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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Imamhusayn.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Afghana (notify | contribs).

• no real source, appears to be a modern image Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Notes on the file indicate it is taken from a poster made in Turkey years ago. There is a collection of them at http://www.bektashi.net/beliefs-oniki-imam.html but not much that backs up the idea that this is a true image of the person, nor who its author is.

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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:2004 Washington gubernatorial results in depth.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Surachit (notify | contribs).

• Obsolete (see Image:2004 Washington gubernatorial results in depth.svg), low quality and contains an inaccuracy. --Surachit (talk) 06:12, 28 December 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:17 Panzerdivision.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EA210269 (notify | contribs).

• Unused image, replaced by File:17th Panzer Division (Germany).svg. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:32, 28 December 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blacktans.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jtdirl (notify | contribs).

• No evidence of Subject, Author, Date, Source, Copyright status, Provenance - i.e. unusable for any serious purpose Rcbutcher (talk) 09:26, 28 December 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Doncairnseqbag.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cloveious (notify | contribs).

• A non-free image of Don Cairns' sports bag does not seem to meet WP:NFCC#8 in any way, shape or form. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Whenicomearoundausingle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by StuckWithMeFan113 (notify | contribs).

• Secondary cover art for a single, with no mention of what makes it unique. Tagged as missing a rationale, but one of our over-helpful volunteers tagged with FurMe without paying attention to what the image actually is... (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's very different to the other cover; and the article makes apparent that this was because it was the cover for the "AU Single", which is described in the article and had a completely different track list. Jheald (talk) 15:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence whatsoever that this meets WP:NFCC#8 and for the purposes of demonstrating that the single was released with a picture cover (what else is it for?) one non-free image suffices so that this is not minimal use of non-free content either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes it is different, but I fail to see how it is important too the article. Rettetast (talk) 00:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a different release with a different tracklist. It passes WP:NFCC#8 on exactly the same grounds the other one does: it shows the primary identifying image for the different release. There is extensive precedent that the grounds on which we show alternate covers are (i) that the image must be different from the first in a way that is not easily conveyed in words; and (ii) that in context the second release is a significant release in its own right. This image -- for a release with a completely different tracklist -- passes both criteria. Jheald (talk) 11:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence that the difference in single covers is significant (actually no sources on the entire article). The article is about the single, not the various cover art versions. — Bility (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2010 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Divestiture.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by X570 (notify | contribs).

• This was uploaded and added to the Bell System divestiture article on 9 December. It's a low-quality JPEG depicting a combination of the pre-breakup AT&T/Bell logo and the post-breakup AT&T logo (each split down the middle by a jagged line), composing an arbitrary construct that fails to meaningfully illustrate the article's subject. This is not an actual company logo (contrary to the boilerplate text, which states that it "illustrate[s] the ... branding message" of an "organization" known as "Bell System divestiture"); it incorporates two copyrighted logos in an unflattering, unencyclopedic fashion (not, as claimed in the boilerplate text, one that "avoid[s] tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image"). Nonsensically, the article itself is listed as the image's source. —David Levy 16:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - But it could be cleaned up, it of poor quality (Also pepole need to stop using JPEG for stuff like this, logos etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Navigators (talk • contribs) 18:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  On what basis should the image be kept? How is it encyclopedic, and how is the fair-use rationale remotely valid? —David Levy 20:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see even an illustrative use for this, for one thing, it's the wrong half of the AT&T logo, since it's not the distinctive half. For another, just use the two logos, the Bell and the AT&T logo. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Another example of one of our volunteers getting a bit too overexcited with FurMe. It's a great tool 99.5% of the time, but it has the potential to create some great-looking nonsense as well. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:54, 30 December 2009 (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. Justifications for retaining fair use image are mainly for looks, which is not what fair use is intended for. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 19:45, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBC Two Copper 1991-1999.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwoohoo (notify | contribs).

• Not required within BBC Two 1991-2001 idents. Purpose fulfilled by other image. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 18:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The reason I think it's useful on that page is that this was the first time the BBC had deployed a family of idents. I think it is useful to show two such idents to allow readers to assess what artistic features were shared as family resemblance: most notably the 2 itself, and the colourscheme; as compared with the diversity in the scheme -- and thus to get a sense of the artistic unity that resulted. Two idents out of over 35 discussed seems not unreasonable, per WP:NFLISTS. Jheald (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The descriptions given seem sufficiently clear that one image would be all that could be justified under WP:NFCC #1 and #8, and perhaps not even that one. Editors who disagree may wish to address whatever lack they perceive in the descriptions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Without this, the first ident has no context, and the distinct but of-a-piece character of the idents is lost. Two are needed to convey the idea the BBC were going for with these. NFCC #1 is about whether a free equivalent exists, Angus, hard to see what relevance you think that has here. #8 is "Contextual significance" which is precisely the point here. 86.44.26.167 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Both images used in the article are sufficiently described in text already (the free replacement). No need for slightly different versions of the ident. If the the fact that "artistic features were shared as family resemblance" is notable, a source for that viewpoint should be found and subsequently noted in the article with text. — Bility (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 11:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Duke flexible batch broiler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jerem43 (notify | contribs).

• Boilerplate non-free content rationale claims this is an image which is not repeatable. But according to the article it is used in it seems to be the current model of "broiler" used in Burger King restaurants, so it should be replaceable. It also seems questionable whether this picture can add anything to the reader's understanding as WP:NFCC#8 requires. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - You would need to trespass at a Burger King and a get a picture of the unit that is located inside of one of their kitchens, an area which is closed to the public. This is in clear violation of policies stated on signs posted on the front doors of their restaurants stating "No Photographs or video"; any image claimed as free would be in clear violation of the company's IP rights. Any image created by an employee would violate corporate-employee confidentiality agreements as employees of major fast food are not allowed to divulge company secrets; any image created as such would also have IP issues because of that. Furthermore, the section of the article it is in is about the said broiler, so the image is appropriate. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Image is replaceable by a free version if indeed this is used by a Burger King restaurant. An employee could take a picture.--Rockfang (talk) 17:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please review the second half of my keep statement. Wikipedia has strict guidelines about using information that is considered a trade secret. Any image generated of this equipment in use inside a non-public space would be considered violating said published policies because Burger King has a posted statement about what it considers its intellectual property, which includes images of its proprietary equipment and operations. Why would an employee generated image be any different that a layman's? Again, any image generated by an employee would violate employee-employer confidentiality contracts. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Whether or not someone is authorised to take a picture or not is irrelevant to whether this image should be deleted or stay. It appears to be a utilitarian object, and as such if someone took a picture of it, and released it under a free license it should be fine. This discussion appears relevant. I understand that it is on Commons, but they are even stricter over there with the related guidelines and policies.--Rockfang (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obviously replaceable per Rockfang. Rettetast (talk) 00:32, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could someone please tell me how this is replaceable if the company states you cannot legally take a picture of it? Can anyone answer that? So far not a single contributor has stated how they intend to replace the image without violating Burger King's intellectual property. the device is not a utilitarian object, but a custom built piece of machinery that only BK uses. You cannot walk into a commercial kitchen supplier and buy this unit, only BK and its authorized franchisees can posses this piece of equipment. BK specifically states hat you are not allowed to photograph. Since it is custom, it is unique, I do not think you can declare screw it, I am doing what I want in this case. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No such signs at my local Burger King. I bet if someone asked if they could take a photo that would be no problem. At least in my country. Rettetast (talk) 14:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both grounds in the nomination: the image is easily replaceable by taking a photo (even though Burger King apparently doesn't want you to, they don't have a leg to stand on), and just as importantly, a photo of a metal grill doesn't really add enough to the article to pass the bar of NFCC #8. The article would communicate just as effectively without the image. If it were replaced by a free image, such an image would be nice to have, but not essential. (ESkog)^(Talk) 05:59, 30 December 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ITV1 logo 2004-2006.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AxG (notify | contribs).

• Can be removed from History of ITV television idents without affecting article. Wikiwoohoo (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - It appears it has been suitably replaced with a text description. Which would make the image fail NFCC 1.--Rockfang (talk) 17:53, 29 December 2009 (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. There is consensus that the image meets Wikipedia's non-free media criteria by significantly contributing to readers' understanding of the subject in a manner that cannot be duplicated by a free image and does not harm the copyright holder. —David Levy 21:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Barbrahouse1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Miserlou (notify | contribs).

• The non-free content rationale provided for this image assures us that "[a]s it represents the center of the controversy that created of the term, words are insufficient in describing the ideas and concepts relayed in the photograph". I do not believe that this, or any of the other parts of the rationale offered, are sound reasons for using this non-free content.

It would not be impossible or even difficult for the reader to conceive that this photograph existed without having seen what it looked like. Neither would not having seen it make it harder to understand what the Streisand effect was about. Indeed we could say that the Streisand effect having progressed from being a one-off incident to a general rule now no longer concerns this one particular picture or incident.

In the context of the article in which it is used this image appears to be replaceable in that the actual content of the photograph is less important than the fact of its existence. That fact can be and is conveyed by the article text. It also seems unlikely that seeing the content of the photograph rather than merely knowing that it exists adds anything to the reader's understanding. Nor do I see that not viewing the content will be detrimental to that understanding.

For these reasons I believe that this image does not meet one or both of points 1 and 8 of the non-free content criteria and that it should be deleted as a consequence. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - indeed, the exact visual information on the photograph is not relevant for the article. All that's relevant is that the photo shows a beach-front property belonging to Barbara Streisand, and that information is already conveyed by text. The house could look anything different but with would make no difference. --Damiens.rf 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do believe the image meets point 8, on two separate grounds. First, point 8 states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". While I don't believe there is a firm demarkation between "on" and "off" topic in an article I do beleive that the history of the term is part of "the topic". Moreover, specific aspects of the image, such as the level of detail available, are not as cleanly conveyed by way of text. Second, and this will probably be considered "too cute" a line of reasoning, the existence of the phtoograph within the article is in and of itself a demonstration of the Effect, self-contained and easily comprehensible. Moreover, I think the applicability of (1) depends on whether one agrees with my reading of point 8. As an alternative, the history of the term could be split off in part into an article about the lawsuit itself, which certainly meets notability guidelines, and in that case, the image would be on-topic. Personally, I thnk the article and history are better conveyed as a single article, but I can see this being a reasonable point for debate. --Joe Decker (talk) 01:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)#[reply]
• Keep The image is a key point of discussion for part of the article, and as the level of detail of the image is part of the discussion then the image helps with the understanding of this. --Nate^t/_c 10:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• comment - I concede the "level of detail" on the photograph may constitute relevant visual information. Maybe, just by reading about the controversy, without really seeing the photo, I could imagine the picture was more close up or more invasive, (like, with discernible people at the pool or at the windows) when it actually just shows the house from a non-invasive distance. This is important to judge the merits of Streisand's case. --Damiens.rf 11:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The image does not contribute sufficiently to the understanding of the article. Maybe readers would assume that the image is more intrusive than it really is, but how does that matter. The article is not about this image, but of the phenomenon. Rettetast (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep On the contrary, Streisand's privacy claims seem reasonable if no visual evidence is present to prove that the focus of the shot is on the coastline, which I concede may be debatable but looks to support the photographer's claims because the center of the shot is on the crest of the cliff. Because of the photo, we have a basis for the reasonable application of the term to describe attempted censorship. (Talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.220.159 (talk) 09:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think that the image absolutely can contribute to the understanding of the topic. The position of the house in relation to the cliff is rather important I think and much more difficult to communicate in words. The type of shore photography is also much clarified with this image. What is needed however, is a reference to the "detail" the original image had, since this is not clear from the image we use (due to FUR reasons and privacy). That information is important context for the 'privacy' concerns around the image, and without that information, we are basically providing 'misinformation' to our readers, because readers can only judge the amount of detail in our reduced image. I wouldn't say the image is 100% necessary, but that goes for all our Non-Free content (See german wikipedia). It is however not any less useful than the majority of our non-free content, in my opinion. I'd keep it. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete. What the photo looks like doesn't matter, and the fact that this is a very valuable image is also important- this belongs to the photographer, we should not be contributing to the cheapening of the image. This is a purely decorative image. J Milburn (talk) 03:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read the article? The image was shot to be part of a "publicly available collection of 12,000 California coastline photographs", created "to document coastal erosion as part of the California Coastal Records Project". We're not cheapening the image. It was taken with the very intention that it should be publicly accessible. Jheald (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's being used to demonstrate the subject of the media frenzy, and has become the news; it's not used as a substitute for any commercial market. Fair use, and useful to readers. Wseltzer (talk) 14:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An article without the image would be perplexing and missing an integral element. What was so outrageous about the image that prompted Streisand to sue? This is what fueled the internet searches for it that created the massive hits for the image. Without the image as a reference, readers are done a disservice. --Moni3 (talk) 23:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is relevant because the article is headed “Streisand effect” and this was the actual picture that caused it to happen. Use of the real picture adds verisimilitude. Also, as pointed out above, the reader can draw his/her own conclusions about whether the picture really does compromise privacy to any degree. After all, the building does not have “Streisand Towers” printed on the roof. Who would have known who owned the house had the challenge not been made? Of course the picture is directly relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Graham1059 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Graham1059 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep There should actually be no need to discuss this oO. --Quassy_.DE 23:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThis image is absolutely central to the contents of the Streisand Effect article. A completely free alternative does not exist. The usage is fair use under US and EU copyright law. If that is not sufficient to keep an image, we might as well delete every copyrighted image on Wikipedia.-Stian (talk) 16:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While the image is not necessary, fair use does not require an image to be absolutely essential to an article – only that its presence constitutes a reasonable improvement. Without the image, a reader's imaginations will be free to run wild about how invasive the photograph really was, creating unnecessary uncertainty as to how justified the attempts at censorship which result in the Streisand effect really are. Since the phrase "Streisand effect" typically implies that the attempted censorship was an overreaction, the benign nature of the photo which gave the effect its name is indeed relevant not only as part of the term's history, but as a prime example of how the effect creates a far bigger incident than the initial incident which was censored. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 00:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Wikipedias policy on non-free content is far more strict than the US legal term fair use. Criteria 8 states that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Rettetast (talk) 01:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... and Icarus has spelt out exactly what that means. Roughly speaking, our criteria are aimed to match the legal position that would be faced by a commercial downstream reuser of our content, reusing that content verbatim. That means we don't allow for our non-profit educational status, which would stand in our favour in court. Rather, we consider how the US legal term fair use would apply if we were a purely commercial entity. That is what the NFCC attempt to codify (plus the additional key provision that we don't allow images could be replaceable by free images). Icarus has given a good explanation of exactly how this image adds to reader understanding. Jheald (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleting it here is extremely ironic given the subject of the article. Furthermore, having the picture, bare minimum, gives the article reader some manner of "connection" to the original issue; at least they can see what the fuss is all about. Without the image, the reader is left to their imagination as to what the original image could have been to make Streisand want to take it down... and for all the reader knows, the original image could have had, say, an inappropriate detail that actually WOULD warrant Streizand's original removal request. ("If it's what I think, then even *I* would want it taken down!") Ultimately, without the original image, the reader would be left without a full understanding of the article; in the case of "The Streisand Effect", it's how famous people would want to censor a very benign and unoffensive image, only to have it blow up in their face by people who question the original censor request by sharing the very benign and unoffensive image to others. Hopefully that all makes sense. - 71.141.118.209 (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreed that WP's policy on fair use is more restrictive than US fair use, but it certainly seems to me that the conditions (including Criteria 8) are all satisfied. I knew nothing about the issue before reading this article, and the picture indeed showed that the photo in question was not a typical prying paparazzi photo that would reasonably be censored, but a photo no more incriminating than anything (for example) Bing aerial maps shows or, for that matter, what is easily viewable with the naked eye from an airplane flying down the coast. Fool4jesus (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Icarus, Fool4jesus, and other clear explanations above as to how this image adds to reader understanding. (NFCC #8). Jheald (talk) 20:38, 5 January 2010 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wkramer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 5b3TnY (notify | contribs).

• Orphan, has a free duplicate already in use on Wayne Kramer (guitarist). — Bility (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Tagged for deletion as missing proof of permission.--Rockfang (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2009 (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 - Userpages, particularly of productive editors, are properly and traditionally given greater leeway than articles. I am suspicious also of an account created for a purpose such as nominating this file - Peripitus (Talk) 09:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GreatestRomaniaInEurope.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by scooter20 (notify | contribs).

• Image description: "An alternate reality map showing possible maximum extent of Romania after World War I, which would have been possible if certain events in history would have been slightly different."Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ЛенинВладимир (talk • contribs) 22:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• 1.) "Unencyclopedic - "The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project)"
• 2.) Orphan - "The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia"
• 3.) Per WP:NOT WP:NOT#OR: NO "Primary (original) research such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc... Personal inventions... "
• 4.) Per WP:SOAPS: NO "political propaganda". ЛенинВладимир (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a free-content map created by an editor who is using it on their own talk page. The image is captioned "Possible extent of historic Romanian territories in Central and SE Europe" which seems about as accurate a caption as we can expect for any Uchronian image and not obviously soapboxing. Original research applies to articles, not to user space. Likewise contributors are allowed some leeway in their user space, including the use of "unencyclopedic" images. Orphaned is just plain wrong in this context. I wasn't sure if I disagreed with each of the four points when I started writing this. It turns out that I do. That'll be keep then. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being the author of the image, I obviously vote for keeping the image.
My arguments are:

• This image, as specified in the description, portraits an alternate history view of a Romanian state which would have been possible if certain events in history were slightly different and which includes all territories which have / had demographic, linguistic and cultural ties with Romania at a certain level.
• Since this image is just on my userpage and not on articles I don't see why it should be deleted.
• Orphan isn't an issue here since it resides just on my userpage.
• Original Research applies to articles not usepages.
• Since this image's description (and I already explained it) is quite clear I don't see it as being a means for political propaganda!
• Again, I vote for keep!

Scooter20 (talk) 11:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SOAP and WP:NOTWEBHOST.Anonimu (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Please also see the talk page of the file where three editors already expressed their concerns in detail. Please see the Treaty of Trianon for some context before making a decision. Also:

  Personal web pages. Wikipedians have their own user pages, but they may be used only to present information relevant to working on the encyclopedia.

  WP:NOTBLOG. Squash Racket (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SOAP Hobartimus (talk) 22:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, it's just an image used on the user page. Those rules are for the articles, not for userpages. Plenty of people have pics of themselves or various other 'non-encyclopedic' pictures on their userpages. bogdan (talk) 00:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, on one hand, I don't think people have much of an agenda for posting their own pictures. But then again, many user's photos on their userpages are orphaned images. I vote for anything that is applicable to any/all userpage images: it may not be anything worth keeping, but I see no reason to delete it unless people are willing to have their own personal photos deleted as well for the same reasons. - 71.141.118.209 (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is a user page image showing the user's interest in geography, maps and Romania, all of which are subjects of articles the user edits. In that sense the images have to do with Wikipedia, so the user page isn't being misused for web hosting. For the other issues, original research is an article policy, the image isn't orphaned, and there is no overt soapboxing. — Bility (talk) 22:21, 5 January 2010 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Withania somnifera2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Madhav Gadgil (notify | contribs).

• Orphan, free alternate image already in use on Withania somnifera. — Bility (talk) 22:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Tagged as missing evidence of permission.--Rockfang (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2009 (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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ciriaco De mita.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Attilios (notify | contribs).

• Unverifiable/incomplete source information. Damiens.rf 22:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldn't find this image but the legal stuff on the Chamber of Deputies site doesn't seem to be big on Creative Commons licenses in any case. I can't translate "L'utilizzo ... è autorizzata esclusivamente nei limiti in cui la stessa avvenga nel rispetto dell'interesse pubblico all'informazione, per finalità non commerciali, garantendo l'integrità degli elementi riprodotti e mediante indicazione della fonte" word for word, but it certainly has "non commercial" and "no derivatives" in it. Our man here is only 81 which is hardly old enough to claim that he'd be hard to photograph on grounds of age. I'm not seeing a non-free content rationale here either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HDR clouds.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andy1703 (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2009 (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.