Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 April 13

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 delete. Fails WP:NFCC#1 Image:2008 Olympic torch relay Paris Jin Jing 3.jpg shows a similar incident and is now on Commons and permission archived with OTRS, and #10a as no source is provided. -Nv8200p talk 00:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Violentolympicprotestor.jpg

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

• Unfree image used where it would have been perfectly feasible for a free alternative to be created, there is also nothing from preventing permission from being sought to use this or a similar image used instead. Just because a photographer from Wikipedia/Commons wasn't there does not mean an unfree image can be used. Adambro (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think a free alternative can be created. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    Of course a free alternative can't be created now but it could have and there is always the possibly that we may find someone to release an existing image under a free licence. However, simply the fact that no one from Wikipedia/Commons took a photo of this precise incident is not an excuse to use a unfree image. The rules on fair use are stricter than that. Otherwise why would we use any free images if we could all just sit at home whilst the torch relay goes on then claim fair use of images afterwards. Adambro (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - There lacks such pictures available to the general public that depicts this side of the violent protest against the Olympic Torch and its bearer. Furthermore, doesn't it say on the image page that permission was given? --Steven (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    It does say permission: yes but that doesn't mean anything. What permission has been given? Adambro (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose - as above. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - per above Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - as per above Oiboy77 (talk) 07:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose As per comment below. There simply is no free alternative. According to your logic, no image would qualify as fair use in Wikipedia "because a photographer from Wikipedia/Commons wasn't there does not mean an unfree image can be used." Herunar (talk) 08:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: The image was obviously uploaded in bad faith without permission from its creator. --Camptown (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment: There is no need to receive permission of the creator; please read about fair use and Wikipedia's non-free content guidelines. TomTheHand (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Sure, but please establish that the image is under fair use before pointing fingers. --Camptown (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment sorry, how is it bad faith? I think the image uploaded here shared the same point of view as the original image creator. Please prove otherwise... --Steven (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Such complete bullshit. You read the discussion, you know what happened, Camptown. A user came with this image and asked if we could upload it. After a discussion asking the origins of the image, we determined it to be available for fair use and uploaded it. Your comment reveals extreme bad faith on your part and, if not lying, a serious degree of idiocy. Herunar (talk) 15:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "No free equivalent" means "no free equivalent could be created," not "no free equivalent could have been created, if a Wikipedian had been there for the unique historical event, and had taken a photo, and had decided to release it under a free license." Steam is coming out of my ears and my eyes are pointing in different directions as I try to comprehend the absurdity here. TomTheHand (talk) 12:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Well.... "unique historical event" - you can't be serious...? --Camptown (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • CommentVery serious Camptown, when will the 2008 olympic games torch relay be going to be back in London and Paris? Will that protester be at the same spot? etc etc etc. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 00:35, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
        • To add to that, how often do we see people attacking the Olympic torch? And how often do we see people attacking a DISABLED PERSON carrying the Olympic torch? --Steven (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Camptown you have no idea how big this news is in China. Probably not "historical" as in we won't look back in 100 years and still remember this, but it isn't a random pic either Sydneyfong (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose deletion -- Photographically, this is the most clear shot image of an incident that will not be repeated for photography purposes. Notability of image is event-based, and can meet fair use. However, it should be one or the other -- currently two nonfree images are used to depict the event. IMHO, this one should be the one used as it is clearer. Guroadrunner (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment -- OR, recommend Wikipedians disrupt torch relay and be sure to take photos. (OR, free market alternative, have a Wikipedian buy the publication rights to the photo and release under free license.) Guroadrunner (talk) 14:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Stop abusing wikipedia deletion policies, stop wikipedia distortion, and stop using wikipedia as a tool to promote coldwar on internet.Dongwenliang (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  Stop it with the nonsense Dongwenliang. Nominating two images which I feel we shouldn't be using for deletion is the complete opposite to "abusing wikipedia deletion policies", nor is it "wikipedia distortion", nor am I "using wikipedia as a tool to promote coldwar on internet". If you can't think of anything sensible to say then don't bother. Adambro (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  You should feel shameful because as an administrator, you don’t know anything about what is a neutral point of view, which wikipedia is always promoting. Maybe you know, but you do not apply the rules to yourself. Dongwenliang (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  Dongwenliang -- Huh??? Guroadrunner (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment You stated that free alternatives can be created. Can you suggest an example before throwing out random accusations and deletion votes? We have all stated (or a vast majority of us have stated here) that it is not possible to find an alternative to the current image. Either drop this vote, or suggest an alternative. --Steven (talk) 01:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. 35.12.26.132 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. There are two near-identical images on the torch article for which this rationale is written. Nothing in either article explains the difference between the two incidents, nor is there any editorial reason why a difference is relevant. One of those two images must be deleted, as it adds nothing to the article.--Relata refero (disp.) 18:02, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.--Avala (talk) 18:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: people should not that ballot stuffing doesn't work here.
• Strong support: This is not the first time a controversial image has been uploaded, and then deleted according to the policy. To qualify as "Fair use", the image needs to be crucial for the article in question, which 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay is clearly not. Fair use rationale will qualify only iff the article is about Jin Jing, or the attack on her.--Jahilia (talk) 23:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • How is this not crucial? This event sets this particular olympic torch relay apart from most other relays for it's violence. Furthermore, discussion is taking place on the [talk page] about a possible split, leading to an article that focuses on the protesting that occurred. If the split occurs, the importance of the image only escalates (and if split doesn't not occur, the picture is still important, as I've already mentioned. --Steven (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    • This is how it is not crucial: Fair Use. It is not magic! If the article splits, move the image here. By the very rules of Wikipedia for Fair Use, the image should present the subject of the article, which is neither "kick", "scratch", or Jin Jing. If you really don't want the image to get deleted, move it to Jin Jing - you will have much better case of non-deletion - and I will support you. The image itself does not qualify to be in the article about Torch relay. And by the way, the incident didn't "set it apart" to any other relay - Chinese insistence to politicize the relay set it apart.--—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jahilia (talk • contribs)
      • Clarification: The article is about 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay. This image is about 2008 Summer Olympics torch relay. This image depicts one event that set this torch relay apart from the majority of the others: there was excessive violence against the torch bearer; there was excessive violence against a disabled torch bearer. It presents the the readers of the article the fact that the torch relay experienced demonstrators, and violent ones at that. We currently have no pictures of this. I see this picture as being significant where it stands. It is definitely more important then the 4 images we have of the security around the torch bearer (since each additional picture has no added value to the article) and probably more important then the 5 images we have of the "peaceful demonstration" as again, each picture brings no additional significance to the article. Why do we have those pictures (when wikipedia is clearly an encyclopedia and not an image gallery) but not ones that have significance to the article?

FURTHERMORE, please clarify how the CHINESE were the ones that politicized the relay? The chinese are the ones that are attempting to prevent boycotting, which is involvement of politics into the games. The simple fact that the foreigners are attacking the China via Tibet and the Olympic games indicates the willingness of the foreigners to involve politics into the games. --Steven (talk) 04:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose: The copyright owner is not known as per the image description page, so getting a license from an unknown person is out of the question. The attack incident(s) happened spontaneously, probably with quite a few photographers from the press, and I don't think it would be easy (i.e. feasible) to convince a media outlet to give out free photos to wikipedia. And let me be frank: why single out these photos? Because they paint the supposedly "peaceful" protesters in a bad light? I personally doubt your motives. Sydneyfong (talk) 11:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Super strong Support: At least an image is available, which explains story of some incident, people or event. What are we trying to aim by deletion. By deleting a mere picture, are we trying to change the fact or trying to hide it from the world. Weather copyright or not I think as acitizen earth has all right to know what's happening on my planet

• • Wikipedia is not "earth". Wikipedia is encyclopaedia. If you want news read THAT(tm). The image has been used a lot of media - and they all licensed it! It is the importance of image that calls for strict Fair use.

Oppose: There is no free alternative image to be replaced with, and there is absolutely no images of protesters attempting to steal the torch on Wikipedia at all. --haha169 (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC) (UTC)

STRONGLY OPPOSE. True depiction of a major event and no other alternative. __earth ^(Talk) 07:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: There is no free alternatives available and this image is not used for commercial purposes and therefore it should be kept. The images illustrates the violent protester trying to snatch the torch away. This is evidence that this incidence happened and a photo for proof is therefore required. --Bleedingshoes (talk) 19:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  We don't need this image as evidence that it happened, that is what citing reliable sources is for. We're striving to create an encyclopaedia under a free licence which anyone can use, whilst it might be claimed that we might not be using the image for commercial purposes, an argument which I'm not convinced by, this means that by using unfree images it makes it more difficult for our content to be reused. Adambro (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: This image provides an important symbol regarding Tibetan protesters and the 2008 Torch Relay. A picture tells a thousand words. Don't you think us Chinese have been demonized enough already? This image shows a clear example of what the other side strives to achieve - to completely ruin the 2008 Olympics and smear the face of the Chinese people. Benlisquare (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose: In two aspects: 1) this was a truly historical moment happened never before in modern Olympic history that a free-Tibetan attacks a handicapped girl as the sacred torch bearer in Olympic torch relay; 2) the author has publically consented the release of his picture as "...Yang is glad to see his improvised action help so many people understand ..." for releasing pictures of the same event to the internet. See the picture author's remark Gpit (talk) 20:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  What evidence is there to suggest that this was taken by Yang Zhendong? Regardless, unless we have an explicit statement releasing this under an appropriate free licence then it remains unfree. I've attempted to contact Yang Zhendong to ask if he'll consider releasing the image below which I understand he took under a free licence. Adambro (talk) 21:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The image lacks attribution to the copyright holder as required by policy. (WP:NFCC#10a) Readers' understanding of apropos article prose ("Another rushed at her before being pushed off by a policeman.") is not significantly increased by image. (WP:NFCC#8) — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 16:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Call for admin to close 16 keeps and 2 deletes by my tally. I think the consensus is clear. Herunar (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - even if the copyright holder or photographer is not known, there should be some indication of the source which published the work. Contact them, and they will be able to provide contact info for the copyright holder, or release reproduction rights themselves. The caption is also clearly pushing POV. 71.9.8.150 (talk) 13:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

comment Caption? Which? This is a discussion about the image and not its use on any particular article. Your comment about the caption clearly reveals your own POV, and you listing "POV" as a reason for deletion shows your own intent to delete an image simply because you do not like what you see. Unacceptable. Please fuck off. Herunar (talk) 15:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The caption is the one attached as the descriptor on the image itself ("Violent Olympic protestor attacking handicapped torchbearer"). The title of the img. file reveals a similar bias. The rhetoric is inflamatory (as, we might note, is yours. Please modify your tone).71.9.8.150 (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Most captions bear within it the name of the image, since viewers refer to the captions rather then the image name. By challenging the POV of the caption and title of this image on the grounds of repetition, you are challenging the POV of many images on wikipedia, such as this image, which is a Featured picture. Secondly, no word within either the title nor the caption pertain a bias overtone. The words "violent" "olympic" "protestors" are used purely for description purposes, and by in no way does it have a slant. If one was to call it "A peaceful olympic protest" one would either A) be blind, or B)be ignorant. Violent is used to describe, as that is the use of captions, and it is, I believe, unchallenged that this particular shot is one of violent acts against the bearer. --Steven (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2008 (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 Delete - Image released under the GFDL by the photographer, now uploaded to Commons as 2008 Olympic torch relay Paris Jin Jing 3.jpg. --Adambro (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image:parisprotests-olympictorch.jpg

Image:Parisprotests-olympictorch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pumpkinegan (notify | contribs).

• Unfree image used where it would have been perfectly feasible for a free alternative to be created, there is also nothing from preventing permission from being sought to use this or a similar image used instead. Just because a photographer from Wikipedia/Commons wasn't there does not mean an unfree image can be used. Adambro (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - Protestor talks like a lawyer, sounds like he’s just asking for trouble. Further, Wikipedia is an educational website and all materials are for educational use. Free/unfree status of materials are irrelevant, unless copyright owner specifically requests removal. Ssh83 (talk) 16:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I don't think a free alternative can be created. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 01:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    Of course a free alternative can't be created now but it could have and there is always the possibly that we may find someone to release an existing image under a free licence. However, simply the fact that no one from Wikipedia/Commons took a photo of this precise incident is not an excuse to use a unfree image. The rules on fair use are stricter than that. Otherwise why would we use any free images if we could all just sit at home whilst the torch relay goes on then claim fair use of images afterwards. Adambro (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• • • Comment - I would call this a special case, although no attempt to create a precedent. Guroadrunner (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Oppose - There lacks such pictures available to the general public that depicts this side of the violent protest against the Olympic Torch and its bearer. Furthermore, doesn't it say on the image page that permission was given? --Steven (talk) 02:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - This is a true picture that no other pictures can be replaced. The event happened in a moment and no replacement could be found, plus, the tag used for the picture is correct. Stop Wikipedia distortion, stop abuse wiki deletion policis.Dongwenliang (talk) 03:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    Please tell me where this abuse of Wikipedia deletion policies is. Nominating an image for deletion is perfectly valid. The only abuse of policy that I can see is of the fair use policy. Adambro (talk) 05:52, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Oppose' - per HongQiGong. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep suspect bad faith nom per above. Bobby fletcher (talk) 05:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    Erm excuse me, what makes you suggest this is a "bad faith nom"? If you are going to make such suggestions then at least have the courtesy to explain why. Adambro (talk) 05:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

    • Comment Bad faith as per Herunar's comment below. --Steven (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support' No permission has been granted to use these images. They are not free license. Oiboy77 (talk) 07:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ever heard of fair use? But I doubt you have ever read about Wikipedia policies anyway. Herunar (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment: Hmm, been taking a class in fallacies lately? Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 01:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Allow me to reiterate here. On the template, it states "Permission: Yes". By good faith, I think we can believe this to be true until proven otherwise. After all, we all work upon good faith do we not? --Steven (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose This is nonsense. There simply is no free image. Adambro is an experienced user and should understand Wikipedia policies here. I will assume good faith, but, as with the user above, it is easy for us to suspect bad faith in the rapid nomination of two sensitive images for deletion without a clear rationale or prior notice. Herunar (talk) 08:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment Your personal thoughts about bad faith nominations are totally irrelevant as regards to the copyright status of the picture in question. --Camptown (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment you of all people have no right to make such a statement Camptown. In the above vote, you accused the uploader of bad faith for uploading the image. For what reason, you have not stated. Furthermore, Herunar's objection has good reasoning. His own personal opinion was merely a postscript, not part of his reasoning. Please refer to his reasoning when you comment --Steven (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: The image was obviously uploaded without explicit permission from its creator. --Camptown (talk) 12:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment The permission of the creator is totally irrelevant as regards to the fair use status of the picture in question. TomTheHand (talk) 12:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Comment Certainly; but it is not yet establish whether its status is actually fair use, or if such status would justify the use of the picture in the article about the torch relay in general. --Camptown (talk) 13:37, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment I'm sorry but it's not true at all. Mr. Yang Zhendong, a Chinese student who took this pic, feel very happy about the fact his pic was widly used. see: http://www.cctv.com/english/20080420/101468_1 129.188.69.129 (talk) 14:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my rationale here. TomTheHand (talk) 12:43, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:NFC#10a Attribution of the source of the material and, if different from the source, of the copyright holder is required or the image can be deleted as described in WP:NFC#Enforcement. There is no source given, if anyone actually bothered to click the supposed source link they would find it leads to a seemingly unrelated page, (even though I don't read Chinese I can see there is no image or meaningful content). Jackaranga (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The text merely states that the image or article has been removed and no longer exists on the site. A highly possible situation, since not all news sites keep a detailed archive of all their pictures and articles. --Steven (talk) 01:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment The linked page is related. That is just the problem, you cannot read Chinese, the image was deleted, and there is a link to meaningful content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.22.158 (talk) 02:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. A free alternative is clearly unavailable for this event. We are not supposed to assume that one could be available when no evidence points in that direction. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no free alternative available, as far as I can tell. - Ricksal0224 (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.--Avala (talk) 18:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. May not be replacable Bryce (talk) 18:59, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose This image is encyclopedic in nature, no free alternative seems to be available, credit is given, and the photo documents an important historical event in progress. Also, in credit to the photographer, the image is a worthwhile photo in its own right, and therefore enhances the quality of the images on wikipedia and the commons. Retaining this image should not violate any policies because there is no intent to mislead the viewer as to the origin of the photo. If you support the delete rational, I urge you to consider the matter holistically rather than simply consulting the rule book; that kind of behavior leads to unnecessary deletes and devaluing of the content available. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.22.158 (talk) 02:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose image is an important and unreproducible historical document. John Dalton (talk) 09:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ǂ

• Support deletion: This image is completely not suitable for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is an encycopedia and NOT a website to show others the Olympic Torch incidents. This image clearly shows what has happened to the torchbearer, and even may sparkle some more protesters in other places around the world to protest against the Olympic Torch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leolisa1997 (talk • contribs) 09:45, 17 April 2008
  • Comment: The Olympics are an important part of modern world history. The Olympic torch relay is an important part of the modern Olympics. The dissidence and rallies surrounding the torch relay are an important part of the relay itself. The image is therefore, if for no other reason, important by proxy. Your argument amounts to "this image should not be on Wikipedia because people shouldn't be able to see it". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.22.158 (talk) 21:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose: The copyright owner is not known as per the image description page, so getting a license from an unknown person is out of the question. The attack incident(s) happened spontaneously, probably with quite a few photographers from the press, and I don't think it would be easy (i.e. feasible) to convince a media outlet to give out free photos to wikipedia. And let me be frank: why single out these photos? Because they paint the supposedly "peaceful" protesters in a bad light? I personally doubt your motives. Sydneyfong (talk) 11:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
• STRONGLY OPPOSE: I don't know if my opinion/vote is worth anything considering I'm not registered (and I'm not planning on it) but I think the picture should be kept to display the lengths some protesters went to show their disapproval of China being allowed to host the games. This is an encyclopedia after all, and if it's willing to detail the events that went on it may as well do it in full, with as much proof and fact as possible. I would also like to add that it's bullshit how many images get deleted off here because of this nonsense. 172.207.200.9 (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

  We don't need unfree images to illustrate this, we can cite reliable sources which demonstrate the disapproval of China hosting the games. It isn't "bullshit how many images get deleted off here because of this nonsense", unfree images can and should only be used in very limited circumstances. Adambro (talk) 19:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose If this was a picture of a building or something that could easily have been taken at any time then I would agree with the deletion however for news stories like this, even though there were rumours of trouble, it is unreasonable to suggest that a free replacement could have been created. The photographer had access not given to members of the public and was very lucky to capture this incident at all given the bodies in the way, timing of the event etc. Cavie78 (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly support Both of the above images represent one phenomena - both of them do not qualify for Fair Use together. One of the images must go. I know the issue is close to heart for a lot of people, but this does not mean laws can be bent.--Jahilia (talk) 09:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose It's Mr. Yang Zhendong, a Chinese student, who took this pic. See http://www.cctv.com/english/20080420/101468_1.shtml http://bbs.revefrance.com/thread-454852-1-1.html. From that report we can see clearly that he feel very happy about the fact we use it widely. If you did delete it, I will have him upload his original copy and declare it as GFDL as soon as possible.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.126.136.220 (talk • contribs)
  • That would be great. Please do so - if you are waiting for deletion of this image to do so, I suggest deleting this image right now.--Jahilia (talk) 08:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reason as the user above. Hanfresco (talk) 11:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - I've sent the individual who I understand to be the photographer a message asking that they consider releasing the image under the GFDL and am awaiting a response. Adambro (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

• Consensus: From interpretation of the article "He mad the file available..." after people "contacted Yang for a copy" indicates a release onto the internet for people to use publicly. Furthermore, as the opposition has stated, the importance and uniqueness of the image warrants the files usage. I therefore propose the removal of the tag immediately from the image page, by a Wikipedian more qualified then me. --Steven (talk) 23:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • When and how did you get to decide consensus. Importance and uniqueness do not warrant unlawful usage. A random statement from "people" does not prove they are not lying. A proper proof, at least an email is required. I do not see why this image is more special than thousands of images that get tagged and deleted everyday. Mr. Yang Zhendong happiness does not warrant a blatant disregard of procedures - history of IP is full of such incident (see here and here)--Jahilia (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Dear sir, I'm glad to tell you that Adambro has successfully contacted Mr. Yang. Hopefully we can resolve "unlawful usage" soon. Cherry933 (talk) 09:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

      This is just about resolved with the photographer agreeing to release this image under a free license. I'll sort this all out later today when I get chance, I'm intending to delete this image from WP and upload the freely released image to Commons with the required info. Adambro (talk) 11:38, 22 April 2008 (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.