Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 January 9

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:Ananthabhadram Kavya.jpg

Image:Ananthabhadram Kavya.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aditya Kabir (notify | contribs).

• It violates WP:NFCC#8. The image certainly does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the fact. Once Image was used in a song (non-notable). It is whether it would be detrimental to readers' understanding not to have it. Without this image, readers would easily be able to understand that actress acted in the song. NAHID 07:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment As the uploader of the image I don't think I should post a !vote here, but I certainly see a necessity to post a comment. It's both about the amazing level of bad faith that shines through this nomination and the justification of the use of the image. Here goes:

• Bad faith: This deletion proposal closely followed my posting of the following on the Admin noticeboard, where I also discussed what I consider to be bouts of borderline stalking and the lamest of edit wars coming from the nominator here (and the editor in discussion there).

Yep. That would definitely mean a lot of hassle. Like when the user in discussion disputed fair use of a non-free image I uploaded. When I put a hang-on tag and detailed the rational on talk page, he went on to put it to speedy. Luckily, another user saw it and removed the tag, and rebuked the user for that. He also managed to get the image deleted, though it was restored (it involved three highly active image patrolers, too), and the user apologized to the rebuking party (no concern about me, of course). But, overall it was quite a hassle.

The source of inspiration by Ravi Varma.

• Justification: The article (a GA) writes about how the film was inspired by the painting of Raja Ravi Varma, a point much better illustrated by positioning a scene from the film and the painting that inspired it (a public domain image) side-by-side. Unless there is a blanket call for deleting all non-free image, it may be very hard to see why this image should be up for deletion. This goes doubly true if we read the policy - "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (WP:NFCC#8). Check for yourself. I am quoting the article text and image caption succession below.

Article text: The director used three paintings of Raja Ravi Varma - Damayanti and the swan, Lady in thought and Girl carrying milk tray - as inspiration to picturize the song Pinakkamano (acted by Prithviraj Sukumaran and Kavya Madhavan; sung by M. G. Sreekumar and Manjari).^[1][2][3] Sivan says, "Yes, it is a tribute to Raja Ravi Varma, who is so intrinsically etched in every Malayali's mind."^[4][5]

1. ^ Raja Ravi Varma's art makes song number one favourite. Now Running. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
2. ^ Newsmaker: Raja Ravi Varma. Varnachitram. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
3. ^ "Ananthabhadram", Deccan Herald, 2006-08-02. Retrieved on 2007-03-29. (English) 
4. ^ Newsmaker: Raja Ravi Varma. Varnachitram. Retrieved on 2007-03-29.
5. ^ "Ravi Varmas come alive", The Hindu, 2006-08-02. Retrieved on 2007-03-29. (English) 

Image caption: Kavya Madhavan in the "Pinakkanamano" song sequence

The community surely can decide for itself. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• That discussion in AN/I was about articles NOT for images. I did not have to follow your posting there. I felt it violates Non free image criteria (WP:NFCC#8), so I nominated it here. And I'm bit confused about links (with name) you provided. Nominating image for deletion should not be considered as bad faith nominating, Stalking, disputing or lamest edit warring. Otherwise, no one would've nominated image for deletion (IFD or Speedy). Of course, I had reason (WP:NFCC#8) to nominate it. Every day a number of image is being tagged for deletion (IFD or speedy). Sometimes, either they get kept or deleted through discussion. You are welcome to make arguments here.--NAHID 15:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I already did. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 06:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Aditya, perfectly sound fair use. - Mafia Expert (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But, what exactly passes WP:NFCC#8, if this one doesn't? Or is that clause becoming a blanket clause against all non-free image? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep: Seems worthy to pass WP:NFCC#8 to me. Arman ^(Talk) 02:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment It does not seem to pass NFCC#8. As I mentioned above, the materials are easily understandable without this image. And that's not blanket clause against all non-free image.--NAHID 17:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. But, according to this line of thniking all art is perfectly understandable without seeing the art. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• The article isn't about the Art, right. So the image doesn't increase any value for that film article.--NAHID 18:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Image kept. The text in the article discussing the use of "Lady in Thought" or "Woman in Thought" as inspiration for the "Pinakkanamano" song sequence is critical commentary to support the use of the two images. Without being able to see how the "Pinakkanamano" song sequence compares to "Lady in Thought" reduces the significance of article. -Nv8200p talk 02:24, 18 January 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

[edit] Image:Lyor Cohen-The Oddfather.jpg

Image:Lyor Cohen-The Oddfather.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Arctic Monkies (notify | contribs).

• Remove per WP:BLP. It's very likely that that subject of the article would be chagrined to see such a pic of him on Wikipedia. The uploader's intentions are also very suspicious. See this original caption. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 04:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• Delete - Attack image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:54, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -He's a friend of mine. He doesn't care about it. He laughed about it. Check the intro to T.I.'s album T.I. vs T.I.P. for context.--It's Dark...•...and Hell Is Hot! 03:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't believe you, this is a terrible picture and T.I. namedropping Cohen has absolutely nothing to do with this nomination. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• When a question of attack image arises, "he's a friend of mine, he doesn't care" doesn't suffice. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Strong keep. It shows a lighter side to a guy that's otherwise a ruthless asshole. --Piepie (talk) 17:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• That is not sufficient for keeping this image. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

weak delete - wp:bio "Basic human dignity", although if there were more images of the subject it would dilute the impact of this, if kept commons and rename Fasach Nua (talk) 19:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - The evidence suggests to me that this image is also a copyright violation and that User:Arctic Monkies does not in fact own the rights to it. Given the previous caption on the photo, I would seriously question their representation of ownership. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reply - Who the hell are you question my ownership of the pic? I can prove ownership by providing another 20 he had me take at the same time.

--It's Dark...•...and Hell Is Hot! 22:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• Weak Keep fully passes licensing. It doesn't belong in the article, though. But the image itself looks licensing and the Metadata shows it was taken by the uploader so by licensing reasons it should not be deleted. It really should be held pending permission from subject whether he is fine with it or if he is not and the uploader has a grudge against him, like maybe the subject denied the uploader a job and is mad over the loss of dollars. Based on a statement the uploader does consider the article the subject's vanity page. William Ortiz (talk) 22:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, it fully passes liscencing and though there are acusations of the poster having some kind of personal reason for uploading this there is as yet no evidence of this whatsoever. As far as we know Lyor Cohen would find this picture hillarious, let's not be hasty here. --MOONGOER (talk) 02:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, Same with the above. --HungryJacks (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Note to closing admin: There's a suspicion that two Keeps are sockpuppets. Please see: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Piepie. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 15:37, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and move to commons (remove from article). It looks like the licensing checks out and he is a public figure so even if this image is silly it could be useful to some people and should be kept. Just because this photo might be embarrassing doesn't mean it has to be deleted. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Image deleted on Wikipedia. The image is now on Commons and is showing through. -Nv8200p talk 02:13, 18 January 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.