Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 5

< August 4	August 6 >

August 5

File:Fort Lee Police Department 1963.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that this was released GFDL, photographer is unknown and photo was taken long before GFDL existed. Uploader has history of dubious uploads. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:36, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lots of US photos from this period are PD, since plenty of publications didn't carry copyright notices, and plenty that did carry notices failed to be renewed; however, we'd need documentation to say that this is included in the "lots". The idea that this is anything except either PD or fully copyrighted is absurdly unlikely, so barring clear evidence of PD, deletion is the only safe option. Nyttend (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2011 (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:PD 09 Fort Lee Police Department Desk -2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image used in a gallery, does not come anywhere close to meeting NFCC#8, most likely misses NFCC#1 as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:37, 5 August 2011 (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:Dosssmall.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission. Metadata claims author is "UN Photo/Devra Berkowitz". Sven Manguard Wha? 00:51, 5 August 2011 (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:Gagarin liepaja.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, GFLD is exceedingly dubious. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:52, 5 August 2011 (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:VIBP.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No useful description, orphaned. Weird gizmo labeled "Wednesday under pressure" (Text is Среда под давлением if you want to check it yourself) Sven Manguard Wha? 01:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

General note: Image is not orphaned. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:26, 10 August 2011 (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:Tratatul de aderare semnare.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source (Romanian Wikipedia) appears to have "non-commercial purposes" license, meaning that this is orphaned and non-free. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:29, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and needs to be deleted on ro.wikipedia too—the template is the equivalent of {{CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}} and says "conditions must not restrict the use of image for commercial purposes" I'll tell people there soon if it hasn't been done. —innotata 01:51, 11 August 2011 (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:Thomas morahan.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source appears to be NY state senate, meaning that the GFDL license is false. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:58, 5 August 2011 (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:Cheerwine design 2009.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logo consists of simple shapes (an oval) and stylized type. This type of logo is not eligible for copyright, and there's no reason to use a copyrighted image for the product shot. Mosmof (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2011 (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:Cheerwine.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheerwine logo consists of simple shapes and stylized type. This type of logo is not eligible for copyright, and there's no reason to use a copyrighted image for the product shot. Mosmof (talk) 02:14, 5 August 2011 (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:Sr Mary Loretto on left her sister on right.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Permission of "Free of copyright" is dubious; not PD-old, original author listed as unknown, there's no way this can be GFDL. Since this is only used in a gallery, it wouldn't meet the NFCC either, so no need to pursue that route. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:03, 5 August 2011 (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:MiJuniorteam.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no metadata, no description, orphaned. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:06, 5 August 2011 (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:Game07.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no metadata, no description, orphaned. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:07, 5 August 2011 (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:Futsal.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no description, no apparent encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:07, 5 August 2011 (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:Alexander Keith's Dark Ale.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of a {{non-free product cover}}. Uploader is repeatedly removing the non-free license tag rather than providing a rationale. Kelly ^hi! 03:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly I thought you might be bot because you refuse to respond outside of a template. I disagree with your classification, and will be removing it again until you act civil and talk about this without a template on the image's talk page. PeRshGo (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2011 (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:Sport Ground Launnie.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Description claims that this is originally "Chuq work" (I have to assume he means user:Chuq, but I can't find the original image in Chuq's uploads. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:11, 5 August 2011 (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:Sarmatia 1697.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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The summary, "Open source. Original source unknown." is problematic. Is the map itself still copyrighted? Where did the image come from? Doesn't meet our standards for sourcing. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:22, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, speedy?, now that adequate source information has been added. And eh, doesn't it look like a 1697 map? —innotata 01:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per source statement that was added after you nominated it. This is a clear case of PD-old. Nyttend (talk) 11:32, 11 August 2011 (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:Images3.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Likely copyright violation. See, for example, [1], which contains this image at larger resolution (400×320). An identical image was uploaded to the Turkish Wikipedia by this same user (see tr:Dosya:Yağlı Limonlu Zeytin.jpg)—it has been tagged there with a template indicating that its copyright status is suspect. —Bkell (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2011 (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:Qi-Architecture.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no OTRS, the website for Qi itself isn't very clear on the license, and this can all be described with text better than it can with this jumble anyways. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:36, 5 August 2011 (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:TetonsSunrise crop.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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The source URL is forbidden and I can't find this anywhere on the source website. It could be that this just got taken down for some reason, but we can't be sure, and since this is an orphaned image, there's no harm at all in being safe here. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:39, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image may be found here (archive).Smallman12q (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, linkrot isn't a valid reason to delete an image. Nyttend (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2011 (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:Dog better picture.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified breed of dog (meaning no encyclopedic value), isn't showcasing anything else overtly encyclopedic. Orphaned and likely to remain that way. We have plenty of other images of dogs, many of which we can actually identify properly. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:53, 5 August 2011 (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:FIFA12 (Tactical Defending).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 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: This image has no encyclopedic use. It doesn't inform or show anything useful for the article used in. How does the image show new tactical defending feature when it's a screenshot of a reply camera and not an actual screenshot of gameplay in action? The image isn't related in anyway to it's description. If anyone really wants to show the new tactical defending feature, inform people by uploading an actual screenshot of gameplay in action. JuventiniFan (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: The uploader has accepted my reasoning and said it would be better if it is deleted. See here: User_talk:Muhaidib#File:FIFA12_.28Tactical_Defending.29.png_listed_for_deletion JuventiniFan (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2011 (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:NBA 2K11 screenshot.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: This image has no encyclopedic use. It doesn't inform or show anything useful for the article used in. JuventiniFan (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2011 (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:Kiki Håkansson in Miss World 1951.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't have to show a picture of the Miss World being crowned wearing a bikini to pass the information that the first Miss World was crowned wearing a bikini. This is a relevant event, but not the kind of event that needs illustration to be understood. damiens.rf 13:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. But, since the bikini has gone through extensive debate on what makes a bikini (i.e. the cut and such stuff), it is almost impossible to depict a "bikini" without a visual representation. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 05:59, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no extensive debate about the look of this specific bikini in the article. Only some mention about the fact that the laid was wearing a bikini, and this is surely not something that calls for visual representation. --damiens.rf 18:11, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True again. But, it's not this specific bikini that the debate was around, it was about what makes a bikini. In the early age of the modern bikini, the most important legal, cultural and ethical was the cut of the garment. While non-bikini two-piece swimwears passed through social approval, the bikini did not. It would be difficult, almost impossible, to explain a visual phenomenon without it's representation. The extent of controversy around this particular garb covers feminists and the pope, with beauty pageants changing for a long time and the most famous beauty pageant on earth almost dying a premature death. There is a reason that Wikipedia allows non-free images. And, this is a pretty good representation of that reason. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 17:24, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if everything you state above was covered (and referenced) in the article's section where this image is used, I still honestly fail to agree that this is the case of a phenomenon that's "almost impossible to explain without it's representation" and still fail to understand how this picture of is even a visual representation of the relevant aspects you outlined above. It just shows the crowning moment, but it captures nothing like the social reaction, the feminist response or the Pope's instance you talk about. Some~~things~~times we interchange a notable relevant event with a picture of that event. As an encyclopedia, we need to pass our readers the former, but not necessarily the later. --damiens.rf 17:51, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's called a cut. The bikini is different from similar two-piece swimwears. It's the cut, called a bikini, that made it controversial. Two-piece swimwears didn't generate the debate, the bikini did. This is exactly the reason why it's almost impossible to explain without visual depiction. Apparently, even with a visual depiction it's difficult to see the difference. How do you propose to establish the difference without that? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article mentions nothing of that. It just says that Bikinis in general (and not this specific cut) were banned from beauty pageants and Hollywood movies, and that the Pope and feminists (there was a feminist movement back in 1947?) condemned the event. You're pushing the conclusion that this would not happen had they used a somehow different bikini cut, but this conclusion is not supported by the article or its references. --damiens.rf 11:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kelly ^hi! 18:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The bikini is the event. Check again. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 07:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. ~~OMG! I was barking up a very wrong tree, because~~ apparently the copyright for the image has expired according to English laws. Check: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p10_duration. For an artistic work, including photographs, copyright expires 25 years after creation of the work. Also, it looks like the Berne Convention allows copyright protection from 50 years after public release in case of anonymous authors, unless the authors identity has been established. Check: http://www.law.cornell.edu/treaties/berne/7.html. ~~This looks interesting.~~ But, while this legal matters are a little beyond me, I still hold true to my fair-use argument. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 08:02, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know who produced this picture and when was it first published? I just checked and the only source information is a fansite that does not credit the original copyright holder (this alone is grounds for deletion). --damiens.rf 11:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, readers can perfectly well imagine what a woman being crowned while wearing a bikini looks like. I agree with damiens in this respect. And even if it were impossible, this is not SO MOMENTOUS AN EVENT in the history of the bikini that readers understanding of History of the bikini would be significantly impaired without it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2011 (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:Tv edwin maher.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used to show what a blp's subject looks like damiens.rf 17:26, 5 August 2011 (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:Anders Behring Breivik.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 as G4 by Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an invalid claim of use of a non-free media, because;

There is no reason to assume that no free images of the subject exist. The fact he is incarcerated now has no bearing on that. Almost all contemporaneous Europeans have family snap-shots, friends have photos, and so forth
Other photographs do exist; have a look on Google. This is not the only photograph of this person, it is not the only possible option we have
Photographs have been taken of him since the attack. For example, [2]. Thus, failing WP:NFC#UUI. It is wrong for us to assume it will never be possible to take a photograph of him.
I see no specific historic value to the image; it does not portray a specific incident in time

Note, this image was previously deleted from enwiki here, then Commons here. Chzz ► 19:19, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I believe that the image was deleted from Commons in error, but for the moment, let's suppose we're dealing with a non-free or ambiguous image. The WP:non-free use rationale guideline says that a "historically significant photo of a famous individual" is a good rationale for keeping an image. Now let's consider:

Just about every news article about this person has shown this picture.
This picture was the image he chose to illustrate his Facebook account.
The picture illustrates Breivik's advice from 1010 of his manifesto:

The goal must be to look like, sound like and act like a well-educated European conservative pensioner type character. Think of this as an advanced psycho-social tactical façade required to succeed in your most critical of all phases; the chemical acquisition phase.

Example:

Clothing: Lacoste etc, conservative colours (low cost brands will not be as potent in sending the same “psycho-socio-economic signals” required to “trick/soothe” the target.)...
Conservative hair cut. Avoid dying your hair black.
No visible piercings
No visible tattoos ...

In short, this photo was as much a part of Breivik's plan as the aluminum powder or the picric acid. It is of vital importance in understanding how he went about this scheme and succeeded. Pulling out a random replacement would deny the reader this important piece of the puzzle. (The other elements of fair use also apply, e.g. lack of commercial value given that every news outlet known to man has "pirated" the picture already; I think it would be a waste of time and space to go down through them all unless they're actually questioned) Wnt (talk) 23:55, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. (1) I don't have access to photographs "deleted" from Commons. But memory tells me that although the one "deleted" there is similar to this one, it's different. (2) A claim above: Just about every news article about this person has shown this picture. Oh? I've read several at guardian.co.uk and I don't remember that any has shown this photo or indeed any photograph taken before his arrest. I don't deny that guardian.co.uk has used such photographs, but if it has done so, then it has done so very sparingly. (3) It's claimed above that The picture illustrates Breivik's advice from 1010 of his manifesto, which is then repeated. But although compatible with this advice, it's insufficient evidence for compliance with the advice. (Just to take one example, it doesn't show that his forearms and hands aren't tattooed.) So if this part of the manifesto is important, then it will have to be reproduced, or summarized -- which in turn would seem to render the photograph redundant. -- Hoary (talk) 05:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS. How many encyclopaedias have published this photo? Why do we care what papers do? Some news sources grabbed the pic, simply because it was all that they could obtain. That isn't what Wikipedia does.

The image is absolutely not "historically significant"; if, in a years time, there are lots of people discussing that FaceBook page - then I'll accept it. There is absolutely no comparison between this, and e.g. Tank man, Kim Phúc, and suchlike. Chzz ► 13:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS is absolutely irrelevant in a discussion about fair-use, it is relevant to a discussion about the article in general, in which the consensus was to keep, a discussion in which you and others argued WP:NOTNEWS and lost. We can debate (and should) the interpretation of WP:NOTNEWS you and others make (which is completely different than what I and others do), but this is not the place to do so. In this case. discussing fair-use, the image is being used in the article about the subject, to illustrate the subject as portrayed in his manifesto. The illustration of both is of great encyclopedic value, and the encyclopedic value they provide is what we call "fair-use". If the article on the subject were deleted, then we can delete this image, otherwise, we need it, have it available, and no compelling case against fair-use has been heard. --Cerejota (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned NOTNEWS because wmt argued, above, that "Just about every news article about this person has shown this picture", and I was therefore pointing out that Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Chzz ► 14:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The legal status of this image is unclear. Living person! Even a suspected murderer do have rights. How often should wikis have to discuss deleting these pictures? Zabia2 (talk) 18:02, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The deletion in the commons has been submitted to review, however, that discussion has no bearing on this one as the decision to delete was based on the argument that it is a non-free image, which are banned from the Commons in general, not subject to discussion even. Here we allow fair-use non-free images. So the commons can, and as a matter of routine does, delete images than can be included in individual wikis if they see fit. So as Wnt has explained, if the commons considers this image - even incorrectly - to not be free

That said, the criteria for fair-use are met:

Fair-use is allowed is no "free" alternative available. If there where a free alternative, believe me, it would have been uploaded in a picosecond into the Commons. It doesn't mean that an image must be the only image of the subject. There is also no expectation that a free image can be obtained at this moment, because the subject is in jail, and we can expect him to be there for a long time. There is the possibility that in the travels from court to jail a free image might be produced, but this has already happened and no free image has been produced, so this expectation is one proven incorrect by actual events.
This is not a explicitly copyrighted image, nor are we affecting the ability of the copyright owner to profit from his work - all of the reasons to not use as fair use do not apply here, yet all the reasons to use non-free images are all here.
It has historic value in the context of Breivik, as it was included in his manifesto and facebook page, they illustrate the propaganda aspect of his terrorist attack. In effect, this is similar to the videos and images that Al-Qaeda produces after their attacks, and we have allowed a number of those under fair-use. --Cerejota (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are misunderstanding WP:NFC; Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created (my bold). As you've said, someone took pictures of him within the past few days. Why on Earth do you think it impossible that more will be taken? More to the point, other pictures of him, from before the attacks, have already surfaced - and I'm sure more will, over time. Also, note that WP:NFC#UUI specifically excludes pictures of living people. Chzz ► 14:32, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I totally understand WP:NFC. The "could be created" part in particular. I think we have no expectation of a free equivalent, because we are illustrating the manifesto's (and Breivik's self-promotional ideas and actions and preparations for the attack - extremely important aspects of his notability and encyclopedic as opposed to news value). The only possible free alternative is the same images with a different license - if it is the same image, it is not an alternative in the sense that WP:NFC means "alternative".

WP:NFC#UUI, actually, says "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image. This includes non-free promotional images."

The only possible free replacement for the purpose this image is this very image, should the licensing issue be resolved at the Commons. There is no other way to illustrate Brevik's preparations and actions before the attack, or to effective illustrate his manifesto's intent as a publicity tool - all things given heavy coverage by news sources and the RS comentariat.

Respectfully, I think you are still thinking of this event as current, and that is affecting how you see this conversation developing. On the wild first days, before things became clearer, and there was a fog-of-news so to speak, your argument would have been correct, as clearly the image was being used to illustrate a living person, which is as you correctly point out, explicitly banned with an extremely high threshold for exceptions. But as the RS and V has developed, it is clear that this particular set of images - those included in the manifesto itself - are important encyclopedic information, and as such using them is the very definition of fair-use, as what they illustrate cannot be replicated in the future, nor can be illustrated by using other images of Breivik.

Entirely unrelated to my argument, but surprising, you suggest we use non-free images of the subject that have surfaced (I imagine that of his wedding etc). There I do have a problem, as indeed such kinds of photographs can indeed be created in the future. THe ones in the manifesto, facebook etc, are historical on their own: iconic images of the propaganda Breivik created, which illustrates the political and military context of the event. This is highly encyclopedic, not some random picture for identity purposes, which is an entirely different argument. What is being argued here is more like 2004_bin_Laden_video and the image File:2004-10-29_Bin_Laden_still.jpg - a screencap of a copyrighted video, that at the time it was posted was an image of a living person, used to illustrate, not Osama bin Laden himself (as at the time there where free and non-free alternatives available for that purpose), but the video he recorded - of which there was absolutely no expectation of a free image being available. In this case, we are not picturing Breivik, but how he appeared in his manifesto and facebook and other propaganda tools he used, in order to illustrate his BLP, which includes discussion of the manifesto as per merger discussion consensus. Consensus can change, but that is no reason not to allow the use of this image under WP:NFC rules. I have consistently argued that Breivik's images in facebook and manifesto are public domain, and hence free as in freedom and free as in beer, but since the consensus currently is that they are not, we must then include them as non-free, which also means we have to narrow and explain the criteria for use, which we are doing. You can poke holes at this criteria, thats why we have discussions, but do not argue against a strawman: you cannot find a free alternative for the purpose these images are being used, period. --Cerejota (talk) 20:19, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated the Image's fair use rationale to reflect and clarify this criteria. I do so in good faith, not trying to move goalposts, but I could see how the initial criteria could be construed as not sufficient under WP:NFC. I think they are now. --Cerejota (talk) 21:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I amended your use of the image File:2004-10-29_Bin_Laden_still.jpg here, changing it to a link instead of the actual image, because non-free images may not be used in this namespace. Chzz ► 22:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just because I cannot find a free alternative is absolutely no justification for using this image.

Your own opinion that it is public-domain is, similarly, irrelevant here. That was thrashed out over at commons; consensus is that it is not PD, so we're not even discussing that.

The question is therefore whether it fulfills the requirements for use of a non-free image. A) as we've said, it is extraordinarily rare for a picture of a living person to be considered to meet the NFCC criteria. B) It is clear that a free equivalent could be created (ie, someone could take a picture of him). C) there is absolutely a commercial opportunity for use of the image. D) we cannot definitively determine the author; nowhere has B. stated he took the image, plus we have considerable doubt over his claims, given his other supposedly 'public domain' releases that are confirmed as copyvio/plagiarism. E) Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, I fail to see how a snapshop of a young man, with no special characteristics, aids our encyclopaedic understanding more than text, F) the image of Laden is used in the article 2004 Osama bin Laden video which is fundamentally about that video; we do not have an article about B.'s Facebook page, G) I see nothing whatsoever of historical significance about this specific photograph; already, interest in his facebook page is fading, and is not a major feature in his article; it does not represent a particular unique historic event, other than the fact this person had a facebook account - which is hardly a massive historic moment; thousands of notable people have a facebook page, but we do not consider it acceptable to take the pictures from those. Chzz ► 23:05, 7 August 2011 (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.