Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 20

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:General alcazar.jpg

Image:General alcazar.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Abelson (notify | contribs).

• The image has been tagged more than once for its lack of a fair use rationale (done on July 3 and July 5 of this year), but no rationale has been provided. — -- SilentAria ^talk 13:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Use rationale added. Jheald 20:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. The rationale that was added was kind of lacking, so I changed it. The image is now only being used in ligne claire as an example of that style. howcheng {chat} 20:14, 26 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:Bianca and Nestor.jpg

Image:Bianca and Nestor.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Abelson (notify | contribs).

• The image has been tagged for its lack of a fair use rationale since June 27, 2007, but no rationale has been provided. — -- SilentAria ^talk 13:54, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For the purposes of showing the depiction of a comic book character, for the article devoted to that character, the image would appear to pass WP:NONFREE for Nestor (Tintin character). Jheald 14:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 20:06, 26 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:Bianca Castafiore.jpg

Image:Bianca Castafiore.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Abelson (notify | contribs).

• The image has been tagged for its lack of a fair use rationale since June 27, 2007, but no rationale has been provided. — -- SilentAria ^talk 13:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep For the purposes of showing the depiction of a comic book character, for the article devoted to that character, the image would appear to pass WP:NONFREE for Bianca Castafiore. Not appropriate on Secondary characters and settings in The Adventures of Tintin. Could somebody reduce the size of the image, please. Jheald 14:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 20:06, 26 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:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

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

• Unnecessary non-free screenshot showing Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands, used to illustrate the information that they once met. The images doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Some explanations

1. Make sure you understand item #8 of of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.
2. This nomination is not implying that the event depicted on this images is not relevant.
3. This nomination is not implying that the this image does not captures that event nicely.
4. This nomination is not implying that there are free alternative images to replace this one.
5. This nomination is not implying that this image is being used in breach of copyright (so, "copyright paranois" comments are specially unhelpful here).
6. This nomination is not implying that this image isn't useful.
7. Comment about the image, the articles and the policy. But not about the editors involved.
8. Make sure you understand item #8 of of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria before commenting.

--Abu badali ^(talk) 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - As discussion on the article's talk page has shown, this picture doesn't actually illustrate anything about Iran but is used to show the "unholy alliance" or demonstrate how bad the US was to Iran - in other words, to make a "point" to the reader. Definitely not an appropriate reason to include in the article, much less under a fair use claim. The Behnam 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The screenshot image is very relevent and usable in many articles on wikipedia. It is quite famous and shows one of the 'triumvirate' who pressed for the Iraq war shaking hands with his foe earlier on their careers, when Hussein's regime was supplied and supported by US and West. -- maxrspct ping me 16:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  Please, see points 2, 6 above. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:16, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The image is unique and already in the public domain via the National Security Archive and should not be considered a copyrighted work - effectivly a free image/screenshot. The policy #8 which you are basing this whole thing on is actually contentious and in debate at the moment. You admit that the revelevance isn't in dispute or that it could be used in articles and your main wish to see it deleted totally as you think it is not significant enough to be used in this article is not a solid argument for complete deletion. -- maxrspct ping me 18:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, see point 7 above.

If it's PD, it doesn't need to be deleted. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If a editor put 8 point list about the his/her deletion nomination i don't see the problem with another another editor commenting on them. Does the nominating editor agree that the image tag could be changed to public domain? -- maxrspct ping me 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep as per maxrspct, the image is relevant from an historical perspective. SSZ 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, see point 2 above. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Unnecessary is specifically addressed by relevant if you acknowledge that unnecessary -> necessary form a continuum. YOur "point two" is factually wrong, so it doesn't form any sort of refutation. WilyD 01:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Is the Wall Street Journal's blog section bullshit, or is it like casual, but professional? they attribute the film to the national security archive - (most sources don't attribute it to a source at all, and the ALCU at NCSU distributes the whole video without a source, [1] - I dunno. My gut feeling is that the attribution to the National Security Archive is correct - they republish documents obtained through the FOI or otherwise from the American Government - if it is from there, it's definitely PD. And ... it appears to be from there. Based on this, I believe this is Keep, actually public domain. WilyD 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The link you give credits Iraqi television via CNN. The US government is not the originator of this image. -Nard 14:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - reason for deletion isnt a very good one in my opinion. The picture is highly relevant and significant, especially with regards to the Iran-Iraq War, the present day Iraq War, US-Iraqi relations, Saddam Hussein, Rumsfled, etc...Hajji Piruz 11:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  Please, see point 1 (and 8) above. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep The image is quite relevant to any article relating to the Iraq War. Dfitzgerald 15:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  Please, see point 1 (and 8) above. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, I have seen this image in a documentary in CNN, and there is no doubt for its importance for presenting an important part of history that may not be reproduced in anyway. and I don't think Item #8 of of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria applies here.--Pejman47 19:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  Are you saying that this image is necessary for the understanding of the topic? --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The image is useful, though the context in which it's been used was not so good. I've reworked the caption and moved it up in the page to illustrate the top of the "foreign affairs" section (diff) - see what you think. -- ChrisO 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  Please see points #1 and #8 above. We don't use non-free image simply to "illustrate topics". It must be necessary for the understanding of the topic. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep -- at this point an iconic image; not quite sure what the actual reason for deletion is beyond the rather tenuous suggestion that it is "unnecessary". If there are real concerns about the image being non-free, I haven't seen any, so yes actually this seems to be a case of copyright (or "non-free") paranoia. Sdedeo (tips) 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  Are you sure you understand what's a "non-free image"? Also, please see point #5 above. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 02:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. Do you understand this image is being used under a fair use claim on Wikipedia, which pretty much implies it's being considered non-free (by the uploader to begin-with)? What do you meant by "If there are real concerns about the image being non-free, I haven't seen any."? --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it was a screengrab from a television program, rather than a photograph from the US Government, it is non-free. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In what way has the non-free nature of this image negatively affected wikipedia? For such an iconic image to be deleted, the case needs to be made -- vague paranoia is insufficient. Sdedeo (tips) 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't use non-free images unless it absolutely has to because Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia by design. "Paranoia" has nothing to do with it. —Angr 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it is unfree (I see debate above and below on this legal question -- lots of IANAL going on!), nobody has explicitly stated how this particular image has in any way hindered the project's goals. For example, has CNN caused a stink about its presence? If this were a random photo of a celebrity, I'd say fine, who cares, kill it. Sdedeo (tips) 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That isn't the point. We don't delete nonfree images only if they hinder the project's goals. Rather, we only include nonfree images if they meet all of the non-free media criteria, and this one doesn't. —Angr 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment - should be public domain -see above —maxrspct ping me 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If it was public domain, we wouldn't need to be having this debate. Apparently the uploader determined it was non-free (and the National Security Archive gives no indication of original source). For all we know, it could be an NSA intercept of Iraqi TV (we don't know), which would be a copyright violation for us to republish. Unless it is proven to be public domain, the fact that it "should be" public domain is irrelevant. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Its PD because it's been used and displayed by the NSA and has been treated as such by other bodies - see WilyD comment above —maxrspct ping me 21:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, screenshots of TV programs may only be used in conjunction with critical commentary on the TV program itself. This isn't. —Angr 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NFCC#2 (possible competition with copyright holder), WP:NFCC#8 (doesn't significantly increase reader's understanding in a way words cannot), and WP:NFCC#10a (unclear source and copyright holder). Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comments - Point one: This is quite a famous image. In some circles, it's very famous. Are we really unable to determine the source? If so, we suck. Point two: There has been a ton of commentary on this image in lefty news sources, on blogs, heck, even on the Oprah Winfrey show! Certainly an encyclopedic article could be written that discusses the impact of the image itself (and not just the event). Saddam Hussein imagery? Media in the Iraq War? The image obviously had a lot of impact. But of the five articles it's used in, none of them even mentions the image itself. That just doesn't cut it. Sadly, we can't keep the image -- at least until someone does the gruntwork of figuring out the source and writing an article that mentions it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I have already identified the source. Iraqi state television as rebroadcast on CNN. -Nard 00:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep but limit use to the article where the meeting is discussed, this screenshot approaches the same iconic and famous nature (in a modern context) as the Elian Gonzales affair photo [2] I don't believe Donald Rumsfeld or Saddam ever acknowledged meeting each other, so it would be difficult to provide much context without this screenshot, it's true it doesn't fit the strict definition of fair use but I don't think WP:NFCC#2 applies as the Iraqi news agency never profited from this footage being broadcast by the NSA archive and others, if you keep screenshots from terrorist videos you may as well keep this as well, otherwise they should be deleted too. Bleh999 08:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Dispute - The Elian Gonzales affair photo won a Pulitzer Prize, and is used only in the context of discussing the image itself (and not to illustrate the event depicted). Also, we don't need to keep this image just as a "proof" that these men once met. We just need to cite reliable sources commenting about their meeting. And this image is not necessary for a text backed up by such reliable sources. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  If a paper copy of wikipedia was discovered on a deserted island WITHOUT images but with a description, i'm sure a shipwrecked sailor would get an idea of what the missing image would look like. But for everyday life the absence of this picture would be detrimental to the article.There is no absolute need as with any picture or photo which can be described in text (even for the Gonzales article this could be argued, complete with external link to pic), but for the benefit of readers who can't pour over one article for an hour (or go exploring offsite), modern encyclopedias have words AND pictures. In Wikipedia's case we have the glorious benefit of being able to deliberate over each individual article or sections or pictures of it. And we can consider each of these things as unique and having its own value or properties and APPLY THE POLICY IN EACH PARTICULAR CASE. We can decide to what degree it may be significantly helpful to place ... perhaps a photograph of an event for the reader to see with their own eyes etc., in a similar way to a judge or jury interpreting or applying a law. In this case it appear most of the editors above feel that the Saddam article would significantly lose out if this Rumsfeld-Saddam picture was removed. To me that sounds like the picture is a perfect candidate for complying with that stringent (and context free if not vague) #8 of 'Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria' policy. Besides, it is almost certainly Public Domain.. and is a great example of that too. —maxrspct ping me 16:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  That's what I meant, I thought an article could be written discussing the footage in relation to the meeting, it should be written about how this image/footage became famous after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to deride Donald Rumsfeld, that would be encyclopedic. I don't think because an image won a Pulitzer Prize, it should automatically be allowed here, this is a screenshot and due it's nature could not have won that award regardless. I think using Associated Press photographs in any form such as the Elian Gonzales photo is a bigger violation of the spirit of WP:NFCC#2 than this, because as I said the Iraqi news agency never profited from the use of this footage by the NSA or CNN, whereas the Associated Press and their photographers do indeed make money from their images and footage, by using this screenshot on wikipedia you aren't competing with commercial interests, or the original market role of this image/footage (which is non existent to the original copyright holder as of today). Bleh999 03:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep - I believe it is completely relevant. I can't believe this is even being discussed for deletion. Epachamo 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I've got a funny feeling we've all been trolled --maxrspct ping me 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. I find this image to be non-free. First, the NSArchive credits this to Iraqi state television, as rebroadcast on CNN. Now, the U.S. and Iraq do not have reciprocal copyright treaties, but per Jimbo Wales, we are supposed to respect their copyrights regardless (yes, the email at this link talks about Iran, but the statement is easily extrapolated). That being the case, all ten points of WP:NFCC must be applied, and certainly the statement "Rumsfeld once met with Hussein" does not need an image to be understood. howcheng {chat} 19:23, 26 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:Imam_in_Mehrabad.jpg

Image:Imam_in_Mehrabad.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Sa.vakilian (notify | contribs).

• No documented evidence that this image was released under GFDL. Abu badali ^(talk) 15:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The photo is watermarked by sajed.ir, who includes the acronym GFDL in what appears to by a copyright disclaimer at the bottom of his website - but I don't speak (Farsi?) - does anyone? I strongly suggest take no action until we can find a Farsi speaker. WilyD 16:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Iran. howcheng {chat} 17:34, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, the image is taken from a website affiliated with iranian government; and they claim the ownership of the pic and also have released it under GFDL in to the public domain. I don't see any difference between this picture and pictures that have been taken from NASA or FBI websites. --Pejman47 19:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  What does it mean to release something "under GFDL in to the public domain"? --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep I do find it strange the Iranian government has chosen the GFDL but I have seen this previously on PUI and they chose to accept these images. -Nard 19:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  Please, point this discussion. It would be valuable here. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  [3]. :) -Nard 00:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - no reason to delete as per the other users.Hajji Piruz 17:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. The GFDL declaration seems valid to me. howcheng {chat} 20:02, 26 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:Swingstates.png

Image:Swingstates.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Monbro (notify | contribs).

• Verifiability, POV: User-created unsourced map of swing states. — Jpers36 20:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep: I just did further editing (added one state) to the original image created by Monbro, but the tag he used said it was a creation of his, so I think the image would be ok to keep. (Cardsplayer4life 00:21, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

The problem is that it's introducing an editor's point of view/original research through a generated image. What's the source for labelling these states as "swing states"? Jpers36 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

The article swing state goes into the criteria used, and lists why each individual state is a swing state. Of course, I could put all the reasons here, but it is easier just to direct you there. (Cardsplayer4life 05:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

Upon further inspection, it appears you have edited the afore mentioned article, so it appears you are familiar with it. If the contention is that there is bias in the image, then there is certainly bias in the article, and all references to all states should be taken out. I, however, think that there is the ability to tell through a variety of indicators (so listed in the article) which states are swing states and which are not. The image can always be updated (as the article is, and as I did with the image) as needed. (Cardsplayer4life 05:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

I'd say the concern is more with original research than bias per se. There's no unambiguous set of states identified as the swing states, as this map implies; rather, some states are "swingier" than others, and the map needs to identify whose criteria it's following, and those criteria need to come from some reliable, non-Wikipedia source. —Angr 08:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats cool. That would definitely be criteria for making edits to the image to make those adjustments, but not for deletion. (Cardsplayer4life 22:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC))

Here's the problem -- the article itself is unsourced, and does not explain where it is getting its information in labelling "swing states". What I've been trying to do in the article is to actually source the statements it makes, as well as remove or mark unsourced statements. Jpers36 16:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. The image is reflective of the article, not the other way around. Source the statements and fix the image, please. howcheng {chat} 19:09, 26 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. deleted at user request. —Angr 10:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Jwlxx.jpg

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

• I don't need it anymore...it was used on my user page but I don't do much stuff here and I've changed so just delete it. — jwlx 22:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
• Next time, you can use {{db-author}} for this sort of thing. —Angr 10:06, 22 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.