Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 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:Kate winner.jpg

Image:Kate winner.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Sagitox (notify | contribs).

• Portrait image of living person without fair use rationale. Uploader first notified about rationale on May 31, 2007. — Ilse@ 13:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I've added the following rationale for use on page Kate DeAraugo: "Shows the decisive turning point in her career, her moment of victory on Australian Idol. Image is a screenshot, reuse in an encyclopaedia article is appropriately transformative per U.S. law. Resolution is no more than required for the purpose identified."
  • I believe the image is a portrait of Kate DeAraugo, and is therefore considered to be replaceable, see WP:FU#Examples of unacceptable use #8. – Ilse@ 17:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • #8 says "an image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like". This is more than such an image. It is an image of the decisive unrepeatable event in Ms DeAraugo's professional life. Jheald 20:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
      • The image doesn't contain any significant information that cannot be described in words or that cannot be replaced by a free portrait image. – Ilse@ 21:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete: The "decisive turning point" rationale fails to explain how this image helps in the article's comprehension. It just explains why it would be convenient for us to be able to use such an image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It shows what she looked like at that key moment. What her image was that the audience had voted for. How she reacted. It lets the reader see that. Does it add significantly to the article? Of course it does. Jheald 22:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, I don't think "the way she looked at that moment" differs significantly from the way she looks currently. Any difference in her look then and her look now is not commented on in the article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)}
• Note Comment now also requested at WT:FAIR#Looking for an opinion -- Jheald 11:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. It is highly irregular that a run-of-the-mill article image like this should be up for deltion. This is a non-issue and should not even be up for discussion here. The policy establishes as a test for significance of am image that a picture "significantly increase readers' understanding." It is long-accepted that using an iconic image to identify a person or an event that happened to a person in an article about that person passes the significance test. Visual illustration alone is significant because it adds to the user's understanding of the article. We do not need to inquire further about how it does so, or how the person might be described in words. If we did, the vast majority of images used in articles would be up for deletion. If that's the proposal it needs to be taken up wholesale at the policy level, not in individual image-by-image arguments about deletion.Wikidemo 12:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Wikidemo's argument notwithstanding (wherein he makes a common mistake thinking that the stricter standards for non-free content are also to be applied to free images), this is a run-of-the-mill WP:NFCC #8 violation. howcheng {chat} 22:29, 25 June 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:Tony_Blair_at_PMQs.jpg

Image:Tony_Blair_at_PMQs.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Philip Stevens (notify | contribs).

• This nonfree image is used in three articles. In none of them is it required for the reader to understand the text, thus constituting a violation of WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 18:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I think this image is useful in demonstrating the look of PMQs and the adversarial nature of the British political system that makes Prime Minister's Questions what it is. By seeing the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, facing the opposition, the image shows the layout of question time and the more general workings of parliament. This helps the visualisation of the PMQs to those who are not familiar with the programme or the wider workings of UK politics. --Philip Stevens 19:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  Delete: The above is original research. This screenshots is decorative, and should only be considered to be used if it was free. We only use unfree material when it's needed for the article's comprehension, and I don't see how the absence of this image will compromise the article's comprehension. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Comment: how on earth does the above argument constitute "original research"? If it's OR, then by the same argment, including this image in the article on golf must also be. --RFBailey 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The difference is that the Tiger Woods image is public domain, so the captioning on it is an editorial decision. howcheng {chat} 22:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That may be the case, but in this instance, there is no fair use image available (as explained below). That was the first example I could find: I'm sure there will be other, sensible, such examples elsewhere. Besides, that does not answer my question, which I will repeat: how does the above argument constitute "original research"?--RFBailey 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Firstly, there's point 7 of its "fair use rationale": Images from the Houses of Parliament can only come from Parliament TV which only produce not-free images. It is illegal for anyone other than Parliament TV (and official photographers during the State Opening of Parliament) to take an image inside Parliament. Therefore there can be no free images of the Prime Minister addressing Parliament. (In other words, it is acceptable under WP:NFCC #1.) Second, I disagree with the nominator's claim that it is not "required for the reader to understand the text": it illustrates the practice of PMQs precisely. (I do think that having the three photos here is overkill, however.) --RFBailey 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The problem is, Brown will become PM next week but he won't do a session of PMQs until October, meaning there won't be an image of the current Prime Minister doing Prime Minister's Questions until then. Just having an Image of Tony Blair, I feel, will make the page out of date. By having an image of three previous PMs (the only PMs to be televised in parliament) it will give the page a sense of history. --Philip Stevens 06:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think this is a reasonable argument: even when Brown does become PM, Blair will still have been the most recent PM to participate in PMQs, so the "history" line isn't necessary relevant. --RFBailey 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The body language in these photographs is powerfully illustrative of the confrontational atmosphere of PMQs. Not just decorative. Jheald 16:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I believe the image is not significant, the content can better be described in words. Also, the interpretation of this image tends towards original research. – Ilse@ 20:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree. The picture brings it to life. It shows you the ambience and the environment, so you can actually see it, in ways words might never capture. It is appropriately supportive of the article, not just decorative. Jheald 21:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, It's the PM at PMQs, how can it not demonstrate the subject of the page. Hera1187 06:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. I believe it is necessary to remind people of Wikipedia policy: non-free images are generally not allowed in this free encyclopedia. So if such an image is nice, decorative, and can illustrate an article, this is not enough. Any non-free image used in an article on Wikipedia should significantly contribute to the readers' understanding of the topic in a way words alone cannot (WP:NFCC #8). It should not merely be "useful" and giving a "sense of history". As long as there is no description of the atmosphere and setting of the PMQs in the text, and the image does't have a caption describing it, it is incredible to me that the image is significantly contributing to the readers' understanding. Additionally, such a description should be well referenced, and based on reliable sources (no original research). – Ilse@ 10:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The "sense of history" comment made by User:Philip Stevens was past of an argument (which I don't support) for displaying three images instead of one in an article, not a direct reason for keeping this image. --RFBailey 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I would recommend that the admin closing this deletion debate ignores the emotive remarks about "bringing the article to life" or "body language", and understands that the image is not merely "decorative", but is a valuable addition the content of the Prime Minister's Questions article. --RFBailey 23:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

  Any image included in any article is technically an "addition". I hope someone can clarify why the "addition" of this image is significant for the readers' understanding of the topic. The image is a still of the prime minister and has almost no context. What significant information is in this image? – Ilse@ 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:John_Major_at_PMQs.JPG

Image:John_Major_at_PMQs.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Philip Stevens (notify | contribs).

• This nonfree TV screenshot is not necessary for the reader's understanding of the article, thus constituting a violation of WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 18:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I think this image is useful in demonstrating the look of PMQs and the adversarial nature of the British political system that makes Prime Minister's Questions what it is. By seeing the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, facing the opposition, the image shows the layout of question time and the more general workings of parliament. This helps the visualisation of the PMQs to those who are not familiar with the programme or the wider workings of UK politics. --Philip Stevens 19:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The body language in these photographs is powerfully illustrative of the confrontational atmosphere of PMQs. Not just decorative. Jheald 16:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reason as for Image:Tony Blair at PMQs.jpg above. – Ilse@ 20:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Hera1187 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Margaret_Thatcher_at_PMQs.JPG

Image:Margaret_Thatcher_at_PMQs.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Philip Stevens (notify | contribs).

• This nonfree TV screenshot is not necessary for the reader's understanding of the article, thus constituting a violation of WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 18:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, I think this image is useful in demonstrating the look of PMQs and the adversarial nature of the British political system that makes Prime Minister's Questions what it is. By seeing the Prime Minister, in the House of Commons, facing the opposition, the image shows the layout of question time and the more general workings of parliament. This helps the visualisation of the PMQs to those who are not familiar with the programme or the wider workings of UK politics. --Philip Stevens 19:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

  Delete: Far too many original reserarch in the above keep comment. As the nominator simply put, this image aids nothing in the comprehension of the discussion. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The body language in these photographs is powerfully illustrative of the confrontational atmosphere of PMQs. Not just decorative. Jheald 16:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Same reason as for Image:Tony Blair at PMQs.jpg above. – Ilse@ 20:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Hera1187 06:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The decision of whether to keep or delete these images was difficult. Three experienced users, well versed in non-free content policy, believed all these images violate NFCC #8. Three other users expressed the opinions, with various levels of experience and convincingness, that at least the Tony Blair image is necessary to fully understand the subject. (Two of these also argued the same about the other two images.) One user argued the image should be kept, but did not show an understanding of NFCC #8, so that comment was not taken into consideration. In the end, I believe there was consensus to delete the second and third images, but no consensus to delete the first. But it was close. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:57, 26 June 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:195307 orig.jpg

Image:195307 orig.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) uploaded by Alborz Fallah (notify | contribs).

• Delete copyrighted image, no fair use rationale. This is a book cover, which wasn't even properly copyrighted by the news agency referenced. Atabek 13:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
• Relisted from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 15 (uploader not notified). howcheng {chat} 19:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Fair use rationale is established on image page. Low-resolution cover image does not violate copyright and can be used for article illustration and critical reviews. The Myotis 21:32, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Myotis Alex Bakharev 00:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per rationale on image page. Open-and-shut case of appropriate fair use. Jheald 16:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Comment. Image isn't discussed in the article, but in the caption only. – Ilse@ 21:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The article talks of the agitation by the then president of Azerbaijan for "the unification of the Azerbaijani populations of his country and Iranian Azerbaijan". The image and the story of the book make for a powerful illustratation of that world view, and its official promotion to children. Jheald 21:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, without citations, that's original research. howcheng {chat} 22:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Despite the fact that several users asked that the image be kept, the book is not mentioned in either article in which it is used. This can't possible pass NFCC #8. Sorry. Deleted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:04, 26 June 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:TBC-BW-IQ-SES-withDiff.png

Image:TBC-BW-IQ-SES-withDiff.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Quizkajer (notify | contribs).

• — Unfreeride 20:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. You've given no discussion why this should be removed. It was just recently decided it should be kept [| here]. Please don't tag without discussion. — TrackZero 16:28, 23 June 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.