Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 6

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:Irangay_teens.jpg

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

• Non-free image from a news-agency showing 2 boys about to be executed has some impact, but unfortunatelly it doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text (in the 5 articles it's being used in) Abu badali ^(talk) 01:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This image, at least in the main article Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, is the only image available to illustrate the subject in question. There are no free equivalents available, and since they're now dead there's no possibility that a free image that would adequately give the same information could be created. This is the image that was widely disseminated following the incident, and it was used in all the major articles on the story, suggesting that others used the image based on a similar rationale. It also meets all 10 requirements at WP:FU. Exploding Boy 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  The point is that the subject in question doesn't need to be illustrated. Having an image of the boys right before their execution while nice, doesn't help much on the readers understanding of the text in a way that words alone can not. We don't use non-free material in these cases. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator, this is very reminiscent of the Saddam execution pics and utterly unsuitable for an encyclopedia, SqueakBox 02:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This image violates WP:NFCC #3a (minimal use) and #8 significance. The image is being used in 5 articles and is only significant for Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni, but the significance of the photo is not commented on in the article or the caption.
  • Comment: I'm not sure about #3, but as for #8, the image is the only one available at all; there are no other images of the boys, in any context, at least none I've seen (and one would assume they'd have been disseminated if they existed, since the story was covered widely). The image is further significant as illustration of anti-gay prejudice and violence (the links to the other articles it was being used in are now gone, for some reason) and as demonstration that Iran has failed to abide by the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which it's a signatory. Exploding Boy 02:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Exploding Boy -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Not sure how a picture in this case can be seen as 'not adding' to the article. Don't pictures always illucidate in circumstances like this? CaveatLector^Talk 13:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  Dispute - it's not that the images doesn't "adds" to the article. It's that, as a non-free image, it must add noteworthy information in a way that words alone can not. And showing two people right before their execution doesn't add this kind of noteworthy information. There wasn't anything special about the hanging setting, the ropes used, the clothes they were wearing, the weather conditions, etc.... --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. This image is not critical to understanding the article and being from a press agency, also is a textbook case of WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #5. howcheng {chat} 20:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This image shows two teenagers being executed for being gay documenting the policies of human rights abuse. It ran front page on LGBT publicactions and was also used at a public event to mark the one-year anniversary of the boys' hanging. Images of Iranian persecution and murder of LGBT people are rare and this event because of the photo used to tell the story was widely reported and generated public attention to LGBT human rights abuse and persecution in Iran. Photo's caption should be epanded to reflect this impact. Benjiboi 21:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  If you can find a reliable source that discussed this image's impact, then we can mention such discussion in the article and write a valid fair use rationale (be completely sure you're completely avoiding the commons mistake of producing original research!). But we can't simply use the image to illustrate the event it depicts. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  Not sure if this a better photo but there is one here [1] after they were hanged. Benjiboi 22:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't know what precedent any Saddam photos set that Abu Badali refers to, but as Exploding Boy says, these boys are now dead and we will never get free photos of them unless we exhume their corpses, so an FU image seems fine. The reason for using it is much the same as we use FU images for every dead person on Wikipedia. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Dispute I never refereed to any Saddam Husein precedent. --- Non-free images of dead people are used to illustrate what the person looks like in their biographies. These images don't show what the boys look like (they are blindfolded). Anyway, we would never allow the use of an non-free image from a news agency just because the person is dead. Replaceability is just the first of our 10 non-free content criteria. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:31, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Exploding boy, it's the only image available on the subject. Raystorm (¿Sí?) 11:39, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  Dispute - how does this free us from the obligation to respect copyright? --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  Comment: I believe the image's confirmation to the 10 points of FU have already been discussed. Exploding Boy 16:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  Points #2 and #8 are not o.k. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:27, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. It's a great image, useful and irreplaceable. But it fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. There seems to be only one user who is has an unrelenting interest in deleting this image and who disputes each and every comment that says 'keep'. I just felt that should be noted. I also still feel it's rather silly (and somewhat callous) to claim that and image of a described execution some carries no more significance or impact than the description itself. Also, I feel that saying the image does not show what these two young men looked like 'because they are blindfolded' is sadly wikilawyering (and wikilawyering that apparently thinks that the only significant part of a person's visage is their eyes). CaveatLector^Talk 11:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please, carefully re-read my arguments. I was the first one to to say (in the nomination) that this image indeed has some "impact". But it doens't have much "noteworthy information" that isn't already conveyed with text (i.e.: it doesn't help in the understanding of the text). Also, rememer that IFD discussions are not a vote, so, expect some keep (and some delete) arguments to be ignored due to lack of substance. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:08, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep illustrating unfair executions is a very important thing Wikipedia can do (I know, NPOV sucks, doesn't it). This image is irreplaceable and shows an important event. -N 21:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep How can anyone seriously say that the bare text is as meaningful as this photo? The saying 'a picture is worth a thousand words' is certainly true in this case. T-bonham 04:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to keep this image, I really did, but I just can't. I think it passes NFCC #8 just fine, and there doesn't seem to be consensus about either NFCC #2 or #8. But #2 is a real sticking point. Note, for comparison, Image:Il-76 shootdown.jpg -- a very important, notable, low-res AP image of a plane crash. One admin deleted it, saying we can't use AP images unless the article is on the AP itself. Another admin reverted him, restoring the image. Then Jimbo Wales came in and personally deleted the image as a copyvio, ending the debate. The bar is extremely high on reusing images that other news organizations have to pay to use. (The ISNA is such an organization that leases the right to use their images to newspapers and such.) Now that Wikipedia is a top-ten website, we really are big enough to attract lawsuits from the AP or other similar organization. They would claim that fair use doesn't apply since we are competing with the newspapers that pay to use their images, and a judge might well agree. I wish there were a way we could keep this, but we just can't. Sorry. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:04, 16 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 result of the debate was

[edit] Image:RonstadtTime.jpg

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

• Unnecessary non-notable unfree image of a magazine's cover. The articles mention that this singer was depicted on the cover (and some bad-sourced statemens about how she would prefer to wear something else), but the cover image itself doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text ' Abu badali ^(talk) 01:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Probable keep - the image, it's significance and such is discussed in the article, and the image increases a reader's understanding in a way words alone cannot. WilyD 16:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

  Contest:The cover isn't discussed. It's just described (in an bad-sourced original analysis). Simply describing the cover image is not the same as critical commentary. See this previous ifd for a similar example where a overly-detailed cover image description in the article wasn't enough for keeping the image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

As the 1977, appearance on the cover of Time magazine under the banner "Torchy Rock" , especially for the most famous woman in music at the time, was notable and controversial for Ronstadt considering the image it appeared to project of the most famous woman in rock.[39] At a time in the industry when men still told women what to sing and what to wear."[40] Ronstadt hated the image of her that was projected to the world,[41] on the cover of Time magazine no less, as she noted recently the photographer kept pusing her to wear a dress, which was an image she did not want to project. [42] In 2004, she was interviewed for CBS This Morning and stated that this image was not her because she didn't sit like that. It appeared that this image was turning back the clock for feminism, which was a contradiction to what Ronstadt stood for, as Asher noted this irony, "anyone who's met Linda for 10 seconds will know that I couldn't possibly have been her Svengali. She's an extremely determined woman, in every area. To me, she was everything that feminism's about, at a time when men still told women what to sing and what to wear."[43]. The Time magazine cover did not stop critics but only helped critics in their claim that Ronstadt was her producer's puppet and encouraged critics who put her image and music together as reason to bash her. As noted, since her solo career began, Ronstadt fought hard to be recognized as a solo female singer in the world of rock,[44] and the Time cover, in the dress didn't appear to help the situation. To show how troublesome this Time cover is to her, recently Ronstadt refused to acknowledge that she was laying on the cover but was sitting down. [45]

—Wikipedia article on Linda Ronstadt (GDFL licensed, see authors there)

The links given as sources in this passages are strange. The same link is repeatedly given as source info for "most famous woman in rock", "...hated the image of her that was projected to the world", "...an image she did not want to project." and "...refused to acknowledge that she was laying on the cover" but I can't get any relevant information in this link! (Have you followed it? Am I having some setup problem?) The "CBS This Morning" interview must be better referenced (to become at least verifiable) and "...told women what to sing and what to wear" is just a transcription of someone's opinion.

There's also original research with "It appeared that this image was turning back the clock for feminism...".

Indeed, the whole theory about the relevance of this magazine cover sounds like an A + B = C. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• If the statements can be verified against the source, this is a definite keep. However, I am unable to listen to the NPR story myself here at work (the IE security model is a little too much for me to get past). howcheng {chat} 20:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Well, if the content about the cover gets removed for other reasons - the a delete is probably in order. This compliments my claims that as the article stands now, this is appropriate fair use. WilyD 02:46, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

First, its seems odd that this person Abu badali appears to so adamantly contest this photo, is because its of a woman showing some skin. This is the problem I have with policy here in this site. People from all over the world with no knowledge, religious intent and other things can contest anything. This photo is relevant and yes is well sourced with more than one photo. In fact two instances, NPR and CBS morning show discuss this photo and how Ronstadt does not like it. Another point is How can the paragraph not discuss the article, do you want it to discuss the color, the font, etc. Not too many solo women have appeared on the cover of Time magazine which is an American magazine and the paragraph is discussing the relevancy and the phot. the fact that this abu badali person spends soo much descenting about a silly photo speaks volumes as to this persons intent. Again, I also notice that another problem he had with photos were of women showing skin. This paragraph on Time is discussing it, its unique photo, and its a contoversial photo and by looking at it people kind decide whether its controversial or not and agree with Ronstadt that she was sitting down and not laying there. Stop with your agenda here or your missunderstanding of the subject. This is a site to inform and show visualization if warranted. This photo corresponds to the paragraph and stays. (Sharkentile 22:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)).

I'm speechless. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OMG that was one of the funniest things I've read in a while. You've been outed as a prude, Abu. Oh no! howcheng {chat} 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But don't add a photo to correspond to your speechlessness or else, uhm what was it? oh ya. photo doesn't add any noteworthiness to what is already conveyed in the text, right. (Sharkentile 23:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)).

What is truly funny, is how serious you take what is suppose to be light weight AND funny informative stuff leading to people all over the world being informed about a subject matter. What is sad is how you think a good reasoned argument that should make people think about other people's intent how a policy can be arbitrarily used, - just think about how much this person fights, cuts and pastes the whole darn paragraph, just to make his point - is just funny. What any site worries about are legal consequences which can shut a site down. You know - copyright law, plagarism, blah blah blah. THAT'S the big issue! We haven't gone down that road yet but it seems like bad policy can lead to that. Now that's funny, shuttter! (Sharkentile 23:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)).

Uhm, the content about the photo is sourced. Listen to CBS and NPR or read the Time article yourself and its readers replies. Don't' find ways to justify removing photos or we can all find ways to justify removing photos. That what this leads to. You can't pick and choose and nit pick some subject matters and then totally overlook others. It doesn't work that way and it won't —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharkentile (talk • contribs)

The personal attacks and speculation about others' sexual repression were not particularly helpful in determining the status of this image. All that aside, though, this image is used in the article to illustrate the cover of the magazine, not to illustrate Ms. Ronstadt. There is sufficient critical commentary of the magazine cover itself to pass NFCC #8. Should the article go into that much detail about the TIME cover? I am agnostic about that, though I have my doubts. If the text of the article is changed to no longer support the use of this image, then the image should be removed and deleted as a non-free orphan. But as it is, this page isn't here to determine whether the text is sensible or not -- it's to determine whether the image passes all our NFCC, and as the article currently exists, the image shouldn't be deleted. Kept – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:16, 16 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:Erin Davis.jpg

Image:Erin Davis.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Maelwys (notify | contribs).

• copyrighted, replaceable publicity shot. Wikipedia does not allow these types of images. Also, missing fair use rational --trey 02:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, subject is apparently alive, so this is a replaceable fair use image. -- But|seriously|folks  06:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep - Image has been replaced with free use image given to me by photographer, with GFDL permission --Maelwys 13:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please forward your email to OTRS for verification. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 17:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Done. --Maelwys 17:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Permission to use the image has been archived on OTRS (linked from the image page). --Maelwys 19:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• The person who added it, Pilotguy, doesn't appear to be an admin. The ticket number should be double-checked. -N 15:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Admin has nothing to do with it. He's got OTRS access (see here, which is all that's needed. --Maelwys 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 18:15, 16 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:B-ROscGraph2.jpg

Image:B-ROscGraph2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Wrauscher (notify | contribs).

• Original reaseach. Cropped from an image where the summary stated image "was never published." Nv8200p talk 03:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• It's true this was never published. It is in fact very similar to the graph which was published in J. Chem. Educ. (Briggs and Rauscher,1973). We used it to avoid copyright issues. It's certainly not misleading, being very similar to the published one. The fact is, we don't know how to include a published graph in the article. The graph is informative and relevant to the article. We consider it pretty harmless. Certainly everything else in the article is supported by references. Thanks for comments Wrauscher 22:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• clarification The image in question was produced during the investigation (Thomas S. Briggs and Warren C. Rauscher, An Oscillating Iodine Clock, J. Chem. Educ.1973, 50, 496.) and was submitted to the journal along with a very similar one. Only one image was published, no doubt because of the similarity. In summary: it is a product of a published and reviewed investigation, merely omitted from publication because of redundancy. Wrauscher 23:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 16:53, 11 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] Alexcooper1 images

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 02.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 03.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 04.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 05.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 06.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 07.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 08.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 09.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 10.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 11.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 12.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 13.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

Image:Sea-Urchin 2004-Jul APronove Palawan-Philippines 14.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs)- uploaded by Alexcooper1 (notify | contribs).

All of them are images illustrating a how-to guide, which is unencyclopedic and probably cannot be used at all. They will be orphaned when the prod expires or presumably by AFD if the creator objects to the deletion. hbdragon88 05:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

FROM ALEXCOOPER1:

RESOLUTE, you brought up a point that seems to limit Wikipedia's encyclopedic authority.

I concede that the article I contributed, "Sea Urchins as Survival Food," can still be construed as a "how-to" despite the third-party point of view I adopted in writing it. It can be deleted for that reason.

On the other hand, I disagree with your contention that it has no "reliable sources." I carefully read the definition of "reliable sources" and was surprised at how heavily it leans on the presence of "credible published materials with a reliable publication process." Well, what about first-hand accounts? I don't have a PhD in marine biology but I spent a week with those natives, saw them harvest the urchins, saw them prepare it, and partook, myself, of the dish. The idea that it is survival food is not fanciful. I learned about it from several Europeans who live in that area. Of course, that was hearsay.

The waters around that location is the graveyard of some 25+ Japanese warships that were sunk by Admiral Halsey's fleet during the second world war. At the diveshop, there was raging debate over the identity of one of the wrecks I visited 35 meters beneath the surface. Is that an article worth contributing, i.e., the identity of that warship or at least the debate about its identity? That is another first-hand account and one that I refrained from contributing because of its more controversial nature. If Wiki's definition of "reliable sources" is indeed "credible published materials with a reliable publication process," then it suggests that Wiki's contributors and editors are deskbound intellectuals who need to stretch their legs and report some real things from the field.

My cousin, Cynthia Baron, is a source whose book is listed in the Bibliography of the article, 1986 EDSA Revolution. She was present at the revolution. She had her first-hand account published. And that made her a "reliable source." Can I infer, therefore, that if my "Sea Urchins as Survival Food" account was published in a book about survival tactics, and a friend contributed it as an article, that it would be accepted? Is that a work-around technique that would meet the definition of a "reliable source?"

Incidentally, I didn't take those photos with the intention of contributing it to Wikipedia. They were taken in 2003 as the photos' metadata reveals and not in 2004, which was what I thought. In 2003, I had not yet heard of Wikipedia. So go ahead and kill the article but I suggest that the Wiki definition of "reliable sources" be further clarified.

• Transfer to Commons. They would be useful in other projects. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 03:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I tagged them {{Move to Commons}}. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:39, 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:Asaitologo.jpg

Image:Asaitologo.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:{{{Uploader}}}#Image:Asaitologo.jpg listed for deletion|{{{Uploader}}}]] ([{{fullurl:User_talk:{{{Uploader}}}|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | [[Special:Contributions/{{{Uploader}}}|contribs]]).

• {{{Reason}}}

Block quote

Speedied under CSD G7 as this nomination was placed by the uploader. howcheng {chat} 17:05, 6 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:JohnProfumo.jpg

Image:JohnProfumo.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Boul22435 (notify | contribs).

• Non-free, non-iconic press agency photo of a deceased person. Unfortunately, because it comes from the Press Association, this is pretty clearly a violation of WP:NFCC #2. howcheng {chat} 18:46, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep. Bizarre proposal for deletion. The image is of a dead person and so long as it is in articles concerning him (eg John Profumo or Profumo Affair), then there is no copyright problem with it. Bob BScar23625 19:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did you take the idea that the death of the subject interferes with the photograph copyright status? I believe only the author's death is relevant. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:24, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali. It is the "no free equivalent" issue. One cannot go out and create a new picture of John Profumo because he died some years ago. Bob BScar23625 19:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The "no free equivalent" is not part of copyright law. It's just one of our 10 non-free content criteria. This nomination concerns criterion 2. --Abu badali ^(talk) 19:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali. I fail to see the relevance of criterion #2. But criterion #1 ("no free equivalent") clearly establishes the appropriateness of the image. Tell me something. On your user page, you used to describe yourself as a "fair use inquisitor". What do you mean by that?. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 19:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

By using this image for free, we are disrespecting Press Association's commercial opportunities, as they have a business based on the licensing (for a fee) of images the hold copyright. Note that by being a "criteria", all 10 points on our policy must be met, and not just one of our choice.

The "fair use inquisitor" meant that I question a lot the fair use claims in Wikipedia. But don't take anything in my userpage too literally. Anyway, this page is not the best place to chat about me. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not think we should consider Press Association's commercial interests, when making decisions on images. We are here to create free content. If you think using "fair use" images is detrimental to the cause, make that argument. Unless commersal interests somehow make our use of fair use images illegal, they are irrelevant to Wikipedia. On the image itself, I vote keep. -- Petri Krohn 22:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Abu badali. Criteria #2 states "content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". The question is, is our use of the Profumo image likely to impact on any market worth of the image?. The answer has to be NO. So, we satisfy criteria #2 - and I am pretty sure we satisfy all the others. This one is such a strong case for Fair Use (and local equivalents) that I cannot imagine why anyone would propose it for deletion. Bob BScar23625 20:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course our use impacts in this image's market. As a news agency, the copyright holder licenses this image for a fee for anyone wanting a illustration of John Profumo. Everytime someone uses this illustration of John Profumo and doesn't pays the fee (like us) the copyright holder looses a market opportunity. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:29, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bob, please also see WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #5. howcheng {chat} 20:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Howard/Abu badali. Our free use or non-use of this image has no revenue impact on the copyrightholder (if such still exists). There is no problem with either copyright or Wikipedia policy in using an old portrait image of this kind in articles about the subject (Profumo). Thousands of such images are scattered throughout Wikipedia. Bob BScar23625 10:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Sure it does. Just look — The Guardian used it as recently as March 2006, according to the link on the image description page. And the fact that there are other problems on Wikipedia doesn't mean that we should just let this one slide too. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 12:16, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• clearly this John Profumo image is widely in use across the net and has assumed free use upon his death (if not before) http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&q=John+Profumo.jpg&btnG=Search+Images (some Wiki people really cause a storm in teacup and depracate valueable wikipedia content) dmode 07:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

  There's no such thing as "assumed free use". --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Obvious delete this is a copyrighted image without a valid reason to fall under fair use. There is nothing to talk about, please have a read of Wikipedia's principles and policies rather than defend this specific image and accuse fellow editors of bad faith.--Konstable 10:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Konstable/Abu badali et al. You chaps seem to have some principled objection to the use of images in Wikipedia. I have never understood why this might be so. Some religious affiliations object to images of people and I suspect this is relevant. This image is clearly no breach of copyright and adds significantly to the relevant articles. Bob BScar23625 08:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

ps. I am now waiting for the tired arguments to be made that the image is "in violation of Wikipedia policy", "purely decorative" and "not aesthetically pleasing".

You're absolutely right - yes we do have principled objections. However these are also the Wikimedia Foundation's principles, and they just happen to own this website so it is their call. Even if you managed to convince us here, there is nothing we can do about it so you are just wasting your time insulting us here.--Konstable 09:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Konsatble. Do you feel that you have insights into Wikimeda/Wikipedia policies that others lack?. Be absolutely honest in answering this question. best wishes. Bob BScar23625 13:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Delete per failing Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria #2. Garion96 (talk) 12:37, 15 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:BigNoseKateat17.jpg

Image:BigNoseKateat17.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Sbharris (notify | contribs).

• Very poor quality image replaced in article Big Nose Kate with better one from Commons. — The Parsnip! 20:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a very poor argument for deletion of an image, unless the replacement is exactly the same photo, but a better one. In this case, the "better quality image," is one of a middle-aged woman of 40-- one in a completely different phase of her life. The woman Holliday first met about age 26 in 1876 probably looked closer to the girl of 17, than to the other image of the plump woman of 40--- but nobody knows. I've replaced the younger one with a much better quality one. They should both go in the article so we can extrapolate what Kate looked like from 17 to 40. Use the higher quality headshot up front, and the younger one in the section on early life. I'll re-add it. SBHarris 19:09, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, the previous photo (before you uploaded a larger one) was so small and of such poor quality that I couldn't even tell what I was looking at. The new version is quite nice though. The Parsnip! 20:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 18:51, 11 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:Gorbachev_with_Yeltsin.jpg

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

• This non-free TV screenshot is not being used within the context of critical commentary about the program. Additionally, it does not significantly increase the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. howcheng {chat} 23:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - The image has an extensive fair-use rationale. Point #1:
  1. The image presents a moment of unsurpassed importance in the history of Russia (birth), the Soviet union (end), the Cold War (end) and Mikhail Gorbachev (end of presidency).

  The Image also significantly increases the reader's understanding in a way that words alone cannot. (I am adding this to the fair use rationale.) What is happening in the image, is Yeltsin pointing his finger at Gorbachev during his speech at the session of the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union. The action not only broke all Soviet rules of decent conduct, but also signalled the Yeltsin Revolution, and the end of the Soviet Union. Absolutely irreplaceable! -- Petri Krohn 00:41, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  Also I doubt the image is under copyright. The image does not rise above the threshold of originality required under Soviet copyright law. The cameraman, if one was present, had absolutely no control over the image or the composition. Most likely however the image is video feed from a fixed camera installation in the chamber, prepositioned at the podium. As no cameraman was present, it is not a "work", that can be copyrighted even in the United States. -- Petri Krohn 01:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  P.S. The image is an brilliant work of art, not by the nonexistent cameraman, but by Boris Yeltsin himself, who staged the whole event and positioned himshelf in front of the prepositioned cameras. I do not think however that even he could claim copyright. -- Petri Krohn 01:13, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  I don't argue that it's replaceable (I'll certainly stipulate that it's not), only that it's not necessary for the reader to understand the articles it's in. Text alone can communicate the action well enough: "Yeltsin interrupted Gorbachev during his speech, an unthinkable breach of decorum, signalling the start of the Yeltsin Revolution." I don't need to see a picture of that to understand it. Now if consensus dictates that it is necessary to the reader's understanding AND it's non-free, then it's presently in too many articles, but the non-copyrightable angle is intriguing. I will consult User:Lupo who is a copyright expert. howcheng {chat} 01:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

  A copyright expert? But not a professional! I'm not a lawyer, just an ordinary editor who has read quite a bit about copyrights. I don't know whether this image would be copyrighted. There are several aspects to consider: did Soviet TV have only one camera? I would presume there were several... if so, they had at least the choice to make which camera feed (which angle) to use. If the cameras could even be moved (even with a fixed installation, rotation is still a possibility), there's even another choice to make. Threshold of originality arguments are always subjective. I don't know whether the image would be creative enough to be copyrightable in the USSR or in Russia.

  I also don't know whether the "news" exemption (plain uncommented news is not copyrightable) extends to images. Probably not. That provision (which is not unique to Russia: it's also in the Berne Convention!) was meant for textual reports that stick to the plain facts and do not include any analysis, background, or commentary. I suspect that as soon as images are involved, choices of framing and what to show and what not invariably make such footage fail the "plain news" criterion, and thus news images cannot (in general) be considered PD because they're not "plain" news. Often images will also be accompanied by a running commentary...

  So, I would be rather wary of simply declaring this PD. It is probably "fair use" in at least some of the articles it is used in. However, I avoid the "fair use" discussions. Ask the people of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use about that aspect. Lupo 06:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

  Based on your analysis, if we cannot prove that it's PD, we should err on the side of caution and consider this non-free. howcheng {chat} 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Kuralyov 14:28, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need to have this copyrighted image in the article to justify fair use. John Smith's 14:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I wanted to keep this image, so I did some research to try to find out if the AP (which is often falsely credited) licensed the photo or treated it as public domain. I couldn't find anything. Unfortunately I have to deem it a non-free image, and as such it fails NFCC #8, since none of the articles it's in discuss the event depicted (outside of captions). Deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:54, 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:1991_coup_yeltsin.jpg

Image:1991_coup_yeltsin.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Genericuser85 (notify | contribs).

• Absent uploader, non-free, non-iconic press agency photo of a notable event. WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #5. If I'm mistaken about its iconicness, then the articles need to include cited statements about the impact and import of this specific image. howcheng {chat} 23:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The image itself is a very well recognised image with amazing historical significance (the future of the entire region), in fact it has such significance that the TIME magazine chose to sum up Yeltsin's entire life as "The Man Atop the Tank" in his obituary - referring to this very image. I will try to improve the rationale for this image.--Konstable 00:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • OK, I figured I might be mistaken about this. However, the image should be limited to Soviet coup attempt of 1991 and we might want to get a less cropped version of this (there's one in the Time slideshow) where you can actually tell he's standing on a tank. Furthermore, I want to see cited statements discussing the image itself (as opposed to the events depicted in the image) and its impact. Do that, and I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination (and like Abu badali does, I'll even volunteer to write the fair use rationale). howcheng {chat} 02:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I have uploaded the fuller version of the photo. In regards to the actual photo itself, it is quite famous and I don't see how it deviates from unique historic Image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the ... agency employing the person. The Image depicts a non-reproducible historic event which is on the {{historic}} tag. But here are some quotes for you that I found with google books:

"The only strong visual image [of the coup] was of Boris Yeltsin on a tank.... After that, it was mostly talk." -- The Broadcast Century and Beyond: : a Biography of American Broadcasting

"The image of Yeltsin stopping the tank was an amplified variation of the young man in Tiananmen Square stopping the tank, which became a kind of global icon" -- Faith and Narrative

"In 1989 we watched breathlessly the protests in Tiananmen Square... next year it was Boris Yeltsin standing on a tank in Moscow" -- Get the Picture: A Personal History of Photojournalism

"In a photo seen around the world Yeltsin stands atop a tank..." -- The Handbook of the Former Soviet Union

(forgot to sign)--Konstable 05:55, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Good work -- now put this stuff in Soviet coup attempt of 1991. What I want to see is that the article creates a need for the image so that if the image were missing from the article, the reader would be left thinking, "Man, I really want to see what that picture looks like." Otherwise, we're just violating the AP's copyright. howcheng {chat} 05:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having thought about it some more, I think Boris Yeltsin is the best place for this image since it was he that was best remembered for the action. howcheng {chat} 17:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, this image is iconic, (if any Soviet image can be compared to religious symbols.) -- Petri Krohn 01:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. It's not quite at the level of Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima, but in the context of the August coup it is as close as there is. NCdave 05:10, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Kuralyov 14:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Iconic image of a very important historical event, so justifies fair use. John Smith's 14:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As if it needed to be said, the image is both irreplaceable and massively iconic of both the August coup and the dying days of the Cold War. Even a cursory Google search on the history of the image would have revealed this. With all due respect to the submitter (and no incivility intended), howcheng needs to voluntarily withdraw this nom before the snowball rolls any further. Bullzeye^{Complaint Dept./Contribs)} 04:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This image can certainly be used in any article that discusses the historical importance of the image itself (outside of the caption). Unfortunately, that only applies to Soviet coup attempt of 1991, and then only just barely. I'm keeping it for now, but if the articles are not expanded to mention the significance of the image, then the image should be nominated for deletion again. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:08, 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:Oct93 1.jpg

Image:Oct93 1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by 172 (notify | contribs).

• Although this has a source URL, it is unknown who the copyright holder is (it does look like a TV screenshot). I also believe it to be unnecessary for the reader's comprehension of the articles it resides in. In short, violations of WP:NFCC #8 and #10. howcheng {chat} 23:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Keep, irreplaceble historic image. Image is of poor quality, and I would prefer to see this replaced with something else. The fact that this image is still on the article 1993 Russian constitutional crisis is proof that there really are no alternatives available on this "civil war in Moscow".-- Petri Krohn 01:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Like my other Russian image nominations in this day's log, this is not a question of replaceability, but of significance (within the article context) and proper attribution. howcheng {chat} 02:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Kuralyov 14:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need to have this copyrighted image in the article to justify fair use. John Smith's 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• No real source, deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:23, 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the debate was

[edit] Image:Gaidar_and_Yeltsin.JPG

Image:Gaidar_and_Yeltsin.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by 172 (notify | contribs).

• One, I don't think the copyright to this image really belongs to the University of California. Secondly, it doesn't increase the reader's understanding of the article. In short, violations of WP:NFCC #8 and #10. Also lacking a fair use rationale. howcheng {chat} 23:32, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Kuralyov 14:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete No need to have this copyrighted image in the article to justify fair use. John Smith's 14:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No real source, deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 19:26, 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.