Even though the user says he owns the copyright, the picture in question was created by a company and that William does not own the copyright D.M.N. (talk) 13:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an orphaned image, low quality, and the user indicates the upload is "only to see this facility in wikipedia" - its an artistic drawing of a roaster. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an orphaned image and the only contriubtion by this user. I am not sure it has any encyclopedic value and could be copied from somewhere given the over-text in the bottom right corner. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an orphaned image and is the only contrubition by the user. Given the graphic and text along the bottom, not sure it is the uploaders work to license. Some people may think being called a homosexual an attack - true or not. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Such party pictures are unencyclopedic, also the (c) can't be verified. If the uploader himself took the picture, why does he have to use the wienstyle.at version? De728631 (talk) 12:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an orphaned, personal photo of uploader's friend's baby; not great quality and uploader has been absent for 6 months and had minimal contributions - unlikely to find an encyclopedic use. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
An actual reason for deletion would be nice. The image is being used by two sub-pages; joke pages within JW's subpages. Perhaps start by getting consensus to delete the subpages at WP:MfD first. Keep until it does not have a use. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:32, 28 August 2008 (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 debate was:
keep, there doesn't seem to be a general prohibition of svg logos, and since this is the special case of a fictional logo, the original of which will be screenshots and promotional photographs but not really image files of the logo in isolation, it seems legitimate to create our own copy in this case. Fut.Perf.☼10:05, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SVG that is by definition nearly perfectly scalable hardy fulfills the "low-res" stipulation of fair use. Replaced by Image:Torchwood logo transparent.png Seidenstud (talk) 03:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Invalid reasoning; Scaling up SVG's will introduce margin errors, as the SVG's default scale is pretty low. The image is also a crude trace of the original image, so it is not nearly as acurate as the original logo. File format is not a consideration with regards to NFCC. — Edokter • Talk • 02:09, 29 August 2008 (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.
Delete per nom. The relevant policy is WP:NFCC1. There has been no suggestion that it is so impossible to get here that no free image could be created. We have free images from all over the world, because Wikipedians do travel. For an example of a tough image to get that has nonetheless been released under a free license, see Everest base camp. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, your reason is not suitable for delete. 'They are acceptable when used for critical commentary on the scene, technique, style, etc...' is a only for Cover art[3], it is not apply to Film and television screen shots. and this image is not violated any wikipedia policy. also this image is not category in unacceptable case. Masonfamily (talk) 18:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you think 500*384 is a low resolution? very low quality and unencyclopedic? any standrad that distinguish low quality from high quality? nope. well, Film and television screen shots is a Acceptable case. However, Film and television screen shots can't be a high quality. Masonfamily (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1. You have modified this image from the original. It originally appeared here: http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/dokdo-from-ulleungdo.jpg without the Korean text attached. Again, I'm unable to read Korean, but modifying this image from the original makes it a derivative work. 2. The importance of the sightline from Ullengdo Island is questionable, but a) does not need an image to illustrate it, since that information is sourced to Dokdo Island and Region and b) can still be replaced by a free alternative from a person who travels to Ullengdo Island and takes the very same picture of the Liancourt Rocks. For purely illustrative purposes of those rocks, the free alternative will suffice. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wow. are you serious? do you think it is a modifying image? see carefully, http://www.dokdo-takeshima.com/ is a one of the "see also". it is not a modified image. cleary, this image taken from MBC broadcast, in 'source' section.
They are the same image. The caption does not make them different, but makes one a derivative of the other. The website credits the image to a professional photographer, not MBC. If this actually aired on TV (and I have no evidence it did), it may mean MBC used the image with or without permission from the original author. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update 2: that image has been nominated for deletion, but will likely survive, as it's licensed under CC at the source. This blog: http://blog.naver.com/cms1530/10032640953 has many images of these rocks released under a CC license (or so the people at Commons say, I can't read Korean). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
again, Image:Dokdo from ullengdo2.jpg is a tv screen shot. this documetary broadcasted in 2005, later published by DVD. this image taken from DVD. i added more source info. now, it's licensed under CC at the source which your favored. Masonfamily (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. That image is protected by copyright in the nation of Korea. It is, therefore, licensed in the United States as fair use. You did not create the work, so you are not able to modify the license and release it under Creative Commons. Since there is a free alternative available, for which the creator of the work (in this case the photographer) released it under CC, we do not and will not retain a nonfree (and inferior) equivalent image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. are you serious? This image made by Korea MBC Broadcast. Not Japan. how can Japan have this image copyright? i think you do not know well. See the Acceptable use cases of Non-free_content TV screenshot is a acceptable case. how can i help you, if i permit by MBC broadcast by e-mail, then it will be a OK? Masonfamily (talk) 21:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake. I apologize and have corrected the error. It does not appear that MBC owns the rights to this image, since the exact same (though unaltered) image appears at the website I listed above. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
ha........ it is photographed by MBC! its picture author is a MBC! dokdo-takeshima.com site captured in same MBC DVD source(maybe), too. if you see DVD, it is not a still picture. However my screenshot appeard below caption, difference is a dokdo-takeshima.com screen capture time! same screenshot captured from same source(maybe), but dokdo-takeshima.com screenshot and my screenshot is diffenrence!
1. resolution is difference.
2. below caption is not made by me. it is from DVD. below caption is a difference. you still doubt that i borrow from dokdo-takeshima.com and after i modified image? hahah.. hilarious.. that is the pure original research. TV screenshot capture is acceptable in wikipedia. anyway, if i permit by MBC broadcast by e-mail, then it will be a OK? i can take permit from copyright author. Masonfamily (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No. Several sites credit the image to Hwan Kim Cheol, who evidently works for Ulleung County Office in Korea. This means that MBC does not own the rights to the image and, anyway, we still don't need the image to explain the question of sightlines from Ulleung-do, since that is a well documented position, with many academic sources. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to contact Mr. Hwan and ask him directly to release his original image under the Creative Commons, that would be ok. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. i will try it. but this image tanken from MBC Dvd. and this dvd do not says, its copyright author is a Mr. Hwan. however, if i take permission from mr.hwan then it will be a OK? please, answer it. and are you admin? Masonfamily (talk) 22:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
to admin, how can i prove that permit from Mr. Hwan ? e-mail screenshot? how? i can contact with him. but i want prove "perfectly" and no doubt by other. what is the perfect method of prove? Masonfamily (talk) 22:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
wait, this is a too complex to me. i don't know what is the otrs. and is it really necessary procedure? i found photographer kim chol hwan who work for Ulleung goverment's site.(he is a public officials of ullungdo goverment) here if i recieve permit from that site's notice board(he is a admin of ullungdo.com site, answer from ullungdo.com site's admin) or recieve e-mail from him.(recive e-mail from that site admin, or recive e-mail from his ullungdo goverment public official's e-mail) is it OK to upload? Masonfamily (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very few images are actually "necessary" to understand a concept. Ever a look at textbooks from decades ago? But yet there's a reason we've moved away from that model. 68.43.197.22 (talk) 15:43, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For precisely the reason that "very few images are actually 'necessary' to understand a concept," there should be few non-free articles on wikipedia. One requirement of nonfree content is that it "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" (see WP:NFCC8). Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC#8 is extremely subjective as to what "signficantly increase" means. Your view is not wrong and neither is Calliopejen's view right or wrong either. JRG (talk) 02:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The image does help to understand Megrahi's first appeal. Mr Taylor will not be representing Megrahi at the second appeal which is expected to be heard in the next few months.PJHaseldine (talk) 10:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 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.
Keep The nom is correct, its not pd-old. It's a commemorative coin issued by the Republic of Armenia and if I remember correctly in 1999. The correct license for this image should be Template:PD-AM-exempt. VartanM (talk) 01:48, 29 August 2008 (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 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.
This picture being used to illustrate our article about the Chislet Windmill was copied from a website about windmills. This is a precious image, since the mill no longer exists, what makes it impossible to produce a new image like this one. By copying the image from the website about windmills and using it to illustrate our webpage about windmills, we are making that website less "unique" and "valuable". Thus, I fail to see the fair use case in using this image as we currently do. Damiens.rf13:34, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The images Image:Sarre86.jpg and Image:Windmill Hill derelict.jpg are almost the same case, unless the mills still exist, but completely modified. --Damiens.rf13:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image, uploader's only other contribution is another image also up for deletion, low quality and unencyclopedic personal photo. Jordan 1972 (talk) 13:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 debate was:
- Delete - not only replaceable but actually replaced during the debate. There should be an essay about recklessly improving wikipedia to make a point - Peripitus(Talk)13:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is a painting of a wrecked ship used under fair use, but I contest the justification given for the irreplaceability of this image: "non-replaceable as ship wa scrapped in 1967" - What prevents one from making a new painting of the ship and licensing it according to some free creative commons license, for instance? Damiens.rf13:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not if the artist uses more than one source of inspiration and copies just the "facts" about the ship, and not the original artist's "touch" (for instance, he/she could draw it from a better angle). This is specially truth if the artist could have access to the ship's blue-prints, since the painting/drawing would be almost an "implementation". --Damiens.rf15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bet. If an individual makes an image, sketch or drawing substantially different from this image (or any previously existing image), that new work can be licenses separate and apart from the original. How do you think the painter of this image created this work? Would you consider it a derivative of the original blueprints? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Any new image created that is substantially different from the one in use would not be a true representation of the ship, which the image used is as it was created when the ship was in existence. Mjroots (talk) 08:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. A drawing showing the same ship closer and under a better angle would be substantially different while still a true representation of the ship. --Damiens.rf12:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mjroots. Such an image is not replaceable by a free one. The nominator is clutching at straws to find a reason for deletion. JRG (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't made myself clear. I really meant "possible image", and not "existing image", in the sense that it's still possible to make paintings or drawing of this ship.
Also, what do you mean by an "image search"? Is it an "Internet image search using google/yahoo"? There's a world out there, my friend. --Damiens.rf18:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Damiens.rf and Cumulus Clouds. If one person can create a copyrighted painting, another person can create a free painting. Also, we have no fair use case at all. Our legitimate interest in showing the ship gives us no right to infringe on the copyrights of an uninvolved third party, the painter, whose creative work is utterly unrelated to our purposes. And if there should be no other documents of what the ship looked like besides the painting, we'd have to ask: is it notable enough that we'd want an article about it in the first place? Fut.Perf.☼13:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a perfectly valid fair-use rationale: the painting illustrates the ship in a straightforward manner and is being used to illustrate an article on that specific ship. If this were being used to illustrate the article Ship, I could see your point. Furthermore, the image is low quality and could not be used to, say, create a poster that would compete with the artist's reproduction rights. Also, let's keep this discussion on the image itself and not introduce notability questions about the subject. (If you feel that the ship is not notable, articles for deletion is the appropriate forum for that discussion. After all, there are no photographs of George Washington available, and that hasn't affected his notability… ) — Bellhalla (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem not to be appreciating the fair use issue here. Even if I granted that the image was irreplaceable, that does not mean it's fair use. Irreplaceability is our internal criterion that it has to pass on top of being fair use, in itself it has no legal meaning whatsoever. We can only legally use the image under "fair use" if our use of it is "transformative", that is, if we use it for review of the creative work itself. Just showing the image to illustrate something that is not the painting itself (i.e. the ship) doesn't make for a solid fair use case. We are infringing on somebody's copyright, and we have no excuse for it. Fut.Perf.☼20:32, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do appreciate the fair use issue. But would not the same argument apply to a photograph, too, though? After all, there is certainly an amount of artistry involved in taking photographs as well. So by extension, we cannot have fair use of a photograph, either, unless we are making a critical discussion of the photo itself, right? — Bellhalla (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
At least with the photograph we know who to ask for permission. Would you go and write to that guy? Plus, with both these pictures now available, I would in fact now be able to make a new drawing, using merely the factual information from both but nothing from their creative work, and that would be quite free and at least as "authentic" as the painting. Fut.Perf.☼15:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We know who to ask for the painting, too. An internet search turned up his address and the fact that he is still living (as of March 2008). — Bellhalla (talk) 16:08, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's notable enough to have an article. Generally speaking, all ships are inherently notable enough in themselves to have an article, subject to usual rules about verfiability, reliable sources etc. See WP:SHIPS.
I though we only had the internet contact for the person who physically own's the painting, that may not own the copyrights. Fut.Perf, please do the drawing! That would be the best solution considering our mission to produce and distribute free content. --Damiens.rf16:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More like a proof on concept than a serious work, for now, but voilà, you you go: Look Mom, it's free!. I'd say it's at least as informative as the current tiny painting reproduction. If you want a better drawing, you'll need to get a better artist with more time. :-) Fut.Perf.☼17:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly legitimate fair-use rationale for a ship no longer in existence. I don't buy the nom's rationale against this image. In theory, I suppose, I could obtain some DNA from, say, Marilyn Monroe, clone her, raise her to the age of 36, pose her in a skin-tight sequined dress in front of a podium, and photograph her so that Image:Marilyn1962.PNG, a fair-use image, could be replaced with an appropriate free license, right? Far-fetched? Yes. But not that far removed from the nominator's rationale. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Akin to Belhalla's argument above, the key word in the "irreplaceable" section is reasonably. It's a bit much to argue that someone could make a different illustration and release it under a suitable license, and that possibility alone is enough to warrant deleting this image. Parsecboy (talk) 03:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike photographies, illustration are considered "reasonably replaceable" in all cases (except when the illustration itself is the subject of the discussion). --Damiens.rf04:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? You? The image is not replaceable because it is the only one that exists. Any image drawn to look like it is going to be a copywritten derivative of the one here. The fair use rationale is reasonable and meets the NFCC criteria. JRG (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Original construction plans of this ship exist at Glasgow University Archives. [4] They are freely accessible for research. Some Wikipedian at Glasgow university take a trip to the library, get a scan or photograph of those plans, send them to me, and I promise I will personally make a drawing of the ship on that basis that will be artistically superior and far more informative than this painting. It's all perfectly doable. Fut.Perf.☼13:15, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And here is a photograph of the ship. Copyright status currently unknown, but it would be better to use than the painting, since at least we wouldn't be infringing on that painter's copyrights. Can somebody go and ask the website owner for a free license? Fut.Perf.☼14:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Now there is a free image, I can have no objection to the deletion of the fair use image. Links added to the article the the photograph and painting. Mjroots (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regretfully, the drawing is not nearly as good a representation as either the painting or the (presumably non-free) photograph linked above. I can appreciate what effort FPaS expended in making the illustration, but there are several inaccuracies in the drawing that make it less than ideal as a representation of this specific ship. — Bellhalla (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offense :-) I took about 40 minutes to draw it. If you want a better image, as I said, you'll need a better artist or one with more time on their hands (and probably more knowledge of such ships). It's just a proof of concept. A new image can be done, that's all I wanted to show. Remember that replaceability is not about replacements that exist, but about replacements that could be made. Fut.Perf.☼05:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My question is this, why was the image removed from the article before this dispute is resolved? The delete tag is for an "orphaned image" which this image now qualifies for since it was removed from the article. Shinerunner (talk) 11:37, 4 September 2008 (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.
Image:CBSNews Loose Pit bull attacks animal control officer USA.jpg
Image:CBSNews Loose Pit bull attacks animal control officer USA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 5Q5 (notify | contribs).
I do not believe this image qualifies for fair use. It is a screenshot from a copyrighted work. The article is not about the copyrighted work. The article does not even mention the incident which the copyrighted work is covering.
In addition, due to the poor quality of the photo, it adds nothing to the article. We can see the woman pretty well, but the dog is just a pixelated blur. So this does not even illustrate what an attacking pit bull looks like -- it merely illustrates that, like every single other dog breed, at least one pit bull has attacked at least one person on at least one occasion. Jaysweet (talk) 15:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is used in a section discussing media reports. No free equivalent is possible. It must be a media story image. I necessarily selected a frame showing distress on the officer's face to prove an attack was occurring. The image is low resolution because that is the nature of action screenshots of unexpected news events where the videographer has not set the shutter at fast speed. Lower resolution is also expected on Wikipedia to protect the copyright owner. I have just added and revised the accompanying text and caption regarding this image. Deletion is not warranted. This article is subject to nearly daily warring and vandal edits. The editor nominating this image for deletion has admitted owning a pit bull mix on the talk page. I do not own any dogs and added the accompanying adopting kittens image to keep the section neutral. 5Q5 (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It fails NFCC8, there is no reason to have this image in the article when citations to media coverage will do just as well. I also don't see how the nominator's status as a dog owner is relevant (it isn't) or why anyone would care about edit warring in an image deletion discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC-8 is "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." The pit bull article contains significant discussion of the violent nature of pit bulls. This deletion would remove the only image of a pit bull being violent. Offsite links are not Wiki articles. A photo deletion nomination could be used as a backdoor method of achieving pov editing. 5Q5 (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary use of copyright-protected material (WP:NFCC#8). From the rationale: "Purpose of use: It illustrates LaRouche sitting across a table from a scientist.". Damiens.rf16:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fails NFCC #8. In no way does this cover help inform about the subject of the article it's in. Uploaded by the now blocked sockpuppet of banned user Herschelkrustofsky. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This copyrighted image is claimed to be notable by itself. I don't doubt it may be, but currently, the image is being used in an article where it's not discussed anywhere other than the unsourced caption of the image itself. Removing the unsourced text would make this a completely decorative use. Either the text should be sourced, or the image removed. Damiens.rf17:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFCC8. Nonfree content must be critically addressed in the text of the article. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 debate was:
- Delete - while at first assuming good faith I noted that this photo was taken while ascending K2 on this expedition. Neither the uploader nor Abdul Aziz are listed as participating so the attribution/ownership appears bogus - deleting as a probable copyvio After further consideration - particularly the arguments here it is not certain either way - but we have no evidence that the licence is not correct - closing as Keep - Peripitus(Talk)12:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see, that's hard to tell. But maybe the uploader was allowed to upload it. At least he mentions the photographer's name. A pity that the uploader seems unavailable for clearing this up. hm... --Rupert Pupkin (talk) 15:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
one more: I found this at commons (ok, i myself moved it there some time ago): [5] That's another picture by that user Johncanivley that he claims to have taken himself. It looks as it was taken during the same expedition (again climber Carl Drew). And what's even more decisive: It's the same camera model (and probably the same camera, but that's a guess) So it could be Abdul Aziz took the photo with johns camera and john uploaded it. And he was so fair and credited Mr. Aziz as photographer. So IMHO now it seems more likely that the uploader is the copyright holder. Thus keep--Rupert Pupkin (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2008 (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.
Keep. This is used in a section discussing media reports. No free equivalent is possible. It must be a media story image. I have revised the accompanying text and caption regarding this image. Deletion is not warranted. This article is subject to nearly daily warring and vandal edits. 5Q5 (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails NFCC8. We don't need a picture of media coverage to establish that the animal has been covered in the media. There are plentiful sources in that article which do the job nicely (and freely). Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image, absent uploader, unencylopedic collection of images, also copyright issues with logo and water marking in right-hand image Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image, sole contribution of user, unencyclopedic personal photo, even if text that comes with image is considered an article, it would fail nobility grounds. Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an orphaned image. There have been several different images uploaded with this name (unrelated to each other), some are almst certainly copyright violations. There is no proof that the information on licensing is the correct for the current image. There is also insufficent information to determine a use of the current image. Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:21, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used (seems to have been intended for an article that was speedy deleted). It's also not at all clear why it is tagged as public domain. Sherool(talk)22:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
