Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 13

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

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:Duff_Goldman_of_Charm_City_Cakes.jpg

Image:Duff_Goldman_of_Charm_City_Cakes.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Junglecat (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image of a living person that is used just to show what the person looks like. Violates WP:NFCC #1 as it can be replaced by a free image. The subject makes frequent public appearences. Nv8200p talk 00:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Please hold for a bit - I think this photo should have had a Share Alike 2.5 attribute given to it. I was given the photo by Mary Alice who works at Charm City Cakes via email. I asked for a photo I could release into public domain. She sent what you see and the key point was that it should have "Courtesy of Extended Image Photography" as credit for the photo. I'm sure my tagging of the photo was incorrect as I was trying to keep it on the "safe" side and tag it as copyrighted. My old computer crashed and the hard drive is now a external drive with an adapter. I'll see if I can retrieve the email and can forward to an admin. Worst case I could email Mary Alice again. I'll see what I can do. Thanks. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 22:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That sounds like {{attribution}}. I change the license to that. Please change it if this is not the correct license. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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 Evil Spartan 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:AnnRichards-closeup.jpg

Image:AnnRichards-closeup.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Wikid77 (notify | contribs).

• Copyright violation. Taking a photo of a portrait doesn't grant the photographer rights to that image. Obsolete. By Image:AnnRichards.jpg. Which probably shouldn't be around, either, considering it's nonfree and we have free alternatives, but that's for another deletion nomination. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 09:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
  • KEEP as revised: License has been corrected to "Non-free fair use" with detailed rationale, noting, "As a small excerpt from the original portrait, at low resolution, the closeup image does not expose the original portrait to unauthorized complete or high-resolution copying." Also added "References" section, linking full-view of framed portrait (darkened) to document relative small size of excerpt being used in Wikipedia. -Wikid77 13:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    • And what does the official state portrait show that Image:AnnRichards 20050210.jpg doesn't already do? -(unsigned: Howcheng 18:50, 13 July 2007)
      • The official state portrait is an iconic image that shows her appearance as Governor of Texas, nearly 15 years younger, with different hairstyle ("Texas big hair" - see Google-search: 1470 gHits) and different wardrobe (business attire). No equivalent free image has been found for her appearance while governor. She was a legendary personality, so I can't begin to explain all the implications, just consider "iconic" as key. Google lists 273,000 gHits about her (10 months after her death). -Wikid77 04:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
        • Sorry, but how is the change in appearance significant? And even if you believe it to be so, can you back up those statements with cited sources? Because this is a non-free image, the article has to create a need for it. In other words, if the image weren't there, would the reader have difficulty in understanding the text? If the image is not truly necessary, then it shouldn't be there. howcheng {chat} 06:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikipedia frequently uses non-free images, due to an absence of free alternatives, to illustrate earlier stages in the lives of important figures (see, for example, Image:Microsoft-Staff-1978.jpg). This appears to be one such case; the free image we have of Richards, taken in 2005, is not suitable for illustrating her tenure as governor (such as on List of Governors of Texas), since she didn't look like that while governor. Powers ^T 03:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
  • This is a common argument, but this is only valid when the appearance of the person at a younger age is significant in some way. I can't think of any good examples off the top my head, however. And it's not like the free image is that much different than the portrait. You might have a better case if she went from having black hair to white hair for example. Again, this image is not critical to understanding the article's text (see WP:NFCC #8). If I'm wrong, please edify me and prepare to back up such statements with cited sources. howcheng {chat} 16:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
    • The appearance of the person at a younger age is significant because that's how she appeared when she was governor. I can't cite a source for that. I'm making no claims to the images usefulness on the Ann Richards article, but to the List of Governors of Texas article, which I think has different requirements. The purpose of the latter article is to provide information on the governorships, not the people themselves (that's why it lists the dates they were in office, not the dates they were alive). Likewise, any images should be of the governors as they appeared during their terms as governor, not as they might appear X number of years later. It's the same reasoning we use to allow fair-use images of actors in certain iconic roles -- if we're going to identify the people with a picture, it needs to be one relevant to the context. Powers ^T 19:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as allowable fair use -- the image of someone in office is not replaceable with an image created many years later. Extreme example: for Shirley Temple, images from her youth are acceptable fair use because an image of her today would not show her as a child star. Free images of public figures which show them not acting in the capacity for which they are known aren't acceptable substitutes for an encyclopedia. An image of the Queen of England in sweatpants jogging is not an image of the Queen. Nor is a long retired governor caught off guard in image of the governor of Texas. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 08:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep one, delete the other. She's dead. It's not replaceable. The Evil Spartan 23:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
• Whoa! Who deleted the image citing that this IfD as reason? I don't know what the outcome of this was likely to be, but I know that the admin who deleted it also did not know. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Result was keep Image:AnnRichards.jpg, delete this one, as implemented by User:Quadell. The Evil Spartan 14:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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.

[edit] Image:Dalek-o-lantern.jpg

Image:Dalek-o-lantern.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Blurgle Fragle (notify | contribs).

• Completing a nomination by an anon. Claimed reason: unencyclopedic. I am neutral.- The Evil Spartan 14:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree, extremely unencyclopedic and orhpaned. A personal upload perhaps? Wikipedia is not myspace however. A quick check of the talk page indicates a copyvio of http://www.evilmadscientist.com/article.php/DalekPumpkin. WikipedianProlific^(Talk) 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a copyvio. We've already been through this. It was released as cc-by-2.0 on the flickr site - click on the image. The Evil Spartan 15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Meh, it's orphaned anyway. howcheng {chat} 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Move to Commons. (I've tagged it as such.) It's not exactly encyclopedic, but it is cute. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept pending Commons move. Also, it's not a copyvio, as the Flickr user runs the other web site. howcheng {chat} 17:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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.

[edit] Image:Roker_park_aerial.jpg

Image:Roker_park_aerial.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:Elysium 73).

• A copyright violation of WorldStadia.com, suggest that this image's tag be changed, or a better-quality picture be found (note: This building no longer exists, so is non-replaceable). — 132.199.35.204 16:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted but I suggest figuring out a way to contact the person who uploaded it to WorldStadia and obtaining a release. howcheng {chat} 17:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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.

[edit] Image:Packers_v_Steamrollers.jpg

Image:Packers_v_Steamrollers.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Chancemichaels (notify | contribs).

• Full page ad, only used decoratively – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. Published in 1931 with no copyright notice, so tagging as {{PD-US}}. howcheng {chat} 17:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:ImNotSlowingDown.gif

Image:ImNotSlowingDown.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Wikid77 (notify | contribs).

• Non-free book cover. Cover art may not be used for identification only, but must be used within the context of critical commentary about the book. howcheng {chat} 18:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• • KEEP since commentary added: Beyond the prior 4 statements about the book (in the article "Ann Richards"), I have added 5 more statements paraphrased from a critical commentary of the book, also footnoting the source reference. -Wikid77 05:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Nice job, but do you have anything that comes from a reliable source? I'm sorry, but I don't think texana.texascooking.org really qualifies. Maybe NYT, LAT, WSJ, a publishing trade magazine, or even Texas newspaper? howcheng {chat} 16:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Not deleted, image passes NFCC #8, though WP:RS is a valid (separate) issue. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

[edit] Image:Past_Doctors.jpg or Image:Past doctors.jpg

One of these needs removed, I feel that only one of these virtually identical images can be justified under fair use —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.249.63 (talk • contribs)

Keep both - while they are undeniably similar, they illustrate different points and are discussed separately in Human Nature (Doctor Who episode). One depicts some of the Doctors only, as seen in the episode itself, while the other shows all ten of them, as briefly shown on the BBC web site, an image that is no longer available there. The less inclusive version is discussed in connection with the episode and a citation on the BBC "Fact File" page, while the other is discussed in connection with the online appearance, the use of all ten Doctors in the prop, and an entry about the fictional object, John Smith's A Journal of Impossible Things, in List of Doctor Who items#J. Neither image adequately illustrates the points being made in connection with the other image, IMO, and in at least one case, the image has been removed once with no replacement at all, despite the presence of a fair use rationale and a clear discussion of the image itself on the affected page. --Karen | Talk | contribs 22:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep both - same as above really. Plus, the fact that the user nominating for deletion didn't sign suggests - but doesn't prove - that they are one of the many IPs who have been revert-warring over the images' inclusion in the article.--Rambutan (talk) 11:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep both These are separate yet related images which serve entirely different purposes on the Doctor Who episode article Human Nature (Doctor Who episode): one serves to illustrate the plot, the other is used to further explain an important continuity note (the first depiction of original series Doctors in the revived series).

Moreover, I'd like to register my concern at the nominator's decision to remain anonymous by not signing their nomination, at their failure to have the appropriate notice added to the image page of Image:Past_doctors.jpg and also at their failure to give the uploader of both images, User:Sceptre, due notice at his talk page. In light of the disagreement over the images' use in Human Nature (Doctor Who episode), as evidenced by the article history, this failure to properly follow procedure seems to me like an overly hasty attempt to "win" a content dispute by the shortcut of trying to have an image deleted. Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 11:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep both as above --OZOO (What?) 11:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep both per Mark. Will ^(talk) 12:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete at least one. The question is not whether they are currently used for two different purposes; the question is whether these same two purposes could be fulfilled with using only one of them. At present, the article is so confusing and poorly written I can't even make heads nor tails of what either of the two purposes is supposed to be anyway. The first, used in the context of the plot summary, is not even referenced by the plot summary, so we don't even learn what role this object plays in the plot. Please explain: what detail is visible in image (1) but not in image (2) that is crucial for purpose A, and what detail is visible in image (2) but not in image (1) that is crucial for purpose B? Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment Actually it is referenced, right next to the image; I just checked. The picture is of a notebook called A Journal of Impossible Things, which in the plot is John Smith's first clue that he isn't who he thinks he is, part of a character and story arc that takes place across two episodes. The distinction between the two images may become clearer to you if you take a look at their uses in other articles as well, but basically, the close-up one is a clearer view of the scribbled text and shows which Doctors were actually seen on screen, while the other image is the only version that shows the likenesses of all ten Doctors, an important continuity milestone. Neither image adequately carries the load for the other, as one is notable for what is included and the other notable for what is omitted. I realize this is all a bit confusing from the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the show, and perhaps the plot description could be clearer. Nevertheless, it matters. Both images matter. Thanks - I hope that helps! -- Karen | Talk | contribs

Question: in what sense is it significant to the plot that the left half of the page is not shown in picture 1? And if the left half is never actually shown on screen but only in what I assume to be some accompanying fan/advertisement material, then how is it notable? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The close-up version that appeared on screen was specifically referenced on the BBC web site[1] with the visible and partly visible Doctors identified, a subject of erroneous speculation that the citation corrects and the image makes clearer. We can't use the two-page version in describing the plot because it didn't appear on screen, but the fact that the BBC showed that version on the web site gives it weight as to what the physical prop and fictional journal looked like, opening the door for saying that the Journal, as depicted in the larger image, had all the Doctors, the only new visual reference to some of them since the series was revived in 2005. For a show that has had few explicit references to its 1963-1997 continuity during this period, the image is highly significant.--Karen | Talk | contribs

Sorry, I'm utterly at a loss at understanding how anything of all this is even remotely of encyclopedic interest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:00, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, one more try before I throw up my hands and say I'm afraid I can't help you. Between them, these two images say to the viewer, "You know all that stuff about the lead character from that other show with the same name, the stuff we've mostly avoided mentioning for two years? Well, that was the same character after all." There will always be a temptation to think that something one doesn't find interesting or comprehensible must not be encyclopedic, particularly within the realm of popular culture. But these two images are among the most historically significant in the entire 2005-present series, because they explicitly connect it to the 1963-1989 series and the somewhat controversial 1997 tv movie. There is only one other episode of the show that really does that, and it wasn't a visual reference per se. Until the Eighth Doctor appeared in this fictional notebook, it was possible for fans to say the TV movie never "really" happened in the context of the new show. That is no longer the case. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 00:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but:

1. The episode article really doesn't make any of these points, so it's not obvious why they need illustrating there.
2. It smacks of WP:OR anyway.
3. It still doesn't answer why you need it twice. What would be lost if you left out the first image (in the plot section) altogether, and just said in the caption to the second image that "on screen, only the upper part of the right page was actually seen"?

In fact, you still haven't answered my question how this particular fact is of any interest. The plot section doesn't need the illustration, because the plot summary makes no reference to any particular piece of content of those pages - does it matter that the doctor shows that particular page to the nurse and not the next one? Does she react to any of these portraits specifically? As far as I can see until now, the whole point of what faces are shown there revolves on the meta-level of intertextual allusions directed at the audience, but has no relevance at all within the plot itself. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I really should stop trying to explain, as promised. But:

1. Yes, it does, in the continuity section, over more than one bullet point. It's also discussed in the Doctor (Doctor Who) article and in List of Doctor Who items#J.
2. There are citations that go with it; it's not particularly OR.
3. That wouldn't be very accurate. One would have to say, "Only part of the right hand page is seen, from the smudgy necklines of the Fourth, Third and Second Doctors, to the eyelines of the Sixth and Fifth Doctors." That's a long way to go just to avoid using this image, IMO.
4. Nurse Redfern pages her way through pretty much the whole Journal on screen, borrows it, reads it offscreen, and discusses it in some depth with Smith later. It's true that she doesn't specifically talk about those two pages, but she does help Smith to realize that the Doctor is real, and in the next episode she uses the Journal to discover the consequences if Smith does not "change back." The fact that the particular page is of more significance to the viewer than the character does not lessen the fact that Redfern must come to terms with the existence and nature of the Doctor, in part by reading the journal, and that the two page spread is indeed important from an out-of-universe perspective, which is something articles about fiction are supposed to track.--Karen | Talk | contribs 06:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you still haven't explained why it's crucial for the reader, in the context of the plot summary, to see which precise parts of which precise pages of the diary is shown or not shown, rather than just getting the information that "Nurse Redfern reads the diary", when all the issues about continuity related to the page with the faces are independent of its immediate role in the plot and are already discussed elsewhere with the help of the other image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep both per Karen. ТģØ(Đ {ŧª∫Қ ↑¤ Мә} 02:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Past doctors.jpg deleted; Image:Past Doctors.jpg kept. I'm not entirely convinced that either image is necessary, but I will defer editorial judgement on that point to people familiar with the episode. However, two images are clearly not necessary to make the point. Maybe the close-up one makes the point just a little more clearer than the whole book one, but the latter will do just fine by itself. FYI, there's another version of this image at Image:Impossible.jpg, which I removed from Doctor (Doctor Who). howcheng {chat} 17:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:German_Soviet.jpg

Image:German_Soviet.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Piotrus (notify | contribs).

• Unnecessary unfree image showing Soviet and German officers meeting, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 22:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. It is the last image of German-Soviet relations during the Soviet invasion of Poland left after removal of several others, and should certainly be left on this project to illustrate related articles. It adds significantly to the article, being a visual proof of an important fact in related articles.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. This works well on the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) article. If the caption could mention that it is from this propaganda film, then I am sure that would make the use about the film as well as just an illustration of the events in the article.qp10qp 03:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep image may in fact be PD if produced by the Russians and it shows the historic event in an unrepeatable way. -N 03:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  If it's PD, then it should be tagged as such and it doesn't need to be deleted. But as a non-free image, it doesn't help on the understanding of the discussion about the historic event in question in a way that words alone can not. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This can be considered public domain in the US if it is a captured German news reel, PD if a soviet news reel, besides this is a screenshot of an actual first contact between Soviet and German soldiers on the Bug river, where the Germans agreed to border changes as outlined in the molotov-ribbentrop pact, this is a non replaceable image. Bleh999 07:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Visual reminder that Soviets and Nazis were first allies in the carving up of Eastern Europe. And a vital illustration to the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) article. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 15:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
  P.S. I'm a bit confused, actually, is the problem that the nominator believes the picture does not add value (it certainly does, and if this is an editorial issue, it should be addressed in the appropriate venue); or that the nominator believes that use of the image (captured, in war archives) is not viable under fair use and/or educational purposes? The deletion nomination statement lumps everything together. Thanks! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 16:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  Explain - Per item #8 of our policy, we don't use non-free images whenever it's legal or convenient. The use of non-free material is not only an editorial decision. The material is only used if it helps in the understanding of the text in a way that words alone can not.

  Not only what's depicted on the image must be notable. The images itself must be notable. The alliance between Soviets and Nazis is notable and must be discussed in the article (as it currently is). But this non-free image doesn't help the understanding of this discussion in a way that words alone can not.

  If it comes out that this image is PD as suggested by N and User:Bleh999, it would be great. As a PD image, using it or not would then become a purely editorial decision. But as non-free content, we can't use it just because it works well. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The image materially reinforces the Soviet-Nazi alliance in a way which mere words do not, and therefore is notable even if not depicting notable personalities. The event of the meeting, morever, is of immense historical importance to Eastern Europe.

     Are you saying because you don't believe the picture adds anything that the use of the image under "fair use" guidelines is being denied (if a non-free, at least commercially, image)? Still trying to clarify that point.

     More importantly, I have contacted the IWM regarding use of images from this part of its collection--their web site discusses image licensing and purchase regarding commerical use as well as in-schoolroom use, but does not discuss other non-commercial use. Rather than interpret British copyright law (which would be difficult to apply as there was no transfer of rights from the original image author to the IWM as far as I'm aware), I thought it was worth simply asking. I'll post again when they respond. Please do not take action to delete prior to then. Thanks for your quick response! —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 19:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

No, I never said I believe the image adds "anything". I just said that our policy requires far more from a non-free image that simply being "beter than nothing".

Please, remember that a permission to use the image in Wikipedia doesn't makes it any more free. Images licensed to be used by Wikipedia only should still fulfill our non-free content criteria. And this images fails item #8.

"The event of the meeting, morever, is of immense historical importance to Eastern Europe" - Our policy doesn't says we should use non-free images whenever the event depicted is important. We only use such images when they are necessary for the understanding of the discussion about the "important event" in question. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. This is an absolutely vital image to illustrate the immediate aftermath of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact—the Invasion of Poland (1939) and the Soviet invasion of Poland (1939)—as well as Soviet-German cooperation. Turgidson 20:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Dispute- please, explain how a picture of some officials reading a document is necessary for the understanding of the topic discussed in the articles you mentioned. Do you understand this is a requirement from our policy on non-free material usage? --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Most of the "keep" votes here simply fail to address the concern raised by the nomination. Please, note that it's not sufficient to explain why is this image useful or how important is the event depicted at the image. Unless the image aids in the understanding of some topic in a way that words alone can not, we can't use it. Note that aids in the understanding is not the same as "fits like a glove". We don't use non-free material when it's specially convenient. We use it when we have no alternative. And by alternative we don't mean only an alternative image. It could be the alternative of not using any image at all.

This discussion is not an editorial decision about either or not this image makes some article better. It's about either or not some article needs this image to be understood.

We're not here to build a consensus on either or not this image is useful. We're here to build a consensus on either or not this image violates our policy. But most of the "votes" above are not taking the policy into account. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely believe that the picture is vital in aiding in understanding. There is a lot of dense material in the respective articles. People inevitably scroll through articles looking for items of interest. The picture is the anchor that insures the key point of Soviet-German cooperation is made and not lost.

     You may be aware of the facts in the articles which utilize this image and the picture may seem redundant to you, but I can tell you that for most Americans (and this is an American English encyclopedia), Red Army and Nazi troops together in friendship and alliance has the impact of nothing short of shock value. If such a "wake up call" is not "aiding in understanding," then I don't know what is. Your personal assessment of redundancy gives far too much credit, I believe, to the average reader.

     Thank you for your explanations above, I can confirm to you that my "vote" of Keep takes Wikipedia policy regarding use of non-free images fully into account. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 00:38, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What you describe is not "aid in the understanding or the reader". If the picture is just "the anchor that insures the key point of Soviet-German cooperation is made and not lost", it's almost an navigational aid. To serve just such purpose, we could use free images like a beautiful collation showing Hittler and Stalin with the Soviet and Nazi Flag in the background... or maybe a colored European map... whatever. But I assure you that our policy don't allow the use of non-free images to help the quick-scrolling reader to find information. Anyway, thanks for the policy-related argument. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:19, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyway the copyright of this image is a matter of debate, in the UK (the source listed is the imperial war museum) it is free of copyright because of the enemy property act of 1953, and I believe the same applies to the US since the National Archives holds copies of the Wochenschau news reels from WWII Bleh999 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The caption of the picture at Soviet invasion of Poland (1939) now makes it clear that it is from German propaganda newsreel. This means that it is no longer just illustrative but commented on for its own sake. The fact that it is a still also means that its use here does not represent a challenge to the newsreel itself. If the BBC wanted to show the newsreel they wouldn't simply be able to take it from Commons because of this image.qp10qp 21:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"To serve just such purpose, we could use free images like a beautiful collation showing Hitler and Stalin with the Soviet and Nazi Flag in the background..." completely misses the significance of Soviet and Nazi troops face to face, on the field, in alliance--Poland being the first of the countries of Eastern Europe to be sacrificed to the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. I'm sorry, but from my perspective, Abu badali, you believe the picture adds nothing significant because you do not appreciate its immense historical significance. You have the right to your editorial opinion. Hopefully the image will turn out to be free use and this debate here on the merits of our opinions re: non-free use a moot point. (added after edit conflict with Qp10qp's response) —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 22:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You're confused when you say this picture has an "immense historical significance". The events it depicts were of immense historical significance, but the picture itself didn't change anything it the history of the world. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I agreed to disagree with you until we ascertained the rights status of the image. But since you insist I'm confused, by your logic the Yalta conference article doesn't need two, if indeed any, images of Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin together since that's described in words perfectly well. This image is of equal, if not greater, significance. The specific meeting portrayed--and as proxy for all such meetings along the Nazi-Soviet front as defined by Molotov-Ribbentrop--set into motion the subjugation of Eastern Europe for the next half century.

    I would prefer not to be combative about this, why can't we just wait until we figure out if there's even a problem?

    If you actually mean "pictures which changed the course of history" as your gating criteria, I can only think of two or three that I would consider to be in that league. —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 13:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The Yalta Conference picture is in the public domain. If it were copyright protected, it couldn't be being used in Yalta Conference the way it's used today. That was a wonderful example. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we're making progress in our dialog... supposing these represented the only source of images of the meeting (already described in words) and were not PD, would they still merit remaining in the article according to your criteria?  —  Pēters J. Vecrumba 14:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As the main image, simply to illustrate the topic (i.e: as it's currently being used today), no. But if the image itself had received some awards, or have been commented about by a number of reliable sources, the article could contain a section about the image itself, and a we would be able to make a valid fair use claim. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete if not public domain for not being necessary for reader comprehension. Keep otherwise (duh). howcheng {chat} 16:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. If it would infringe copyright, it would have been deleted in 7 days. I think WP has already established a good policy of automatically dismissing everything with improper copyright information. Any new evidence the image brakes some copyright? If not, this discussion is vacuous.:Dc76\^talk 16:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

But it may break a copyright of some practically untraceable Nazi photographer. So you see, on the 'one in a million' chance a heir of this photographer would decide to sue Wikipedia - instead of one of several agencies selling the photo, and one of dozens pages publishing it - we need to delete it. Guess where the term 'copyright paranoia' comes from :) -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The ever-repeated "copyright paranoia" argument is becoming almost a Godwin's Law for deletion discussions. Tell me, Piotrus, who in this whole discussion ever argued that this image should be deleted because it puts Wikipedia in legal risk? You either misunderstanding or misinterpreting the whole argument. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• So we don't know who took the photo, right? Anyways, according to this page, the work would be in the public domain in the US if this work is out of copyright as of 1/1/1996. If that is the case, then tell us proof that it is out of copyright (should it be Poland or Germany?) User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • User:Bleh999 states in this edit that this is a still frame from the German newsreel Die Deutsche Wochenschau, which may possibly be PD-US as being seized wartime property. However, a search on NARA reveals 91 results matching this term. Now I didn't examine every single record, but I picked a few at random (such as [2]) and all of them say "Use Restrictions: Undetermined." To me, that says non-free and ergo it should be deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Not deleted. The image description currently says that the images is PD in the U.S. I don't know whether that's true or not. If someone suspects the image is not free, they should list it at WP:PUI. But as tagged, it's keepable. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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.