Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 7

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:Badajoz.JPG

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

• Orphan. Wikipedia is not a repository of images. Nv8200p talk 03:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep No longer orphaned. Turns out that the Badajoz article didn't have a single picture of that city. Has this one now.--Húsönd 03:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Withdraw nomination - Nv8200p talk 12:14, 8 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.

All kept. IFD is not a place for editorial decisions. Work it out at Talk:Dale Thomas (footballer) on which ones you want to keep and which ones you don't, and we'll delete the ones that are orphaned. However, I will transfer these all to WP:PUI because I kind of doubt the uploader was the photographer. howcheng {chat} 23:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dale_thomas_78.jpg

Image:Dale_thomas_78.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Fluffyducky (notify | contribs).

• This page looks like a photoboard, not an encyclopedia article — Nicwright 04:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

• While the page is shit, this image is fantastic and highly relevant. In fact, it's so good and so useful I'm inclined to question the license. Anyways, seems like an obvious keep. IFD is definitely not a substitute for Cleanup. Cheers, WilyD 14:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dale_thomas_160.jpg

Image:Dale_thomas_160.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Fluffyducky (notify | contribs).

• This page looks like a photoboard, not an encyclopedia article — Nicwright 04:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC).
• Apparent Keep, as above WilyD 14:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Dale_thomas_979.png

Image:Dale_thomas_979.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Fluffyducky (notify | contribs).

• This page looks like a photoboard, not an encyclopedia article — Nicwright 04:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Dale_thomas_1159.jpg

Image:Dale_thomas_1159.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Fluffyducky (notify | contribs).

• This page looks like a photoboard, not an encyclopedia article — Nicwright 05:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Dale_thomas_694.jpg

Image:Dale_thomas_694.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Fluffyducky (notify | contribs).

• This page looks like a photoboard, not an encyclopedia article — Nicwright 05:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Dale_thomas_1199.jpg

Image:Dale_thomas_1199.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Fluffyducky (notify | contribs).

• This page looks like a photoboard, not an encyclopedia article — Nicwright 05:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Image:Dale_thomas_933.jpg

Image:Dale_thomas_933.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Fluffyducky (notify | contribs).

• This page looks like a photoboard, not an encyclopedia article — Nicwright 05:03, 7 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:Israeli_Soldier_in_Suez_Canal_Life.jpg

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

• Non-free magazine cover used improperly in two articles. In Yossi Ben Hanan it is for the purpose of identifying the subject, a big no-no. In Six-Day War, it serves merely a decorative purpose as the cover is not discussed at all in the text. howcheng {chat} 06:33, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in Six-Day War - the caption describes the use of AK-47 by the IDF. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:36, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the caption suggests that the use of the image in Six-Day War is merely incidental. The only information it adds is visual verification that this particular Israeli soldier has an AK-47, which could simply be addressed in the text with a reliable textual source verifying as much. --Iamunknown 21:07, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I acknowledge that I'm no expert on FU criteria, but this image illustrates both the IDF in the Suez Canal (in an especially iconic photo - Life magazine cover), as well as the use of an Egyptian army AK-47 by IDF troops. Isn't that what FU is about? Tewfik^Talk 01:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • "Fair use" on Wikipedia would be something like this: "The LIFE magazine cover of Yossi Ben Hanan became widely recognized around the world, catapulting him to fame and fortune based on his broad smile as he sat in the river to cool off." Assuming that such a statement is cited to a reliable source, as a reader, now I need to see the image. The article creates a need for the image. Does that make sense? howcheng {chat} 19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I fail to see how the use of this picture is inappropriate.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 02:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Please see WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use #7, with respect to magazine covers. The actual cover must be notable and the article must discuss the cover itself. See also WP:NFCC #8 which requires that the image increase the reader's understanding of the article in a way that words alone cannot (i.e., if you can use words to adequately describe what's in the picture, then the picture is unnecessary). The text "Israeli soldiers often traded their unreliable carbines and short-range Uzis for AK-47s taken from captured or killed Arab soldiers" does not need a picture to be understood. howcheng {chat} 02:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable and informative. --74.99.13.81
• Keep per Tewfik. 6SJ7 04:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. This is silly, in the article on Ben Hanan the LIFE magazine cover is clearly notable enough to receive its own separate notice. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 04:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Then why doesn't either article really even discuss it? If you want the image kept, then write an article about the image itself, or at least a section in one of the articles showing how notable the cover itself is. That's all it takes. howcheng {chat} 06:52, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Perhaps I'm confused, but why don't you think that it would qualify as a historic event that is nonreplaceable? Tewfik^Talk 07:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Non-free images must conform to all ten of the Wikipedia:non-free content criteria. Being irreplaceable is the only first. If the image is as important as you say it is, then there should be some literature that discusses that image and its impact on society, culture, etc. howcheng {chat} 16:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
        • This image does satisfy all ten criteria. Above, you mention NFCC 8, but I don't think that criterion excludes this image. As others have said, the image does increase the reader's understanding of the subject in a way that words alone cannot. (By the way, the policy does not say that a photo is permitted only if it is "needed" to understand the subject; it is permitted as long as it "increases" understanding. You also mention WP:NONFREE Number 7, but that's just an example from a guideline (not a policy), and it doesn't necessarily follow from any of the actual criteria, so I don't think it is binding. None of the criteria say that an image has to be discussed in the article. 6SJ7 23:54, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
          • I wrote NFCC 8, so I believe I understand it what it means (I'll note that it became more vague afterwards, which I'll correct now). Regardless, the point is that if you can describe what's going on in the picture in words, then you don't need the picture. Here's the caption from Six-Day War: "Israeli soldier (later Major General Yossi Ben Hanan) cools off in the Suez Canal. Note the AK-47 rifle. Israeli soldiers often traded their FN-FALs and short-range Uzis for AK-47s taken from captured or killed Arab soldiers." The point of the image in the article is to illustrate the last sentence of that caption, for which purpose it is totally unnecessary. howcheng {chat} 19:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
            • So in other words, you are trying to change the rules in the middle of the game. Unfortunately, Wikipedia's "policy process" (if it can be called that) seem to allow for such a thing -- as long as your change has consensus. However, in this case, it does not. I have been following the little edit war that has been going on since you "corrected" the policy, and as of the time of this comment, all of your changes to NFCC 8 have been removed (and I have not participated, yet.) Due to the lack of consensus for your changes, this image should be evaluated according to the version of NFCC 8 that existed at the time of the nomination (which as far as I can see, is identical to the current version.) As for the fact that you wrote it... well, you wrote a version of it, but not the current version, and apparently you disagree with the current version, so I don't see how you can be an authority on its interpretation. 6SJ7 03:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
              • Actually, 6SJ7, none of Howcheng's edits to NFCC 8 have been reverted; the tense was changed, but the meaning stayed the same. It was proposed at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, with no objections, Howcheng posted it, and the editors worked on formatting it; that's all. So the interpretation is as Howcheng says. --Iamunknown 05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
                • As it stands right now, the changes are likely to go through. The only niggling point is how to make a statement that allows non-free images to be used for identification with critical commentary (in the case of cover art and logos), but cannot be interpreted to allow identification by itself, without being too verbose. So the spirit of the policy is exactly as I originally intended it. howcheng {chat} 16:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
                  • FYI, the wording of criterion 8 has been refined as of today. This is now in line with the original intention that non-free content may only be used when its omission would be detrimental to the reader. So please, no more harping about what the actual wording is. Let me reiterate: To save this image, all one has to do is add something to the article (cited, naturally) explaining the importance and notability of this magazine cover such that the reader would need to see the cover in order to really understand the text. That's it. howcheng {chat} 20:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
                    • Harping? Hardly. First of all, this proves that I have been correct all along: The wording of the NFCC "policy" has bounced around all over the place over the past few days. You said in this IfD that you were going to "correct" it, but you were reverted, and eventually the "policy" was reverted all the way back to the pre-nomination version. Now, you and a handful of other editors have agreed on a new version. However, the discussion here shows that if the effect of your new wording is to delete this image, then your wording does not have consensus. As I have been told over and over again, policy-making on Wikipedia is supposed to be "descriptive", not "prescriptive." If that continues to be the case, then the lack of consensus here (and on several other image-deletions I have seen lately) trumps any "prescriptive" consensus that you and a few other editors have reached somewhere else. 6SJ7 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
                      • Your characterization of the discussion there gives other readers here completely the wrong impression -- you make it sound like we have absolutely no agreement. Here's what happened: I made the initial changes. Reversion occurred under concerns there was no consensus for the change. After discussion -- which BTW included people who are hard-liners about non-free content like myself and Durin, but also those more permissive of its use such as Wikidemo (and lest we forget, you were perfectly aware of the discussion and had every right to participate but chose not to) -- the meaning of the consensus version is pretty much exactly how I had it. This is because it's been long understood by the non-free policy wonks that an article is supposed to create a need for the image, but that language had been missing. The effect of the latest change was to close that loophole that people such as yourself have been trying to exploit, just because the exact wording was missing. howcheng {chat} 00:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Tewfik, and 6SJ7's comments above. Jayjg ^(talk) 13:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Would you clarify? 6SJ7's comment is incorect. --Iamunknown 05:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    • In your opinion. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. In the first case (Yossi Ben Hanan), the image cannot be used for identification purposes. Ben Hanan is still alive, and surely a free photo could be obtained of him, as per WP:NFCC #1. As well, only one sentence in the article references the image. How then is the image significant to the article, as per WP:NFCC #8? More critical commentary than this is needed to justify fair use. In the second case (Six-Day War), neither the image nor the caption is referenced in the text of the article itself. I also see no section regarding media coverage of the war. Thus the image seems to be merely decorative, and I cannot see how it meets WP:NFCC #8. -- wacko2 23:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Many experienced editors expressed their wish to keep this image, and gave good reasons. But policy, established by consensus, trumps the consensus for any single image. Our non-free content policy gives as one of its "Examples of unacceptable use" the following:

An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the Wikipedia article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that cover itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply

Since the Wikipedia article mentions the subject of the Life article, but not the Life article itself, I see no way to interpret this case that wouldn't directly contradict the intent of our long-standing policy. I therefore have to deem the image unacceptable, sadly. Deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:14, 17 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:GreatFontanaCDCover.jpg

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

• Album cover being used solely to illustrate the article of the artist, fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The article contains no critical commentary on either the album cover or the album itself. Videmus Omnia 15:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Nom is well-intentioned, but perhaps too hastily done without an adequate review of the article itself. The image passes NFCC#8 because the article contains critical commentary on the album itself. Here is a quote from the article: "...although he recorded on more than 70 albums over his long career, his first true record as a headliner did not appear until 1985 when Uptown Jazz released The Great Fontana." The caption for the image therefore reads, "'The Great Fontana' (1985), Fontana's first release as a solo headliner." The fact that Fontana recorded over 70 albums from 1958 to 1985 but did not get headliner credit until 1985 is most unusual for a jazz musician of his stature, and thus is a quite notable fact to bring out in the article. The image therefore makes a significant contribution to the article because it serves to identify the album given that the album is called out as being particular notable in the article. And the claim that the image fails NFCC#1 is simply specious: no free image of the album cover could be made available to serve the equivalent purpose because the cover is a copyrighted work and thus can only be included under a fair use claim. (See the image page for a detailed Fair use rationale.) Overall, this is a valid instance of an image being used under WP's non-free image policy and it should be kept. Fairsing 18:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. Regarding WP:NFCC#1, I was referring to its use (referred to in the rationale) of showing what the artist looks like. (I requested this image to replace it in that role, this Flickr user has donated to Wikipedia in the past, but I haven't heard back from him yet.) Regarding WP:NFCC#8, I'm not sure how the album cover increases the reader's understanding in a way words cannot, but I'm open to a better explanation. Videmus Omnia 19:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Ok, I think I have now cleared up the confusion. I made an edit to the article itself to clarify the notability of the album, and the image of the album is being used solely to identify/illustrate the recording in question. No free image could be used for that purpose. Since the inclusion of the image is not primarily intended to show what the artist looks like, I updated the fair use rationale on the image page to remove that point -- my bad for including a confusing rationale in the first place. So NFCC#1 should no longer apply. Separately, if we can get an image from the Flickr user for the purpose of identifying the artist, that would be great too -- thanks. Fairsing 22:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. howcheng {chat} 17:06, 12 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.