Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 September 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:Kroger advertisement 1976.JPG

Image:Kroger advertisement 1976.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dirtyharry667 (notify | contribs).

• Non-encyclopedic, contributes nothing of value to the article in question. Is also a publication with no licensing tag Ejfetters 09:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Neutral - offers a look into time past for Kroger, which makes for some contribution. Could receive a licensing tag. Guroadrunner 10:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Image has no purpose - nothing is talked about in the article that relates to the image. There is nothing in the image that cannot be conveyed in a way words cannot. There is nothing in the image that says it is from 1976, and the logo is the current logo of the corporation, which is already at the top of the article. Ejfetters 11:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Fair point. Guroadrunner 13:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Looking at the article, the ad does contribute to it; ads are actually a large part of a grocery store's history and what the typical customer sees every week. Sure, a better, older ad may be found, but until that time, this one should stand.--Gloriamarie 21:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The original copyright holder of the publication is unknown, it can be theorized that it is in fact Kroger, but we do not know this, it could be photographers or the ad's publisher as well, which we do not know, and probably won't be able to find if it's from 1976. Furthermore, like I stated, its a non-free use image, which requires the image to contribute to the article in some way, but nothing is talked about in the Kroger article that would point to this image, it seems to be randomly placed in the article also. Ejfetters 00:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe this is a free image, since it was (allegedly) published before 1977 without a copyright notice. Even if it were first published later, between 1977 and 1989, it would still be public domain unless the publisher specifically registered the copyright, and a search turns up nothing. However, I don't see any use for this image, even if it is free, so I'm neutral. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - I'm just not seeing a reason to delete. We could live without it, but it does contribute something to the article. It is not subject to copyright, but even if it were the fair use is plainly obvious per lack of any commercial value whatsoever. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment, what does it contribute to the article? Nothing is talked about in the article that could refer to this advertisement. And what is the significance of this advertisement in history of the company, as opposed to other advertisements? Ejfetters 21:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Nothing outstanding, but there's no reason to hold this image to high standards when it doesn't violate any policy, it isn't protected by copyright, etc. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • We don't have any proof that it isn't protected by copyright, the only claim that there is to where it came from, and when it came from is the uploader's comment. There is no proof that it isn't from a copyrighted publication.Ejfetters 02:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • That's true of most public domain images on WP. One cannot (plausibly) prove beyond possible doubt that he is the creator of an image, for example. If an editor says that he created an image, or he found it in a now-public domain source, then it is appropriate to take his/her word for it. We do the same for editors who reference non-PD books or other literary texts which aren't open to the public. Besides, I think the fair use rationale passes with flying colors. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
          • But the editor is not claiming they are the copyright holder. Not claiming fair use rationale wouldnt be sufficient, mainly claiming that we don't have the original source for the image, which seems if the user scanned the article then they should be able to provide the name of the publication they scanned it from, and the date, then could be verified against that publication.Ejfetters 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
            • Well, I don't think anyone would verify the source (where do you find a specific newspaper ad from the 1930s? what editor would bother?), so listing the source shouldn't change the legal status of the image. Either way, if the uploader's claim that the ad was published in 1976 is correct, there is no copyright protection, and if it is incorrect, then there is (most likely) copyright protection. One could argue that sourcing images can be important for fair use, but I don't think that's relevant since fair use doesn't seem to be an issue (I don't think it needs to be substantiated, but if it did, the fair use rationale seems clear to me).
            • I realize that the uploader isn't the author of the material - I was just using that example in an attempt to show that it is necessary and proper to accept the uploader's claims. — xDanielx ^T/_C 23:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
              • Final input from me. I still say we don't have substantial proof that there is no copyright at hand. Also, I also think the image is unencyclopedic, because the article does not relate to the image, nothing is discussed in the article about the image. All that can be said has pretty much been said, and I will await a decision now. Ejfetters 08:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. I do not believe this is a free image. It was published in a copyrighted newspaper. More research (or discussion) would have to be done to explain why the newspapers copyright would not cover it. -Nv8200p talk 19:28, 22 September 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:Paragraph175.jpg

Image:Paragraph175.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ayms (notify | contribs).

• Fails fair use - looks nice but does not illustrate Guroadrunner 10:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong keep. I think this is a very obvious case of fair use -- the image informatively illustrates a historical depiction of a significant event. Prime example of what fair use is for. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:22, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete. I don't think the image provides encyclopedic information. This particular drawing (much like an editorial comic) isn't mentioned in the article, so I'd say it fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 16:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I really don't think an image like this should have to be referenced in the text specifically. It illustrates the cultural impact of Paragraph 175 in a way that words cannot. (Well, theoretically there is no limit to what accurate imagery can be created with textual descriptions, but this image is clearly appropriate.) Just about every history textbook makes frequent use of images in the same way -- a brief caption is given to explain the image, but rarely is it discussed specifically in the text. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. Image does not pass NFCC #8. There is no discussion of the significance of the cartoon. -Nv8200p talk 19:31, 22 September 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:Curtis Pleasence.jpg

Image:Curtis Pleasence.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dmoon1 (notify | contribs).

• Image is claimed to be a puclicity image released to promotional uses. The source is a geocities fansite. No clear copyright holder is known for the image, better replaced with a screencap from the film Ejfetters 11:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The guy obviously got it from Universal Pictures and Dine DeLaurentiis Corp. and that's copyright holder. He probably did take a screenshot. — Enter Movie 02:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • We need to be able to cite the original source and copyright holder, we can't presume where it came from. Can't we just change it to a screencap like was done for Image:Halloween2.jpg - this way we can cite it definitely as a screencap and the original source would be know, the film. Ejfetters 02:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Then why won't we just delete the source and say it's a screencap? I mean, the guy put "Source: © 1981 Dino De Laurentiis Corporation. All Rights Reserved." Where else could that geocities guy could've gotten the picture? — Enter Movie 13:00, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • We can't say it's a screencap if we don't know that, it could be a publicity image from the film studio. It's just much easier if we get a screencap, like was done for Michael Myers, and upload it as that file, then I will withdraw my nomination here also. Ejfetters 20:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • But I can just save it to my files and upload it again 'cause it would still be a screenshot from Halloween II. Then I could put it with a "Non-free promotional" or "Movie screenshot" tag. It wouldn't make any difference. — Enter Movie 21:54, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
          • I don't understand the argument, why go through all the trouble of trying to make this image something that it's not? It bears a resemblance to a publicity image from the movie studio. It would be a lot easier and a lot less trouble to just extract a screen cap from Halloween then to go through all this trouble. If it is deleted because of the reasons provided, uploading it again, and changing the tag, would be a copyright violation. If i had software to extract a screencap myself I would do it but I don't. Ejfetters 00:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
            • What? Then how do you change it to a screencap? Isn't it already a screencap? — Enter Movie 02:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
              • It's claimed to be a publicity image released by the company. To replace it with a screencap just take the screencap file (preferrably JPG i think) and upload it. You can upload it as a different name and leave this image here for deletion by being obsoleted by the new file, just coment here that this file has been obsoleted by whatever you uploaded. OR, you can upload the new file as the same title, and comment here that the file nominated here has been replaced with a true screencap. Then I will note that I withdraw my nomination and discussions because it has been replaced. Ejfetters 04:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
                • If you need any help uploading you can leave a note on my talk page. If you click "Upload file" on the left side of the screen it should start a file upload wizard and you can select whatever it is, and it will add appropriate information, make sure you add proper fair use rationale. Ejfetters 04:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
                  • Okay, I think I did it. — Enter Movie 16:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
                    • Nomination not withdrawn, is the same image still. Ejfetters 02:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. Fails NFCC #8. This image is not needed to understand the fact that Donald Pleasance and Jamie Lee Curtis reprised their roles in Halloween II.

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:Mcdonalds bush.JPG

Image:Mcdonalds bush.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brian Katt (notify | contribs).

• non-encyclopedic, contributes nothing of value to the article, and nothing is discussed about the image in the article. Ejfetters 13:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - nice that it is free-license content, but pretty random. Guroadrunner 13:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep It is random, but it is an interesting addition to the McDonald's article.--Gloriamarie 21:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • May be a nice looking interesting photo, but it really doesn't contribute to the article, and nothing about the image is mentioned in the article itself. If there was a subject, say, on landscaping of the restaurant (not saying I think one should be created, I do not think one should) then I would probably concede. Ejfetters 00:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete - uninteresting, poor photo Vargklo 23:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - GFDL. No reason to delete. --Knulclunk 05:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Not claiming it's copyright status, claming it is unencyclopedic. Ejfetters 04:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Remove from McDonalds article due to non-encyclopedic, however is used on uploader's userpage, which theres no harm in doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hpfan9374 (talk • contribs) 07:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• delete - A derivative of a copyright work Alx 91 19:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Photos of public architectural designs are generally not considered copyright protected, unless the pictures were taken by the architect. Exceptions come up for museums and other art exhibits, for various things under French law, etc. -- none of those conditions apply here as far as I can tell. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Sorry if my above comment didn't make sense - seems I forgot to include a "not" in it. Fixed now. — xDanielx ^T/_C 04:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep because the nomination is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If you don't think it's appropriate for the McDonalds article, discuss that on the appropriate talk page; deleting an image with no policy violation isn't necessary or proper, especially for an image that is in use. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree. Image deletion should be reserved for copyvio and orphans, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Knulclunk 03:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
    • What about the copyrighted logo that was pictured? Ejfetters 21:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
      • This is really the antithesis of a high-quality, pervasive reproduction of a trademark. The logo imprint is a public display that is inherently promotional. Its only value is identification, and there is really no threat of generifcation, especially when it is used in the McDonalds article. Unfortunately there are no brightline tests for issues like these, but this falls well clear of the gray area -- it's like taking a picture of a busy street in which one car has a visible Toyota logo. — xDanielx ^T/_C 01:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
        • If we don't propose images that are merely unencyclopedic here, what process do we go through to nominate such images? Ejfetters 02:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
          • For fair use images, CAT:ORFU standard procedure (apologies if I'm repeating things you know). I think it's slightly unorthodox to remove PD images that pass the relevant policies, though not unheard of. I think it's debatable whether such images should be deleted at all as opposed to being left alone, except in cases where the editor is clearly just using WP as an image host. If we suppose that they should be, then I think the first step should be to orphan the image. If there's resistance to orphaning (e.g., the McDonalds editors feel the image is appropriate), I think the image should be left alone. Just my two cents; others are free to disagree. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• keep. It's got a GFDL, that makes it a content issue. come back when/if it's orphaned. R. Baley 03:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The reasoning shouldn't even need to be explained here. The use of this image is a local matter for the editors of the article on McDonalds, not for WP policy wonks. And even if the local choice is to remove it from the article, it's still being used in user spaces. MickyD's puts this symbol all over the real world, so a photograph of it is totally free-licenseable as long as nobody's trying to use this trademark in the hamburger business or in other ways that would constitute trademark infringement or trademark dilution of the symbol in the photo. In other words, it's not a copyright, but a trademark. And this photo is anybody's to use pretty much as they please, within the limits of trademark law, libel law, etc. ... Kenosis 04:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Image moved to Commons and deleted on Wikipedia. If it stays in the McDonald's article or not can be hashed out on the article's talk page -Nv8200p talk 00:32, 12 September 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:Pavarotti as Rodolfo.jpg

Image:Pavarotti as Rodolfo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by D7240 (notify | contribs).

• First reason: the image is significant as a portrait, but there is already a free portrait of Luciano Pavarotti used in the article (image fails WP:NFCC #1 "No free equivalent"). Second reason: any significant information about Luciano Pavarotti's role in La Boheme can be described in words that serve a similar function (image fails WP:NFCC #8 "Significance"). – Ilse@ 21:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

NOTICE: Please do not use as reasoning that image:Pavarotti.jpg is a wax figure! The image of the waxwork model (which showed a smiling, not singing, Pavarotti) was overwritten with the current one.--Once in a Blue Moon 13:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

See User:Carcharoth/Luciano Pavarotti images confusion for a more detailed explanation. In fact, image:Pavarotti.jpg was of a waxwork figure, and only recently was changed to one of a live performance, thus the "wax figure arguments" below are sometimes valid, sometimes not, depending on the timings. Best to ignore all references to wax figure images and to concentrate on the fact that a free image from 2002 is available, and hence what to do with this image from 1988. Carcharoth 13:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• • The article Luciano Pavarotti has changed considerably since the image was listed here. This is the version of the article when the image was listed. – Ilse@ 11:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep This portrait was actually one of the most interesting aspects of Pavarotti's article for me. It shows what he looked like in an earlier time, when he was actually still appearing in operas, and helps the reader see what his audiences saw and why he could have been such a successful leading man in operas (besides the voice, of course).--Gloriamarie 21:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The images is not a simple portrait of Pavarotti, it shows him at the height of his career and notoriety, at the end of the '80s, and in one of his most celebrated roles. As such it can't be simply replaced by a picture taken in a different period of his life. GhePeU 22:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep as per GhePeU's reasoning that the image does not have a free equivalent that illustrates Pavarotti at that time. -- Reaper X 22:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - the free image of Pavarotti has been removed. Image:Pavarotti.jpg is of a waxwork model"! Carcharoth 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC) - striking this keep, as the reason is now invalid. Changing to keep for a new reason. Carcharoth 12:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The free image was in fact wax, and removed. This is actually a good image, and there are no free equivalents. Well there must be, but none on Wikimedia. Geosultan4 23:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Response to keeps. I think my second reason still holds, but because the free portrait image is removed, i think the image should be kept and used as portrait in the infobox. I will change the fair use rationale accordingly. – Ilse@ 23:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Not looking at how far back it was removed, can't the removed image just be restored to solve the debate here? The general consensus seems to be because the original is gone, not because it was bad. Ejfetters 00:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • User:Deskana has removed the image Image:Pavarotti as Rodolfo.jpg from the article Luciano Pavarotti, with the following edit summary: "pavarotti has only recently died. using this as an excuse to use a fair use image to depict him is not only silly, but against policy. the image is replaceable". – Ilse@ 10:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • And this person was absolutely right to do so, as it was being used in an infobox for identification purposes which is not permitted when free images exist or could be created. It should never have been relocated from its original position adjacent to the commentary dealing with Pavarotti in this role, which is where it derives its valid fair usage as its original fair use rationale claimed (until it was changed by you). D7240 12:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Nominator has misunderstood the purpose of this photo. It was never intended to be used to identify Pavarotti the artist. Such use would obviously violate Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria#Policy Point 1 since free images of Pavarotti the artist exist at Commons. The original rationale specified: "Image is used solely for the illustration of the subject in one of his most celebrated roles, that of Rodolfo in La Boheme. The importance of Pavorotti's portrayal of this role is commented on in depth in the article." But the nominator changed this rationale to "To visually identify Luciano Pavarotti in the article Luciano Pavarotti." which is clearly unacceptable. The use of such photos to illustrate artists in roles in which they are especially identified is acceptable in Wikipedia under Wikipedia:Fair_use_criteria#Policy Point 8 (Significance) and Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Acceptable_images as long as those images are positioned adjacent to the relevant commentary in the article. As the original uploader I have restored the original rationale. Unless there is a specific policy or set of precendents showing that such images are unacceptable for opera roles, while Wikipedia is full of such images for film actors in notable roles, I believe the image should be restored. D7240 12:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - the current free image Image:Luciano Pavarotti 15.06.02 cropped.jpg, was only uploaded today (7 September 2007), before the earlier comments in this debate had been made. The earlier comments talking about an existing free image are generally referring to Image:Pavarotti.jpg, a photo of a waxwork model of Pavarotti. Carcharoth 12:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep for use in the section about his role as Rodolfo in La Boheme. Carcharoth 12:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete - Let's define the purpose of the use, since that's central to any discussion of WP:NFCC#8. If this is a portrait, used to show what Pavarotti looked like, then it's replaceable (by the free image it has now been replaced by). If it is used to show what Pavarotti looked like at a specific point in time, then it fails NFCC#8, in that the difference in his appearance is not notable or mentioned in the article. The only valid use for the image would be to show him in a notable role (as the uploader rightly asserts). NFCC#8 is subjective in this case, but I personally feel that the image doesn't pass NFCC#8 when used in this way because this role is not the subject of a major section of the article. (The section it would be in is entitled "1980s-1990s", not "La Boheme".) If this role were notable enough to be a major section, then I think this image would pass NFCC#8 in that section. But as it is, I think it (barely) fails that criterion. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 12:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking at similar images in existing Wikipedia articles on opera singers, such as Maria Callas, Victoria de los Angeles, or Gwyneth Jones, there doesn't seem to be much precedent, if any, for requiring a dedicated section as you describe to justify NFCC#8 for notable role fair use images (nor does this criterion seem to be generally applied to photos of notable roles for film actors). Of course, it may simply be that such images are awaiting comprehensive scrutiny. The idea of a separate section is attractive, but would duplicate a good deal of the existing article content which already extensively references Pavarotti's role as Rodolfo. D7240 14:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion on how best to understand and apply NFCC#8 is that if a subject isn't important enough to be the main subject of a major section of the article, then it isn't important enough to justify using a non-free image to depict that subject. But it's certainly possibly to read NFCC#8 more liberally. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 21:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. The only alteratives we have, at least at the moment, are Image:Luciano Pavarotti 15.06.02 cropped.jpg which is a cropped version of Image:Pavarotti.jpg which, in turn, is of a wax model. According to Asofdjhkljashdl, who removed the first of these from the article, "a wax figure of someone is not a picture of them" and as such shouldn't be put at the top of the article, as either of the images I mention were. In sight of that, the next-best thing we got is this (admittedly non-free) image, which I do accept we aren't using fairly if we don't use it for the DVD, opera, or time-period in question. Again, as soon as we get a better alternative to identify Pavarotti, as well as an alternative to identify that time in his life, we might consider deleting it again. --Once in a Blue Moon 22:59, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually, this is incorrect. It seems that the original photo of a waxwork in the Venetian Hotel in Las Vegas, got overwritten with the photograph of the Stade Velodrome performance in France! This is causing an immense amount of confusion! Can anyone sort this out? I'm looking into the edit history of the images and articles, but am having difficulty working out what happened. Can anyone help? Carcharoth 08:18, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • From what I can work out:
      • [1]: The original waxwork image got deleted on Wikipedia at 00:47 on 7 September 2007 with the comment "at Commons".
      • [2]: The Commons deletion log history of the waxwork model shows lots of deletion and undeletion as a derivative work, with the final deletion at 11:21, 8 September 2007.
      • The confusion really started when the Stade Velodrome image got uploaded on Commons with the same name as the previous waxwork image, on 14:40, 8 September 2007 (see the image log linked above).
      • [3]: The original Stade Velodrome performance photograph (commons:Image:Luciano Pavarotti 15.06.02.jpg) got deleted at 22:50 8 September 2007, on Commons, because it was a duplicate of the newly uploaded picture. Surely the later picture should be deleted and the earlier one kept?
      • The upshot of this is that Wax museum on Wikipedia, which was using the waxwork museum image, now show the picture of Pavarotti performing at the Stade Velodrome, with the image caption claiming this is a waxwork in the Venetian Hotel in Las Vagas.
    • As I've said at WP:AN, a complete balls-up. Carcharoth 08:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • More at User:Carcharoth/Luciano Pavarotti images confusion. Carcharoth 13:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You know what? you guys are right. I looked for "Pavarotti wax" in google image search, and the image they've got cachéd as on the "wax museum" article is a close up of the face of a laughing (not singing) Pavarotti. I've crossed out half my reasoning, but left the part that is not affected by this (for lack of a better word) discovery.
    You know what? I'm even going to go back to the top and put this in bold.--Once in a Blue Moon 13:19, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• keep. Checked out the Fair use rationale -looks good. R. Baley 18:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Kept, this isn't an obvious policy violation, and consensus seems to be that all subjective criteria are met. The lone "delete" voter does present convincing arguments, but he can't override consensus. ;-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:19, 12 September 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:Crassic 1.jpg

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

• Image deleted per user request using {{db-author}}, so this discussion is no longer valid. Non-admin closure. Arky ^¡Hablar! 23:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I no longer wish to use this image. Please delete. :) - Crassic^(talk) 23:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• NOTE: I do not know exactly how to go about deleting this image, so please inform me of alternative way of doing such. I do apologize. Crassic^(talk) 00:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Crassic. Since you uploaded the image, just put {{db-author}} at the top of the page to request it to be deleted. Cheers, Arky ^¡Hablar! 16:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: Image deleted per user request (CSD G7) by Acalamari (talk • contribs • blocks • protects • deletions • moves • rights • nomination). Arky ^¡Hablar! 00:40, 9 September 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.