< May 25	May 27 >

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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superseeded by File:Bethesda Softworks Logo.svg Kungfu2187 (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2011 (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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of two naked women protesters taking part in student event, used merely for illustrating the fact that naked women took part. Fails NFCC#8: we don't need to see an image to understand the fact described in the text. (Although many of us no doubt would like to see more.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:32, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete appear to be protesting but you cant see any evidence from the image that they actually took part in the run so could be misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not being used to prove they took part in the run, but to indicate the nature of participation in the event as a whole, of which displaying the posters was a part. The effect of the event is clear in the picture than can be in words, an accepted use for illustrations. I suppose I could write an essay explaining the implications, but the picture is clearer. DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was clearly misled by the image caption The December 2005 Oblation Run included two women. when the image and article text indicates that they were protesting and not officially part of the run, perhaps the caption needs to be corrected. MilborneOne (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The caption has been replaced with "The two women who ran naked during the 2005 Oblation Run". Moray An Par (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nice picture of a mountain landscape, but orphaned and unidentified. Was never used in an article; uploader had no other edits (not even deleted ones). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - orphaned and if we dont know where it is not much use. MilborneOne (talk) 10:18, 28 May 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image not really found on source. Damiens.rf 15:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep source corrected.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're at it, could you make it point to the page containig the image instead of directly to the jpg file? --Damiens.rf 16:10, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean here?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually here, but close enough. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 16:52, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given artist was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:04, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover (I remember about some TIME covers being considered public domain. Is this one of those?). Damiens.rf 16:08, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to this the cover is not one of the PD ones. Rd232 ^talk 20:27, 29 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:08, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover (I remember about some TIME covers being considered public domain. Is this one of those?). Damiens.rf 16:09, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover (I remember about some TIME covers being considered public domain. Is this one of those?). Damiens.rf 16:12, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover (I remember about some TIME covers being considered public domain. Is this one of those?). Damiens.rf 16:14, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:15, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:15, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:16, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - my thoughts on this are unchanged since I nominated it last year (see ffd Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_July_1#File:Cory_Aquino_-_Woman_of_the_Year.jpg here which was closed as no-consensus). The image is, while nice and widely used and recognized, unnecessary for reader's understanding and we have free images - Peripitus (Talk) 20:55, 26 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 10:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:17, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in case where no PD images are available, this image helps to identify subject of biographical article.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a drawing. So, it's replaceable as an identification of the subject. --Damiens.rf 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A drawing by a Wikipedian would not be a suitable replacement. Sure, scientific diagrams drawn by Wikipedians are fine, but portraits? No way. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why so? --Damiens.rf 00:08, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every image is replaceable be a drawing to a degree, but that does not mean we should not allow any FU images. In cases like this when there is not means of identification of the subject at any stage of his life, a FU like this should be acceptable.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:28, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. A FU like this should not be acceptable in this case. If we're going to make the identification of the subject with a drawing, we can draw it ourselves. The reasons that make pictures of deceased people irreplaceable obviously do not apply for drawings of deceased people. --Damiens.rf 01:13, 30 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:19, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:19, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:20, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:21, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:21, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:22, 26 May 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Matlovich's appearance on the cover was an iconic moment in gay history. In addition, Matlovich is deceased, so no free image can be substituted (WP:NFCC#1), and the image is (now) the subject of sourced commentary in the article (WP:NFCC#8). DragonflyDC (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's a difference between "commentary about the cover image" and commentary about this person being on the cover image and cover story of that magazine". While the first is usually the kind of commentary that needs an image (the cover image being discussed), the second rarely does.

Also, it's just because we need an image of the guy for his that we can use Time's work to do the job. --Damiens.rf 12:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dragonfly. -DJSasso (talk) 13:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dragonfly. Cbl62 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this non free image is used to illustrate a biography, not in a critical response section about the image on the cover. The image here is not directly discussed, there is only sourced reference to the fact he was on the cover in this way. His being on the cover was an iconic moment - but (and this may seem odd) I don't see that the image itself is iconic. There is frequent use of the "iconic" argument here because: what is depicted in the non-free image represents an iconic moment in time so editors use the argument that the image itself is, by association, iconic and must be used. The "Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima" is a clearly iconic image of itself and rightly should be here, this is an image that represents an iconic moment for the gay movement and that does not justify using this iamge. A non-free image that was not sourced from a press type source is what we should be using, or far better seeking to find a freely licenced image - Peripitus (Talk) 22:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Lean to keep. What is significant about this image is surely how prominently it was labelled "I am a homosexual", at a time when this was a very big deal, in fact a first. I think actually showing the picture in this case does add to reader comprehension, by bringing out how this man's image was used, and how forcefully and uncompromisingly it was headlined. Jheald (talk) 11:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If multiple reliable sources noted how it was a big deal, then the image should be kept and the article should mention that. But as long it's just our personal impressions of the impact that cover had, it's original research, and can't be used to justify the use of non-free content. --Damiens.rf 15:35, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:NOR specifically applies to article text. It does not apply to non-article text: eg talk page discussions, community assessments of "significance" of added understanding, and other editorial discussions, where a free exchange of views is part of the process of achieving editorial consensus. Jheald (talk) 22:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've added cites to Randy Shilts, Salon.com, the Bay Area Reporter, and Servicemembers United on the significance of the cover. DragonflyDC (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Did you noticed how two of the tree articles used as reference talk extensively about the Time's cover story and it's impact, while still not using the cover image as an illustration? It's my personal humble opinion that it's evidence for the idea that lack of the actual cover image is not detrimental to the understanding of the subject. --Damiens.rf 23:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I believe I've addressed your concerns (and improved the article a bit). I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the image. DragonflyDC (talk) 00:40, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the concerns are addressed appropriately by DragonFly. - DonCalo (talk) 08:46, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DragonflyDC. Binksternet (talk) 23:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally: the subject is dead. An identificatory image is appropriate; Given that this was such a visible, high-profile image in the subject's life, the choice of this image is particularly appropriate. Furthermore, as a cover image deliberately intended to be widely seen to draw attention to the magazine, rather than an interior image or a clean image, there is likely much less of an NFCC #2 taking associated with it. Jheald (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:28, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:33, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:33, 26 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 10:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free magazine cover is purportedly being used just because we don't have a better photo for illustrating the event depicted on the cover photo. We can't take the work of news agencies at our convenience. Damiens.rf 16:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Not clear that there is such a strong NFCC #2 issue here. We've had a former editor of Time here himself in the past, saying that he regarded the image-quotation of Time covers as fair game -- the cover is substantially promotional, created purposely to stand for the magazine, and make it recognisable and visible; so when people instance or reference the magazine or the article, there is an expectation that the cover may be used to identify the magazine or the story (in fact this even works to the benefit of Time); and that this likely quotation is something that is understood, recognised and accepted by people when they choose to license an image to Time for front-cover use, for which Time would typically pay more than for interior use. Jheald (talk) 12:10, 28 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given topic was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:38, 26 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 10:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:39, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This image seems to me to add quite a valuable contrast to the article, placed alongside a section where Mrs Simpson could be taken to be presented largely as a "problem", by showing that Time not only made Mrs Simpson its first ever "Woman of the Year", but did so with a cover portrayal that appears highly sympathetic. This latter point - that the image shows how Time presented Mrs Simpson after this time of upheaval, seems to me quite valuable. Jheald (talk) 12:27, 28 May 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:36, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unique, irreplaceable photo showing the meeting of notable hitoric relevant people, in what was likely an historic event itself. Nevertheless, we don't need to see the image of the event to have a proper understanding of the event. Damiens.rf 16:41, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this image is not essential to the two articles in which it is used. Barrylb (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Are you kidding? "This is an unique, irreplaceable photo showing the meeting of notable historic relevant people, in what was likely an historic event itself" but we don't need a picture of it? Huh?!?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 11:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Why is the illustration of this historic event unnecessary? Furthermore, this image was taken in 1937. It should be in the public domain, as per Urheberrechtgesetz §72. It's author is unknown. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 12:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If really in PD, it could stay and be used anywhere. --Damiens.rf 12:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is copyrighted, it can still be used under fair-use terms. This image illustrates a historical event. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 12:43, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It won't pass WP:NFCC. --Damiens.rf 12:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 12:46, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Item #8. The lack of an photo showing Hitler meeting the Duke and the Duchess would not be detrimental to the understanding of the article. --Damiens.rf 13:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But it would enhance it. A picture speaks a thousand words. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, re-read WP:NFCC#8. We don't get to use a non-free image just because it "enhances" the article. It must "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic", which seems not to be the case. --Damiens.rf 13:41, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An image of a particular event always increases readers understanding of a relevant event. That's what i precisely meant by enhancing the article. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 13:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, you believe we should always allow non-free images of events we discuss? --Damiens.rf 19:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. Historic image that is irreplaceable. -DJSasso (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, understand that NFCC is not multiple choice. Even the nomination agrees the image is irreplaceable by another image. --Damiens.rf 13:38, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appear a (c) press image. Alamy have it for sale and I can see places (the telegraph etc) where is is noted as (c) Alamy or (c) Press Association and other site that the image is owned by Keystone press and licenced by Getty images. The image shows the Windsors met Hitler. Many many people and quite a few heads of state and other important people met him. Why do I need to see this image to know they met and shook hands ? The event is not surprising, we have images this showing the 1937 visit, this image does not tell me any more than they met and hand shaking occurred. - Peripitus (Talk) 22:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Irreplaceable historic image enhancing a WP:FA. - DonCalo (talk) 09:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think this image does add something more to the article that just the statement that the Duke and Duchess met Hitler. It shows the warmth of that meeting -- exemplified in that beaming smile on Mrs Simpson's face, which in the light of what we know about the Nazi state is positively chilling. This is a picture that to my mind very definitely does pass NFCC #8. On the other hand what I don't know, and I would like to know more about, is the position under NFCC #2. Precisely because this picture is so revealing, about a person (Mrs Simpson) who still excites so much interest, is what means that possibly even now it may still have significant commercial value. I think this would be a useful example to throw in to the currently ongoing review at WT:NFC as to what should be our stance on meaningfully significant historical images. Jheald (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Isn't this a PD photo? Published in 1937 with no author given...copyright expiration in 2007? — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes NFCC #8 as it provides significant value to the article. Binksternet (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which article are you referring to? It is used in two articles. Barrylb (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I voted delete above) The "historic image" tag used on the image is incorrectly used. It is for images where "the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts". This image is not being used in that context. In addition, fair use rationale must be given for each article in which it is used, which it currently does not have. Barrylb (talk) 07:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've no doubt that the meeting was significant, but that does not mean that the image is. If this can be shown to be PD, by all means, keep it, but otherwise it should be deleted, as per NFCC#8. Yes, it's irreplaceable, and yes, it is "historic" (in some senses of the word) but that does not automatically mean that its use meets NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, reasons have been given as to why it may specifically add to reader understanding. Would you care to address them? Jheald (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep no one has explained why this can't be considered PD. This is a German image and is PD per German law. US copyright laws do not apply. --rogerd (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I haven't seen a significant argumentation that this image fails WP:NFCC, if it is even under copyright anymore. The wording of the nomination was also questionable, drawing into question for me whether or not this is a good faith nomination. --Ifrit (Talk) 18:05, 10 June 2011 (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 ⚡ 10:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Being Man of the Year is surely a big deal, but not the kind of news that needs an image to be conveyed. Damiens.rf 16:43, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The point is not that Willy Brandt was acclaimed, but that he was acclaimed by a magazine - a magazine that is noted for its covers, and its use of this cover to acclaim their "award of the year".

One of a series of increasingly bizarre deletions by this editor, on the basis that significant events don't need images to illustrate them. If this becomes policy, then don't we simply delete the entire Image: namespace, because nothing needs images any more? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is already policy, in what regards non-free images. And I don't think this would take us to the complete removal of all images as you suggests. --Damiens.rf 12:43, 27 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given album was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:46, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: To give additional image in George Michael's Faith album article is not a good enough reason to use a second non-free image in the article about the album, especially without criotical commnetary about the image itself. ww2censor (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2011 (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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given person was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lean to keep. Given that she is dead, so NFCC #1's stricture on the replaceability of images of living people does not apply, an identificatory image is appropriate. And given that, this cover image may well be the most appropriate identificatory image, since it shows her actually in the role for which WP considers her noteworthy, and as an exterior cover image that was designed to be widely visible and significantly promotional for the magazine, it represents less of a substantial copyright taking than our use of an interior image would be. Jheald (talk) 12:50, 28 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given jewerly was on the cover. Damiens.rf 16:49, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free book cover for a book barely mentioned in an article. Damiens.rf 17:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: By all means, let's expand the mention in the BLP, but there's no cause to delete.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Milowent sums it up nicely. -DJSasso (talk) 13:11, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unless the book cover itself is shown to be significant. Yes, generally, book covers are usable in articles specifically on the book, but that does not mean that we can stick them in related articles as much as we like, whether or not the article has a book of its own. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, purely decorative. Book isn't the object of encyclopedic discussion apart from a passing mention; no reason why a reader would need a visual cue for "identification" here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:11, 2 June 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free mugshot being used just to make the point someone was arrested. (aren't mugshots PD?) Damiens.rf 17:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not all US mugshots are PD (depends where they are made and by what agency); assuming that the description page has it right and this one isn't, it fails NFCC#8. Article already has an appropriate identificatory image from one of her acting roles, which is fine. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 2 June 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free photo copied from a news source shows important people attending an important event. Nevertheless, the text about the important event does not needs this image to convey all relevant encyclopedic information about the event. Damiens.rf 17:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep historic event is a sufficient justification, when, as here, there is not likely to be a free equivalent. DGG ( talk ) 21:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No, it isn't. Nowhere in the NFCC does it say "images of historic events are automatically legitimate". No, it probably couldn't be replaced, but that doesn't mean that it meets NFCC#2 and NFCC#8. J Milburn (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free magazine cover being used just because the photo on the cover can serve as an illustration/decoration for our text about the event depicted. We can't use the work of news sources like that. Damiens.rf 18:35, 26 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced non-free image of a living woman. Damiens.rf 18:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Del. per nom. Not even a rationale. Jheald (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free magazine cover, being use just because the magazine (not even the specific issue of the magazine) is mentioned in a bio. Damiens.rf 18:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Del. per nom. Jheald (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free magazine cover, being use just because the magazine (not even the specific issue of the magazine) is mentioned in a bio. Damiens.rf 18:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Del. per nom. Jheald (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free magazine cover, being use just because the magazine (not even the specific issue of the magazine) is mentioned in a bio. Damiens.rf 18:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Del. per nom. Jheald (talk) 13:28, 28 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free magazine cover, being use just because the magazine (not even the specific issue of the magazine) is mentioned in a bio. Damiens.rf 18:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Del. per nom. Jheald (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free magazine cover is being used because it was one of the first time in history "that a publication was able to offer hour-by-hour photographic coverage of a disaster at sea". While this is an remarkable event and deserves to be noted on the article, we don't really need to see the photos themselves to talk about the historic moment on photographic coverages. What the boat looked like in the photo is not what make them notable, but just their existence. Damiens.rf 18:44, 26 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 10:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We can illustrate the idea of censorship with free images. Damiens.rf 19:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question. Without the photograph, does the cover still pass the threshold of originality to qualify for U.S. copyright? Or is it now just an assemblage of simple geometrical shapes and standard typeface characters, so not restricted? PD-INELIGIBLE ? Jheald (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the expression of censorship of a particular item can only be adequately described in the image of it. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This image is not being used in articles about the censorship of the particular item, but about censorship in general and in a given country. If we believe we really need images to make things clear, we surely can find free alternatives. --Damiens.rf 15:43, 30 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, unidentifiable subject. Acather96 (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2011 (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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free magazine cover used as a main bio illustration. Damiens.rf 19:27, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lean to keep. Holleder is dead, so an identificatory image is appropriate. As discussed in similar noms above, a cover shot, made to be widely seen and partially promotional for the magazine, might be considered less of a substantial copyright taking than reuse of interior matter. Jheald (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2011 (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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free drawing sourced to a imagehost website. Damiens.rf 20:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Essential image to understand the article. Fix the rationale in stead of deleting. - DonCalo (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fix the rationale instead of making vague assertions. The image lacks a rationale or a real source- I can't provide that, I know nothing about the topic. Judging by the age, it may even be public domain, but more information would be needed to judge. J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image showing two man together. Damiens.rf 20:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The picture of Falcone and Borsellino is not just decorative, it is a unique historical image of two judges killed by the Mafia and has become a symbol of their sacrifice. It is often used on posters and article commemorating their fight against the Mafia. - DonCalo (talk) 06:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should discuss about the photo as an icon, its uses, etc. I will happly write a valid fair use rationale for it once the article covers that. Our current use is simply not transformative: the image is being used just to identify the people captured on the image. --Damiens.rf 12:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It now does and also shows one of the many uses of the image. - DonCalo (talk) 15:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about this? I believe the image caption alone is not enough discussion, and in any case, the discussion should be attributed to at least one reliable source. --Damiens.rf 15:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The picture is an iconic symbol of the Italian State's war against Cosa Nostra. These two individuals (Falcone and Borsellino) spearheaded and were at the forefront of the campaign against Cosa Nostra in the mid-80's and early 90's. They were both assassinated by hitmen belonging to the Sicilian Boss of Bosses, Salvatore Riina, in the course of the campaign, a few months apart. I think it should be fine to leave them at their respective sections, as it illustrates a significant historical event, both in Falcone's life and the history of Cosa Nostra. Furthermore, there is no alternative free equivalent to replace this. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 08:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly more than just being decorative. -DJSasso (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly PD? - In a related note, does this image qualifies for ((PD-Italy))? --Damiens.rf 15:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The date isn't given, but it is known for certain that both died in 1992. Falcone on May 18, and Borsellino on July 19. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me!} 15:53, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Italian Wikipedia the image is from 1987 [1]. That would mean that it would qualify for ((PD-Italy)), and according to the Italian Wikipedia it is in the public domain. - DonCalo (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2011 (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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A non-free image of young soldiers marching is not necessary for a proper understanding of the article about the FARC and its allegations of using child soldiers. The picture adds no relevant information. Damiens.rf 20:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would ask the nominator just when they do think an image is justified in an article, if it's not to provide clear documentation of a fact that is central to that article (in this case, FARC's use of child soldiers). Andy Dingley (talk) 09:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We should use reliable sources to document such a thing. --Damiens.rf 12:48, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - So your "perfect article" is a list of references, and no content? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:06, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep historic well-known image, generally used to indicate the subject and better than a verbal description / Pictures usually are, and we are justified in using them whenever they have a substantial contribution. . DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shocking, yes. Massively informative? Probably not. If the image itself is so important and well known, then I would have less objection to its use alongside a discussion of it, but we do not use non-free images "to provide clear documentation" of facts- as Damiens said, we use reliable sources for that. J Milburn (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:12, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image showing the parents of the bio's subject. Damiens.rf 20:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the image should be Kept, since the subjects parents, who are pictured in the image, played an instrumental role in the historical "Mendez v. Westminster" case which is discussed in the article. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just decorative, but the image shows important subjects mentioned in the article. - DonCalo (talk) 07:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, but just because the subjects of the picture are important to the article, does not mean that their likeness is. We are perfectly able to understand the article without seeing a picture of the subject's parents. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject's parents where the driving force behind the "Mendez v. Westminster" case of which the subject was the main protagonist. While it may be true that we are perfectly able to understand the article without seeing a picture of the subject's parents, this could also apply to other articles of historical civil rights figures such as "Martin Luther King" and "Thurgood Marshall". We do not need their images to understand their articles. Both Felicitas and Gonzalo Mendez are notable enough for the United States Post Office to issue a stamp on them and if it is good enough for the U.S. Government then their image should be good enough to be included in the "Mendez v. Westminster" section of the article. Antonio Martin (talk) 21:09, 8 June 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image not found on source website (that was unlikely to be the copyright holder anyway) Damiens.rf 20:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The source website changes overtime. In other words, they would remove some of the pictures and replace them with others. FoxLad (talk) 22:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So you really believe that we can delete images just because they happen to have disappeared from their source websites in more than three years? Last time I checked, that wasn't in policy at all. Unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise, please assume good faith and believe the uploader's statement that this was on that page at that time. Nyttend (talk) 17:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Read the complete text of the nomination, please. --Damiens.rf 18:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is dead. Identificatory image is appropriate. No apparent grounds to suspect any NFCC #2 problem. Jheald (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:13, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

finagrave is not a valid source. Its contents are user contributions and it does not cares much about copyright violations. We need to know more about a photo before claiming fair use. Damiens.rf 21:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Here is part of the image at the highly reliable source New in Chess. The entire photo is also on facebook (found in Google Images search for "Miroslav Filip"), but the link is very long. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is dead. Identificatory image is appropriate (and accuracy of identification now confirmed). Image doesn't appear distinguished by any special artistry or to mark any special event; no reason apparent to suspect any NFCC #2 problem. Jheald (talk) 14:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject is dead and clean up rationale. - DonCalo (talk) 07:30, 29 May 2011 (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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unecessary non-free image shows two man playing chess. Also, finagrave is not a valid source. Damiens.rf 21:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not just an image of two men playing chess - it is two grandmasters, one of which was the World Champion a year earlier. It is from a historic event (the Candidates Tournament for the World Chess Championship 1963. The article on Miroslav Filip discusses a notable game of his, one which he is playing against Mikhail Tal. The photo is of these two analyzing that game, and is used in that section of the article (Miroslav Filip#Filip vs. Tal). I've added a second source, and a [third source both of which are reliable. It is also in the book Curaçao 1962 by Jan Timman, p. 130. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Functional image. - DonCalo (talk) 07:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it is entirely irrelevant how important these two men were or how important this particular chess game was; the only important thing is whether there is something in the visual details of the image that is necessary for understanding what the text says about them. I'm not seeing anything of the sort: these two men look pretty much like any other pair of chess players during any other game anywhere in the world. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:20, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Del. per FPaS. Doesn't appear to significantly add to understanding in the way required by NFCC #8. Jheald (talk) 14:28, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historic event, just as we would keep at equally important picture of any world championship sports event. Fair use in context. Individuals cannot be adequate described in words. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, the event is important, but that doesn't mean that the image is. There is no kind of "entitlement" for a non-free image of "any world championship sports event", and neither is there here. We can understand the event without seeing this picture. J Milburn (talk) 23:06, 29 May 2011 (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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image showing many people posing. Damiens.rf 21:03, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, historic image of the first Albanian parliament, it is published somewhere in 30's so it is in PD-OLD-70 --Vinie007 07:13, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- 3 Questions: (1) when and where exactly was it published? You say in the 30s, but how do you know? (2) If you think it's public domain, then why did you tag it as non-free? (3) How exactly is it sourced to the Albanian state archives? Did the archive publish it? (where?) Did you go and search the archive's holdings? Did they send it to you? What metadate does the archive have about the provenance of the image? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I heard it was published at that time in the newspaper and they got a picture of it and it's from family member, because they guy beside zogu is related to me. (2) It's not my file, i did't stand before them and took picture. (3) I think it's exactly its orginal picture is archived in archives for that reason i declared it as archive file. I didn't obtain it on that way. --Vinie007 20:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to pass WP:NFC. You will need to establish that it was published and it is PD-OLD-70 if it is to be kept. Jheald (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok delete than, i can never prove that. Thanks Jheald!--Vinie007 20:38, 29 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary decorative non-free image. Adds nothing informative to the text. Damiens.rf 21:25, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Four in a jeep" has a historical significance far in excess of simply showing "four soldiers". The nominator has nominated a concerning number of files in this run where they don't seem to have any real understanding of the images and what they show. This is far from merely a "decorative image". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if after reading the article and the image description page I still don't have any real understanding of the image, there's a problem with the way we're using it.

Is this movie somehow based on this photo? If so, we can build a case for using the image. --Damiens.rf 12:53, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless source credits can be traced back further beyond the modern printed source and it turns out to be PD, which it might well be. Delete as long as it's non-free: photograph not of a unique event but of a generic, common situation type characteristic of the time; not particularly notable ("iconic") as an image in its own right; while the situation is certainly of great historical interest, nothing in the visual details of the image is necessary for understanding it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Free ((PD-USGov)) alternative here: [2] (without the actual jeep though). Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:57, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not good alternative. Four men standing somewhat near to each other is just a group portrait, not a symbol of joint action. Anyway, its the one in the jeep that's historic. DGG ( talk ) 21:29, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Famous historical image with political significance. Not replaceable. DGG ( talk ) 21:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a type of patrol that could be seen in action dozens of times each day, over a course of a full ten years. And you are seriously telling me that this one, particular patrol with these particular four guys in this particular jeep on this particular day is of special historic significance? Or are you also telling me that during a campaign that saw American servicemen in regular action for ten years, no American soldier ever took a photograph of it, with a jeep, under PD-USGov conditions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:42, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - More PD-USGov images here: [3]. And the claim that this one is particularly important or "famous" is contradicted by the fact that there are several others that are considerably better (though also probably not free), e.g. [4][5][6]; it is implausible to suggest that this one should be particularly "iconic" as a photograph. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:25, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Functional historic image symbolizing the four powers occupation of Vienna. - DonCalo (talk) 07:36, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, interesting, but ultimately replaceable by other photos, as shown by Fut.Perf. I am seeing no evidence that this particular picture is "iconic" and, even if it is, that does not mean that it can bypass the NFCC. Sure, it's slightly nicer than the alternatives, but that is certainly not a reason to use non-free content. J Milburn (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in accompanying text indicates why picture is significant, and free alternatives likely available. Daniel Case (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary decorative repetitive non-free image. Damiens.rf 21:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Del. per nom. Jheald (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2011 (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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point a given topic was on the cover. Damiens.rf 21:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, won't argue the point. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:46, 26 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file, unencyclopaedic, Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:33, 26 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photo of low use since it shows almost nothing interesting. Damiens.rf 21:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a historical image. Also, it can be reasonably replaced by a free image. I've found images of plenty of drivers from that era so it's possible to find. Royal broil 05:24, 27 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The events depicted on this picture need not an image to be properly conveyed in the article's text. The image adds no encyclopedic information. Damiens.rf 21:36, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless it can be shown to be public domain. J Milburn (talk) 23:11, 29 May 2011 (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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:17, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to see a tiny picture of a sign reading "FAGOTS – STAY OUT" to understand the discussion about the restaurant that once had a sign reading "FAGOTS – STAY OUT". This is simply textual information. The reader does not need to see the picture to visualize the matter. Damiens.rf 21:45, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Firstly the nomination has no basis in policy and seems to be no more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Secondly, this is a sign that has had documented historical importance out of all proportion to its spelling. I only wish that our photo of it was of better quality. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant policy is WP:NFCC. Item #8 specifically. The sign had historical importance, not the photo. --Damiens.rf 12:55, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails ~~WP:NFCC#9~~WP:NFCC#8 ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 13:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose you mean #8, right? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A draconian interpretation of NFCC#8 is not warranted here. The small size of the image (as large versions are readily available) also diminishes any concerns.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 13:59, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Omitting it from the article would not impede understanding of the text, hence fails NFCC#8. This sign is so simple that describing it in text is completely trivial. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The impact of the image enhances the article. - DonCalo (talk) 09:40, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The aufgnificnce requires an image. words do not do this sort of thing justice. DGG ( talk ) 21:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What exactly is lacking in the description "there was a cardbord sign placed on the shelf with the liquor bottles, saying 'fagots stay out'"? What exactly in these words "doesn't do this sort of thing justice"? Name it. Describe it. What is missing? If you can't, you have no case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  the routine nature & rough but not illiterate execution of the sign, very visible placement to be immediately apparent to anyone who patronizes the bar, the therefore assumption that the usual patrons would not be offended--none of which can be described readily in words. You're asking me to give in words exactly what the import of an illustration, and proposing the dilemma: if I succeed in doing so, the picture is not necessary, and if I do not, the picture can be clearly proven to be needed. The only way this argument is acceptable is if it is desired to eliminate all fair use pictures, for such an argument can be raised for every one of them. But this is not our policy. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read the paragraph next to the image. Now look at the sign. It is not the casual creation of a moment, a message scrawled on whatever piece of paper happened to be at hand; it is a professionally printed sign. In the 1950s, one couldn't just download software from the Internet & use it to print out a sign like that. To create a sign like that, in those long-gone days, someone had to pay a professional money to actually make it. There is a deliberateness in its creation, which leaves no doubt that it was the opinion of the owner of Barney's Beanery & not just one of his employee who was homophobic. (And why the owner didn't simply resort to the less offensive "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a question I'd like see answered in the article.) Anyone who recognizes that subtext in the sign -- something expressed far more eloquently with a picture than with prose -- knows it is important to the article, & iconic. (And to state that in the article requires a citation, since it is an opinion.) Anyone who doesn't see that subtext ... well, there's no way to say this that isn't offensive, but your ability to understand a picture with all of its nuances is deficient. Your argument does boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as Andy Dingley says above. -- llywrch (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh yes, some people are "unable to completely understand what they are shown". It isn't a professionally "printed" sign. Look at a larger copy of the image: these are hand-written letters, on a piece of cardboard. But all the rest of your argument is irrelevant too: it's not that I don't understand these nuances from the image. I understand all of them. It's just that I understand them equally well without it. Perhaps you should stop speculating about other people's ability to understand images, and get your own comprehension of text checked? Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:41, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A picture is worth a thousand words. Even if some people are unable to competently understand what they are shown. -- llywrch (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it'd be nice to have a picture, and yes, the sign is important, but the significance certainly does not mean that it "requires an image". We use non-free content when it adds significantly to reader understanding of the topic, not when we deem the topic important enough, or when it's a very striking image. The majority of arguments used in support of this image are clearly invalid. J Milburn (talk) 23:14, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The encyclopedic element of the sign is what it says, not its overall appearance. A photo is not necessary to convey that information. Daniel Case (talk) 05:06, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The reader needs to see this. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:49, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? --damiens.rf 16:18, 5 June 2011 (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 ⚡ 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary replaceale non-free pictures of a stack of guitar amplifier. Damiens.rf 21:47, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is not a random stack guitar amps, it is a photo of a fake stack of guitar amps. This exact photo appeared 22 September 2010 in Gizmodo, the story written by Rosa Golijan in response to discussion about it in online bulletin boards. It is this photo that is being discussed in the article. Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It wasn't the photo being discussed in the article before, but it is now. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 00:42, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (barely). I couldn't see justification for fair use in a general article on amplifiers, but can just about support this if the particular image and its news reporting is discussed square-on in the article, as it is now. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:31, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the use of such fake amplifiers is "not too uncommon", as the article claims, then a new photograph of such a fake can be taken some time in the future. And the specific story about how this particular photograph of this particular fake amplifier at this particular concert triggered a discussion in some online bulletin board and then a journalist's investigation into the practice has no encyclopedic value. There's a reason we don't have an article on "Rosa Golijan guitar amplifier investigation controversy" or the like, and we're not likely to have even as much as a section on it in some other article. It is an entirely non-notable story, and its details are irrelevant for understanding the issue itself. The Golijan article is a decent enough source for supporting the statement that such fakes exist, but the details of how and why the author came to write about it are not the topic of our article and therefore irrelevant for any NFCC argument. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete—if these things exist, then a free photo can obviously be created. ╟─Treasury Tag►cabinet─╢ 14:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Fut.Perf's arguments. J Milburn (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2011 (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 F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Beautiful non-free image copied from Getty Images. Damiens.rf 21:49, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eesh, fair enough. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:52, 26 May 2011 (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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copied from Getty Images. Damiens.rf 21:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have changed the infobox picture on Ian Smith page so this one is no longer needed in any case. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a reason to revert to the original, not to delete entirely. As an aside, new images shouldn't be uploaded over existing images - give them a new filename. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence have we that the original is public domain, though? No source data at all existed before. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:33, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The older image might still need to be deleted, but that's a separate question. If there are queries over the sourcing of that (and uploads from 2006 and earlier are frequently poorly described), then I would suggest emailing their uploader. As they haven't been active for some years, they're unlikely to be watching their talk page. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've emailed him, but I'm not too optimistic. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 10:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I enclose the message I received from BScar23625:

Cliftonian
The original version that I uploaded in 2006 was a b&w copy of Smith's official portrait (a painting). It was used for assorted publicity purposes by both the Rhodesian government's information office and Smith's Rhodesia Front party. By modern standards, the image looks rather odd - but it is very striking and, perhaps, throws some light on the psychology behind UDI and white minority rule. I think it says more than the image that you have overloaded it by.
I cannot imagine that there is any copyright issue with my version. It is an iconic image of a deceased person and was widely used for promotional purposes in the 1960s and early 1970s. I guess someone technically has a copyright in the original painting. But whoever that was (and I suspect the Zimbabwe government), they haven't the least interest in it.
I haven't been active on Wikipedia for some years - so I don't propose to engage on the relevant forum about this.

best wishes

While I agree with his comments on the image itself ("By modern standards, the image looks rather odd - but it is very striking and, perhaps, throws some light on the psychology behind UDI and white minority rule. I think it says more than the image that you have overloaded it by.") it doesn't really add much to the argument regarding the copyrighting. I'd imagine it belongs to the Zimbabwe government, as he says, if it was Smith's official portrait; what is the policy there? – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 19:15, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not presently our usual practice, but I think we should consider it acceptable fair use to include an officially released portrait of any individual to be fair use in the article about them, or about something with which they are closely & officially associated. They were made and released for that very purpose. It is within the WMF requirements, and ought to be part of our NFCC criteria. It would certainly avoid a great many discussions, & give us more of an opportunity to carefully consider the actual problems. DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An official portrait is sometimes going to be usable in the article on the subject- if the subject is dead, and we have no free content, it would be a good choice for a non-free lead image- but it's rarely going to be useful elsewhere. However, your belief that official portraits should be included in articles "about something with which they are closely & officially associated" makes a mockery of NFCC#8. Non-free content can be used only when it adds significantly to reader understanding of the article, not when you feel the subject of the image is sufficiently related to the subject of the article. Free images of "related" subjects are often going to be useful to give some visual interest to the page, but non-free images should not be used so decoratively. J Milburn (talk) 23:20, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As BScar notes, this isn't merely a photograph of Smithy, it's the photograph that he chose to be his official image. For a politician, that distinction is significant. I would agree with DGG over this one, and that we ought to expand policy to cover this point explicitly. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:10, 31 May 2011 (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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. No info. Not useful. Damiens.rf 21:54, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Used to be on userpage, no longer needed. Delete. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:55, 26 May 2011 (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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free photo of some athletes at a very important moment. Although, the image adds nothing to the discussion about the event. Damiens.rf 21:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 21:57, 26 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free photo of some athletes at a very important moment. Although, the image adds nothing to the discussion about the event. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:06, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As you say, a very important moment. Can be described clearly only by the illustration. Therefore meets NFCC. DGG ( talk ) 23:41, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if we accept that it is best described by an image, that does not mean that it needs to be described. They won, they celebrated. We don't need an image to show how they celebrated. J Milburn (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2011 (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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of GFDL licensing. Incomplete source. Orphan. Damiens.rf 22:00, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongfully uploaded without licence when I was a n00b a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away?) – delete. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:02, 26 May 2011 (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 J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of GFDL licensing. Incomplete source. Orphan. Damiens.rf 22:01, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongfully uploaded without licence when I was a n00b a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away?) – delete. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:02, 26 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this low resolution monochromatic (almost) photo adds much information about the specific football fans riot it captures. Also, the source seems like a fan page that won't care much about copyrights, and this is the kind of image I would expect to belong to some news source or news agency. Damiens.rf 22:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally thought it would count as fair use regardless, but as above, won't argue the point. We need to cut down on fair use images in any case. – Cliftonian^{the orangey bit} 22:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"we need to cut down on fair use images" is not a reason for deletion of any particular image. And furthermore, it is not necessarily the case they we need to cut down on such images. Myself, I think we need to expand them. I am not saying "keep" because in this instance I agree with Damiens that this is not likely to be the best available one for the event. DGG ( talk ) 23:44, 28 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 00:01, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 25#File:Userpage decoration for Redvers - Pictures.png Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:06, 26 May 2011 (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 F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free photo from Getty Images shows a wedding. Damiens.rf 22:20, 26 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image copied from a news source, show a woman on trial, used just to make the point she went on trial. Damiens.rf 22:22, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only reasons for proposing deletion of this image is based on the nominator's interpretation and subjective view. "Need" is subjective. This image of an historically important event meets both the legal criteria for fair use, as well as our image use policy and criteria for NFCC. The image is encyclopedic in nature and is contextually significant to the Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury article. The image offers an historical representation of the trial and conviction of Lady Shaftesbury for the murder of her husband, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury. Cind.amuse 08:04, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, the event's important, but that doesn't mean that the image is. Further, the fact this image is from a news source is problematic. Fails NFCC#8 and 2. J Milburn (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unneessary non-free image show the sad family of the victim of a crime. The image itself is not needed to the proper understanding of the text it's decorating. Damiens.rf 22:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only reasons for proposing deletion of this image is based on the nominator's interpretation and subjective view. "Need" is subjective. This image of an historically important event meets both the legal criteria for fair use, as well as our image use policy and criteria for NFCC. The image is encyclopedic in nature and is contextually significant to the Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury article. The image offers an historical representation of the the Shaftesbury family following the trial and conviction of Lady Shaftesbury for the murder of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury. Cind.amuse 08:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Couldn't have said it better. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 10:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image copied from a news source, show a man on trial, used just to make the point she went on trial. Damiens.rf 22:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only reasons for proposing deletion of this image is based on the nominator's interpretation and subjective view. "Need" is subjective. This image of an historically important event meets both the legal criteria for fair use, as well as our image use policy and criteria for NFCC. The image is encyclopedic in nature and is contextually significant to the Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury article. The image offers an historical representation of the trial and conviction of M'Barek for the murder of his brother-in-law, Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 10th Earl of Shaftesbury. Cind.amuse 08:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Couldn't have said it better. -DJSasso (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 21:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He went on trial, yes. That is significant, yes. This does not mean that we need a non-free image of the event. To justify the use of a non-free image, the image itself has to add significantly to the article (among other criteria). No one has explained how it does that, only asserted that it does. Furthermore, as this image is from the Daily Mail, it almost certainly fails NFCC#2, as well as 8. J Milburn (talk) 23:28, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It simply protrays that he went on trial, something that we can explain adequately in text alone. Cindamuse's argument is largely that it illustrates something significant, Q.E.D. it is significant—an argument that is used here with monotonous regularity. Image fails NFCC#8, 1 and (as J Milburn states) possibly #2. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:44, 5 June 2011 (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 - file is not on commons that I can see - Peripitus (Talk) 12:28, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 25#File:Userpage decoration for Redvers - Pictures.png Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:51, 26 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 14:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File page used as an article Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:52, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely bad licence. Reh man 06:18, 27 May 2011 (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 G3 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file, unencyclopaedic Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:56, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic, per nom. Reh man 06:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No educational value. Moray An Par (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently uploaded and used briefly in Viperidae for vandalism. DragonflyDC (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2011 (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 ⚡ 14:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file, unencyclopaedic Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:57, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unencyclopedic, per nom. Reh man 06:16, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No educational value. Moray An Par (talk) 15:46, 29 May 2011 (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.

May 26

File:Bethesda Softworks.png

File:PIC 0116.JPG

File:NMEcover251106.jpg

File:Koga Mineichi on TIME cover 1941.jpg

File:Merrick Time.JPG

File:Nomura Kichisaburo on TIME cover 1941.jpg

File:Osami Nagano on Time Cover 1943.jpg

File:NixonMcGov.jpg

File:Benjamin Chidlaw.jpg

File:Bobmathias time.jpg

File:Cole Ed on Time cover 1959.jpg

File:Cory Aquino - Woman of the Year.jpg

File:Chappuis.jpg

File:Edgartime.jpg

File:Gehrig time.jpg

File:HaroldMedina.jpg

File:Harry-bridges-july-19-1937.jpg

File:Joe-curran-time.jpg

File:Paul-harkins.jpg

File:Shostakovichtimecover.jpg

File:Time-m bunting.jpg

File:Time New York Blackout.png

File:TIME cover july 31 2000.jpg

File:Wallis Time.jpg

File:Willy Brandt Time.jpg

File:George michael rolling stone magazine.jpg

File:PaigeSummersPent199801.jpg

File:NYTimes-SallyMann.jpg

File:Try Everything Once Except Incest and Morris Dancing.jpeg

File:Dana Plato mugshot.jpg

File:Princess Alice of Battenberg coronation.PNG

File:LifeJune30-1972.jpg

File:LizzetteHonduras.jpg

File:ItalianCosmopolitan80.jpg

File:MensBazaar80RichardGere.jpg

File:HarpersBazaarFrance80.jpg

File:HarpersBazaarItalia82Brooke.jpg

File:Lakonia Lifemag.JPG

File:Natgeo censorship.jpg

File:DSC00946.jpg

File:DSC00956.JPG

File:Faa di Bruno 1917 bis.jpg

File:Falcone-Borsellino.jpg

File:FARC-child-soldiers.jpg

File:Fidel LaBarba.jpg

File:Filip02.jpg

File:FilipAndTal.jpg

File:First Albanian members of parliament.png

File:Four-in-a-jeep allied patrol in Vienna.jpg

File:Faye Dancer HoF.jpg

File:FCAnnecy1960.png

File:Vali.jpg

File:FerrellHarrisNASCAR.jpg

File:First chechen war russian tanks.jpg

File:Fake-amp-stacks-immortal-metal-band.jpg

File:RobinFriday.jpg

File:CliftonianZim.jpg

File:Wimbledon1963a.jpg

File:WimbledonFACup1988.png

File:Ricky Hill.JPG

File:Harford-photo3.JPG

File:LutonMillwallriot13March1985.png

File:Esch-sur-Alzette Hotel de Ville.jpg

File:10th Earl of Shaftesbury and Lady Bianca Shaftesbury 1966.jpg

File:Jamila M'Barek on trial in 2007.jpg

File:Ashley-Cooper press conference 2007.jpg

File:Mohammed M'Barek on trial in 2007.jpg

File:Rotterdam Centraal 2462518862.jpg

File:Vicecity cover.jpg