there didn't show the "galaxy." I researched it in my small way and it appeared that it would be ok with everybody. After your question today I thought I'd ask the Sloan Survey what they thought so I sent a note to Dr. Michael Blanton, the current Director of SDSS. He replied that "SDSS rules don't, and never did, prevent Wikipedia from using the images." He added that the Sloan Survey changed their wording specifically so Wikipedia could use SDSS images. SDSS Wants you to use their images and a lot of websites post SDSS photos by correctly attributing them and "without getting specific permission."

Since you seem to be involved in helping to keep Wikipedia "copyright ok," please help me to help Wikipedia to change their policy or at least reconsider all this. Here's how: send an email address to bennoro at cs.com and I will forward you both of Dr. Blanton's emails. He seems quite emphatic that Wikipedia is, like all public arenas that desire images of the sky, a legitimate user of their amazing resource. For Wikipedia to reject it doesn't make sense to this user. The intent of the Sloan Survey is to be as public a source of information as is practical. While I am certain that you and others involved in preventing copyright infringement in Wikipedia are simply following the letter of the rules, this seems to me to be something that should be fixed. I look forward to getting your address so you can help to make this happen. Thanks! - Bennoro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bennoro (talk • contribs) 20:34, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The wording on the image page said Non-commercial use, which isn't "free" enough on Wikipedia. If you want to get Sloan Survey to grant appropriate permissions , you'd need to get them to talk to the relevant OTRS queue directly. Only emails from them sent directly would have any weight, I feel ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The image is usable under fair-use though as I am not sure it's possible for an equivalent replacement to be made by a Wikipedia contributor without a lot of effort. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:44, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The wording on the image page said Non-commercial use ..."

According to Dr. Blanton the SDSS policy was changed not long ago to "CC-BY" and can be found here: http://www.sdss.org/collaboration/#image-use Does that change anything? Thank You. Bennoro —Preceding undated comment added 20:04, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: @Bennoro: Yes it does! That statement from them places this image as CC-BY-4.0. I've updated the licensing on the image to reflect this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:34, 9 August 2017 (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 Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Equivalent media at Commons was free, Not a straight F8 given the caution expressed in the wording of the license here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2017 (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.