Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 December 1

< November 30	December 2 >

December 1

File:EMD 17APRIL10 001.jpg

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 discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CV EricaWIP (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Active pfc PSU packaging.png

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 discussion was: no consensus. Interested editors are encouraged to take up this discussion at Talk:Power factor about whether the image is useful or not in the article, and then return to FFD if the image ends up orphaned. As far as copyright is concerned, if non-free, I believe it might fail WP:NFCC#1 because the same concept could be easily represented textually. So for now, please discuss amongst yourselves. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what this is and why it is being used - but is it *really* needed? It is being used in the Active PFC section of the Power factor article to illustrate a label showing a power rating. But this image is just text - I don't think it really "illustrates" this article text: For example, SMPS with passive PFC can achieve power factor of about 0.7–0.75, SMPS with active PFC, up to 0.99 power factor, while a SMPS without any power factor correction has a power factor of only about 0.55–0.65. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On the other hand, is there any copyright here? Is there anything expressive in this text, or is it simply functional -- just a list? Jheald (talk) 13:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:It isn't about copyright or not with this one, it is just what it is. Usually an image is used to illustrate something in the text - but this is just more text. Because there is one section of text highlighted it seems to imply the reader can't understand the same thing in the text so they need an "image" showing the same text - but highlighted. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're all in agreement that this image does not meet the standard of creativity to be copyrighted, and so the non-free tag is incorrect and should be replaced, the issue of whether it is helpful or appropriate to include it in the article seems to be something to take up on the article's talk page (because it's a discussion about the content of the article). —Bkell (talk) 20:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. Again I say "It isn't about copyright or not with this one, it is just what it is" If you want to discuss its specific use in the article go ahead and start a thread on the article talk page. Remove it from the article and it will become what? An unused orphan. And be sent here as an unused image with no encyclopedic value. Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:27, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perhaps I am missing the point, but if so I'm still confused, so please help me understand. First, you say "it isn't about copyright or not with this one"—do you mean that you don't want to discuss the copyright status because it's irrelevant, or that you believe the copyright status is correctly described with the current non-free tag (and so improperly described copyright is not the problem you are raising), or that you believe the image is not subject to copyright due to lack of originality (and so deleting it because of copyright issues is inappropriate), or something else? Second, under the assumption that you do not see a copyright problem with this image, are you nominating this image for deletion solely for the reason that you don't think it's helpful or appropriate to include it in the article? If so, then that discussion can take place on the article's talk page (and if the result is the removal of the image from the article, then the image can be listed here). Having a discussion here about article content usually isn't the right thing to do, in my opinion, because it imposes a five-day deadline for resolution which isn't necessary, the discussion happens in a place that watchers of the article might not be paying attention to, and it dissociates the discussion from the article (imagine rereading the article several months from now, wondering why the image you remembered isn't there any more, and looking for the discussion about it—if it's in the article's talk page, you can find it immediately, but if it's hidden over here at FFD you have to hunt through the article's history to find the link that was added to the image caption). If I am still failing to understand what you are saying, I apologize; perhaps you can try to explain it again. —Bkell (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

you don't want to discuss the copyright status because it's irrelevant - For this image, correct.
Having a discussion here about article content usually isn't the right thing to do - If you want to define/re-define the scope of Ffd (Which is, to me anyway, very clear: Files for deletion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded.) you can make suggestions on the FfD Talk Page.

If you still don't understand maybe someone else can explain it better. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:OnceMoreWithFeeling-Mustard.jpg

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back when Once More, with Feeling (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) went through FAC, it was determined that this image was a derivative work of the episode, and could not be free without so much cropping that it would render the image useless. It was orphaned during that FAC... but never nominated for deletion. So, to finish discussion on this one... Courcelles 07:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 13:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Mytouch4gggg.jpg

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded non-free image that is used in a list contrary to WP:NFCC#8 and that was replaced by a better image in the product's article. I'd nominate it for speedy deletion but the uploader has previously disagreed with this and re-added the image, so discussion is probably the better way to handle it. So Why 08:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree to readding it, but after it was removed a second time it stayed removed. The sole purpose is to provide as visual structre. This image is currently doing that, so i strongly disagree about the pahe's deltionK.O.K Kev (talk) 04:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Visual structure"? What does that even mean? Considering that the phone is now released, this file is absolutely replaceable with a free image. It has been Wikipedia's policy for a long time that if the potential exists for a free image to be created, then we should wait for that to happen and go without in the interim rather than use a non-free image. Therefore, the only option is to delete. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:07, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:NFCCs #1, #8 and #10. --Mosmof (talk) 05:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Krampus.png

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 discussion was: Delete per F8. Rehman 07:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned png version of an image available at Commons at File:Krampus at Perchtenlauf Klagenfurt.jpg in original, higher quality Hekerui (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close, tagged F8. Rehman 14:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Iron Maiden - Brave New World - P.jpg

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a bad license. Unused and replaceable by File:Iron Maiden - Brave New World.jpg so not appropriate for fair use. Wknight94 ^talk 13:00, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Rehman 14:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deleted. due to copyright violation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:19, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Wech Baghtu wedding party destruction.JPG

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image is not uniquely historical, as there has been no critical commentary of the image. Falls under unacceptable non-free criteria 5 and 7; fails non-free content criterion #8. Swarm ^X 13:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - part of the mass nomination of almost the entire collection of images on Wikipedia that show civilian victims and destruction from the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Highly important images that are not replaceable. All these images have a valid fair use rational and they are perfectly fine to use under fair use. Our Nominator does not show any knowledge on copyright laws or the DMCA and he should not forget the greater goal we have. There is no problem with copyright and the mass deletion of these images though "Wikipedia:Wikilawyering" is highly troublesome. None of the given reasons is strong enough to justify the deletion of images from that importance. IQinn (talk) 13:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean mass nomination of copyrighted material. Come on, Iqinn, over the past couple months I must have nominated upwards of two dozen of your images for deletion, due to copyright concerns. All but one were deleted, and that one's currently at deletion review. Honestly, how can you still claim that I have no knowledge of copyright rules? Citing specific policy as a rationale for deletion isn't "Wikilawyering". Swarm ^X 13:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Be ensured that i am very familiar with copyright laws in many counties. Copyright laws and WP:LAWYER are obviously two different things. I have explained to you on various talk pages that there is no problem for us to use the images under fair use. Especially under the DMCA and the fact that we are an educational site. It has been shown in these discussions that you do not have knowledge of copyright laws and you did not show any intention to find a solution to preserve this important content. You could not even name any law that had been violated and name the consequences that this would have for Wikipedia if there would be consequences. These were all highly important images that showed the immense destruction of infrastructure, injured or killed children and women up to war crimes committed by US and western troops in Afghanistan. From the beginning there was no doubt in my view that you would push to delete all of these images that are highly important for us. What ever reason for. These images were testimonies and they all had the highest priority for inclusion in a reliable unbiased encyclopedia. Now as the are gone we can not call Wikipedia unbiased in my opinion Wikipedia now looks like a propaganda tool for US interest that displays hundreds of pro (up to propaganda) US military images released by the military itself and on the other side the already very few images that show the other site of the conflict with hundreds of thousands of killed or injured civilians and massive destruction to these countries infrastructure and human life have been excised. IQinn (talk) 00:43, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NFCC#8. Hekerui (talk) 21:54, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just pointing to a policy should be avoided WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Why does it fail WP:NFCC#8? The image significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. IQinn (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I felt like repeating myself because this is one of a series of similar fair-use claims I consider meritless but I apologize for not being clearer: removal of the picture would not be detrimental the understanding of the article subject because it merely features unidentified people standing on rubble two days after the incident. This could have been taken anywhere in Afghanistan where a house was bombed. Hekerui (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete via CSD F7: This is from a commercial content provider, namely the European Pressphoto Agency. Images of this type are not allowed unless they are the actual subject of the article commentary. In plain English images from press agencies must only be used in a transformative nature, when the image itself is the subject of commentary rather than the event it depicts (which is the original market role, and is not allowed per policy). This fails WP:NFCC#2. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with this as well. Swarm ^X 11:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No convincing reason has been given for there being a copyright exemption as fair use. In addition, Wikipedia's policy is to avoid use of non-free content where possible, even if copyright law would permit use of the material, and no convincing reason has been given for this image being indispensable in the article in which it is used. Needless to say, the ad hominem arguments about the particular person who made the nomination are completely irrelevant. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:22, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as images taken in Afghanistan are public domain. I have declined a speedy delete because of the PD nature. Fair use would not apply if the image is public domain, and it is irrelevant if you can also get it under a commercial arrangement. template:PD-Afghanistan Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Many things are wrong with that. First of all, E.P.A is not located in Afghanistan, it is located in Frankfurt, Germany. Second, the image is from a commercial content provider. Period. Third this is a press agency and material they offer for sale is not "work of Afghanistan" as you feel (So I have removed the PD tag you placed on the image). Did Wikipedia pay for it? No. As such it means it is also a copyvio per policy. Period. Your denial of the CSD F7 speedy tag is a bit shocking. The "where it was taken" does not matter in this case - or are you implying that every single piece of video and/or film shot at any time in Afghanistan and being offered by any media outlet is in P.D? If so you are mistaken. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Soundvisions is correct. By Graeme's logic, any photo or video taken by a western press agency in Afghanistan is in the public domain! Visiting American and European photographers would have no rights to any of their work, just because they took the photos in Afghanistan. In truth, they couldn't copyright their photos in Afghanistan, but they could copyright their photos in their own country. The template is completely wrong. It's not a work of Afghanistan (which would mean, for example, the Afghan govt or a work whose owner lives in Afghanistan), it's a work of the EPA which is located in Germany. Germany, obviously, does have copyright laws. Swarm ^X 22:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Džemal Bijedić.jpg

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 discussion was: Keep. Rehman 14:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown copyright. Damiens.rf 16:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its fair use, whats unknown about it?

Copyright holder, copyright status... --Damiens.rf 04:18, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has copyright information as well as a source. I don't quite see how the copyright status is unknown. Swarm ^X 05:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, keep it. Now it's fixed. --Damiens.rf 13:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Lahore Zoo logo.png

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted as G7 by Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by File:Lahore_Zoo_Logo.png on the article Lahore Zoo. Farjad0322^{(talk|sign|contribs)} 17:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this will speed up the process, please go ahead and delete my version if it's been superseded by a newer file (though it probably would have been easier all around just to upload the new file over the old). Donlammers (talk) 01:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. G7'ed. Actually, we would have had to delete the old version eventually, even if the same filename had been used. Courcelles 11:10, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:FellowsGearShaperPlant-New.jpg

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 discussion was: delete, per convincing argumentation by nominator and Schuminweb, and in the absence of a convincing case having been made about concrete significance. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:52, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding of the subject, or in other words WP:NFCC item 8. PhilKnight (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See File talk:FellowsGearShaperPlant-New.jpg. User:HopsonRoad 21:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[Content from that talk page is now being moved to here per advice from FFD-non-novice.]

Value of this image in Edwin R. Fellows

Keep. Fellows was a lowly draughtsman when he realized that not only gears were being made poorly, but he had a much simpler, more effective and elegant means to manufacture them. He had no engineering training, beyond what he picked up on the job, yet his idea became the tool that allowed the mass-production of automobiles with their intensive use of gearing. The article shows the first machine and the modest size of the plant in which it was manufactured. In the absence of production records, the image of the plant (depicted here) at the end of WWII demonstrates the degree to which the business had grown to meet the demand for gear-cutting machinery, both in support of the war and of the automotive industry. Without the image, the reader would have a much poorer sense of the substantial impact of Fellows and his invention. User:HopsonRoad 21:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Absolutely agree with the rationale above, and with the points listed in the "Fair use rationale" box. No one is losing any sales revenue at all by this low-res image being on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, it is the best "worth a thousand words" way to succinctly show how big the business was at mid-20th century. This company is highly notable in the history of manufacturing because of the influence of its machine tools that were used at many other companies. — ¾-10 02:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who's allowed to close these XFD actions, and how is it done? Is it a matter of wrapping a template subst'd around this discussion ("archived...do not modify..." etc) and deleting the tag off the file? Rather than me wasting time hunting for this, can someone who already knows just point me to the answer? I need to close this action, since this discussion has fizzled out in favor of "keep". Thanks. — ¾-10 19:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're closed by an uninvolved admin after 7 days. PhilKnight (talk) 20:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The image in question was being used decoratively, and has now been removed from the article entirely. The facility was not discussed in the article from what I can tell, and considering its placement in the references section, it doesn't convince me of contextual significance. Thus it fails NFCC 7 and 8. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:AaronBioPic.jpg

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as unused. Rehman 14:14, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:La Méditation Sensuelle.gif

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image fails WP:FUC#8. It does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic "Raëlism#Views of sex", where it is used; indeed, the book is not mentioned there. Its use in a userspace draft violates WP:FUC#9. The article about the book depicted was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sensual Meditation, at which time I also deleted this now-restored image. Sandstein 23:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture tells you plenty about the movement. Are you resenting that it depicts a nude woman (or actually two)? What is your reason for thinking that the book is not mentioned? It will be certainly mentioned in the Raëlism article. Since you are so annoying to me, I went ahead and already updated the Raëlism article, even though I wanted to discuss about the changes first. The one thing I agree with is the choice to delete the many articles that have been deleted about this subject, though I believe in most cases a merge would have been more appropriate. However, I guess I'm the only one who knows well enough about the topic to complete a merger properly, so I guess that others such as yourself have nothing positive to contribute to the merger. And next time I make a draft, I will put it the Main space instead (and good lord does it really make a DIFFERENCE???). I went ahead and did it for this article Raëlism/Sandbox. Please understand that the new version includes paraphrase from the book there, so that should deal with one of the concerns you raised above. (Click here to see the prior dismal state of the article before I began editing on the subject).Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 03:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the work you have put in toward improving the article. But I agree with Sandstein that we do not need to include the copyrighted cover of this book in our article in order to clearly and freely convey information about Raëlism's views of sex. If the book is important, we can mention it and discuss its contents or its message perfectly well without having to show its cover. Since the image of the cover of the book is copyrighted and is not available under a free license, we should not include it. —Bkell (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"But I agree with Sandstein that we do not need to include the copyrighted cover of this book in our article in order to clearly and freely convey information about Raëlism's views of sex." It makes it clearer. Shouldn't increasing clarity, however minuscule the percent increase of clarity, still count?Kmarinas86 (Expert Sectioneer of Wikipedia) ^{19+9+14 + karma = 19+9+14 + talk = 86} 15:01, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are trying to make a free encyclopedia—an encyclopedia of free content that anyone can use for any purpose. (See the third of the five pillars of Wikipedia, which describe Wikipedia's fundamental goals.) The cover of this book is not free content—it is copyrighted and is not available under a free license. Including it in the article directly contradicts our goal of building a free-content encyclopedia. We certainly shouldn't undermine one of our foundational goals by including non-free content that provides only a minuscule increase in clarity. —Bkell (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Bkell. Rehman 14:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

File:Rabbi UngerAndRabbiRubin.jpg

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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image has no source information and really confused licensing information. The summary says, "I have got permission to release this under the GFDL," but there is no information about the source of the photo or who it was that supposedly gave this permission. The licensing section claims that the photo is licensed under the GFDL and Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 (the latter added as part of the license migration), but then also has a tag stating that it is copyrighted and unlicensed, and a fourth tag saying that the copyright holder has granted permission for this image to be used in Wikipedia. This is a photo of two living people, so if it isn't freely licensed then it likely fails WP:NFCC#1. The uploader hasn't contributed for almost two and a half years, so it seems unlikely that he will be able to clarify things. —Bkell (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Very weird one this is. It was tagged {{di-no source}} on March 30, 2006. Uploader removed it the same day. Another editor added the same tag two months later, the uploader removed the tag the next day and added a "fair use" tag and a {{Withpermission}} tag but still never provided a source. The tag was updated to {{Non-free with permission}} in June 2008, but still no source. And even now - no source. This should have been deleted back in 2006. I also agree that the uploader first day of upload comment Have permission to use is really not enough to verify permission. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:49, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Soundvisions1. Rehman 14:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.