Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 6

< January 5	January 7 >

January 6

File:Chengdu J-20.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. The bottom line appears to be that the image is replaceable with a free image, which those that have advocated for deletion have argued successfully. Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, aka WP:NFCC, does not indicate that a free equivalent must be readily available. To fail WP:NFCC#1 means that the possibility exists to create a free image, even if one does not currently exist. That's like why we can't use non-free pictures for biographies of living people if the main purpose of the picture is to show what the subject looks like. It's because it is presumed that non-free photos of living people are always considered replaceable, because one could just say, "SAY CHEESE!" and get a photo. It seems to be the case that the image can be replaced, even with a line drawing, as several mentioned. Thus we cannot keep the non-free image around. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an improper use of fair use. I have seen several different photos of this plane so the claim that it can't be replaced is not correct. Plane photos are common. If we are patient, we will eventually find a free use photo. Wikipedia is "The Free Encyclopedia" and shouldn't be the website of stolen photos. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

- Delete per above. There are already quite a few drawings and photos out there. If Wikipedia is nice to people (see ANI for many instances of rudeness) then we may win over one of the many people who took photos of the plane during it's unofficial display to the public. Basically the argument that we will have photos one way or the other, by free use or by violating copyright or genuine fair use (not in this case), is not a valid argument. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 18:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (as uploader). You misunderstand how the system works. There are no free useage photos at this time. Those photographs in the newspaper? They're not free use. Also, the photograph is not 'stolen'. It's uploaded, stated as copyrighted, and used under a fair-use license with appropriate rationaile. When free use photos become available, by all means, replace it, but they won't be available for a long time. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - This sort of case, where there are no free use images at the present time, is exactly why we have a fair-use image policy on Wikipedia. - Ahunt (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Bushranger and Ahunt. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:05, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Yeah, umm, this is exactly why we have non-free use. Despite the fact that analysts believe that this was an "unveiling" (putting the aircraft on a runway known as being watched by Chinese military enthusiasts, which constitutes the first time the plane has appeared in public, and coincides with an upcoming visit by US Defense secretary Robert Gates,) China isn't going to be releasing photos of this plane anytime soon. In fact, a lot of photos are being removed by Chinese authorities anyways. Don't expect any PD images, or any half decent images in general, for several years. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete despite popular appeal I googled this and there are many, many images of this. There are also some line drawings. It seems to fail WP:FUC which is policy WITH legal considerations. Fails policy 1 (work could be created with line drawings), policy 1 (could be conveyed with text), policy 8 (does not increase significantly understanding as the photo just shows the plane is a tube). Legally, the photo is not free use. From a popularity standpoint, it's nice to have. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:48, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It is clearly a copyrighted image for which Wikipedia does not have a license. 76.22.32.86 (talk) 05:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to link to your alleged free alternative picture? Just because Google returns many images it doesn't mean that any of them are public domain. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:50, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just get a sheet of paper and start drawing. You can use many photos as a guide without copying any single one. We can ask the photographer for permission. Have we even tried? Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, then why not do it yourself? Secondly, how do we contact a random Chinese person with a cellphone? And third: I'd like to respectfully request that you strike your comment about "fanboys". It's borderline WP:CIVIL (on some boards I'm on, in fact, calling somebody a fanboy is grounds for banning, even) and also decidedly inaccurate. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it. I thought fanboy was a term used for people who wrote about cars, planes, videogames, TV shows, etc.

Update on Free Use I just went through eight pages of google hits, not a single one, in any form, is free use in any way. Also, a line drawing would not be a sufficient replacement for something this complex. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are so many images out there. At the very least a real attempt needs to be made to gain permission from the photographer or find a free image. It's not up to other editors to find free images that can replace this. Indeed I don't see any reason to have this image at all. An editor could create their own plan/sketch of this based on photos. It won't be pretty, but that's too bad if that's all that can be done right now. It's not like people won't be able to learn about the aircraft by just reading text. The article can also link to images on other websites. John Smith's (talk) 15:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Er...you did see where Sven up there did, indeed, make a "real attempt" to find a free image? They don't exist. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't know how thorough a search he made. Google doesn't equal every resource in the world. But the point that someone could create an plan/outline image themselves is certainly valid. John Smith's (talk) 23:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by John Smith's, the first draft has been done. See File:Chendu J-20.pdf File:Chendu J-20.pdf This can be improved but is a start. This drawing also shows the front end, unlike the non-free use image in question! Hakkapeliitta (talk) 00:33, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm looking forward to this wonderful new Wikipedia in which our thousands of fair use images are replaced by black and white doodles someone whipped up in MS Paint. Good times. The first step would probably be to amend our fair use policy to explain that photographs can never be fair use as they're always able to be replaced by free hand-drawn scribbles. - DustFormsWords (talk) 01:11, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's a cheap response to a valid point. I've seen images produced on Wikipedia by people with software that look quite decent. Why can't someone do that in this case? And why hasn't anyone tried to contact the photographer to get his/her permission? John Smith's (talk) 00:31, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...Pardon me for being quite blunt (it's been a long day), but what part of 'random Chinese person with a cellphone taking the picture' has been missed? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definite Keep There may be a few images but none are free. There are no replacements available and wont appear for years possibly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.150.180.101 (talk) 17:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep None of the other images are free and considering the track record of Chinese aircraft it is unlikely that a free image will appear until after the aircraft enters service several years from now. If one does appear then the image can be replaced, but a free-hand doodle is definitely not a replacement. -Nem1yan (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, drawings such as the one suggested by the nominator are nowhere near being sufficient replacements for this type of image. Nyttend (talk) 22:45, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until a free image is available (might take a while). Could do with removing it from People's Liberation Army Air Force where despite the rationale it is just being used for decoration. MilborneOne (talk) 23:34, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
New information in support of delete http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PAK-FA_diagram.jpg This is a very detailed drawing. Permission was granted to use it. A similar J-20 drawing can be made. The photo is also replacable. Just look at the links in the article. There are links to several photographs. We cannot honestly say it is irreplacable if we have not asked. We are just lazy and guessing when we do so. Since we did not provide legal proof of irreplaceability and since the policy says it is a policy with legal reasons, we must delete. Wikipedia will not crumble without such picture. Another point is that this article has a free use image http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_%28aircraft%29 and the Aurora aircraft is so secret (much more so than the J-20) that if you are a civilian and have information on it, you have to be killed. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Er...1. the Aurora image is a screenshot from the X-plane PC flight-simulator program, and 2. You really, honestly believe that if you are a civilian and have information on it, you have to be killed? Name one case of somebody who was killed because they "knew too much", please. And you're stretching the "legal proof" argument way too thin. We have searched reasonably for free photographs. We have found no free photographs. They do not exist, and they will not exist for a very long time. A line drawing is not a substitute for a photograph. Therefore the use of one - ONE - photograph is perfectly legal as Fair Use. ALL those links in the article are to non-free use photos. The fair-useage rationale on the image page satisfies the legal requirement per the Fair Use standards. If you are so convinced that a Free Use photograph can be obtained, then by all means, don't call other editors lazy when they have searched and failed for one - find it, and upload it as a replacement image. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is the uploader. If the uploader must prove that free photos does not exist by showing a genuine effort to seek permission and search. There are free photos of other modern Red Chinese airplanes, including the front line fighters. Just because someone wants the photos here does not mean it passes non-free use requirements. Have we even asked? Just e-mail some websites. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as per Sven Manguard and The Bushranger. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: If and when a free photograph becomes available, by all means replace it. Until that time, this is a perfectly acceptable image, in line with our wp:NFCC. Buddy431 (talk) 03:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not being able to find something on Google doesn't mean there isn't a free alternative. It just means we're lazy, and we can't find one while sitting in front of a computer. I think fair use has to do with particular images that can't be replaced with free alternatives - like famous photos - like a photo of a UFO landing - something where Wikipedia will never be able to get a free alternative until the copyright runs out. This is picture is totally different. There's a video on this plane on Youtube, uploaded on 6 January 2011, where it is being towed down a runway and average-looking guys are there taking vids and pics of the plane with their cellphones [1]. Come on.... I looked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject China to see if anyone asked if anyone lived near Chengdu, where the plane lives, or if anyone asked about looking into getting a free pic of this plane -- no one has even tried getting in contact with Chinese Wikipedians there... No one has posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, and asked for help hunting down a free pic of it. This is a real plane, it's a popular plane, it's going to around for years, there will be a free alternative pop up. I don't think this pic qualifies for fair use. It sets a bad precedent to keep, It means we're getting lazy.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In today's local paper, I see 2 more photos. They are everywhere. We just need to ask. Someone will be nice enough to agree. Hakkapeliitta (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These images are not taken by professional photographers or owned by a news agency. These are low quality images, most of which were taken from cell phones, that proliferated so quickly that it would be extremely impractical, if not outright impossible, to track down original owners. -Nem1yan (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before you said pictures didn't exist, you made it seem like this plane was so top-secret that pictures wouldn't come out for years. Now that we know that isn't the case, your excuse has changed. The fair use rationale of this picture is "No free images of this aircraft are available or are likely to become available for quite some time". I think any reasonable editor will realise that this just isn't true, especially when we know Chinese people are taking pics/vids of the plane themselves. Someone should send a message to the guy who uploaded the Youtube vid, and ask if he'd release his vid to Wikipedia. Ask him if he's got any pictures of the plane, or if his friends do. If no one even bothers to ask for a free image, how can you justify "fair use" of a non-free one?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 10:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per Brianann. Judging by the amount of material already in the media, the Chinese aren't hiding this thing, so an opportunity for taking a decent free photo may arise in the matter of weeks (at most), not years. Whether or not it's taken is irrelevant for this discussion. — Yerpo ^Eh? 13:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Earlier, I would have said delete. That's because of the secretive nature of this project, which means it is essentially impossible to obtain a free image of it. Now, however, as it is being flown, the ability to obtain a free photograph of this plane has increased past the "not possible". It may be unlikely, but still possible. /ƒETCH COMMS / 15:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@ Brianann MacAmhlaidh The rational was always that FREE images did not exist, if you read through the discussion it is readily apparent that there were always multiple images. Also the video clips have the same problem; there are the same clips posted in several places so it is impossible to tell who is the owner. The videos on Youtube are uploaded by people in Taiwan and Singapore, even if they claimed to be the original owners there would be much to discredit it. The argument that we are all just being lazy is becoming ridiculous. If you want me to ask a random Chinese person if the picture in his blog actually belongs to him, ignoring the fact that he/she cant speak English, and accept the answer as a definitive "yes" then fine. But it wont be any more official than if I randomly grab a photo from google and put it in my photobucket and claim ownership. -Nem1yan (talk) 16:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but the rationale that free images currently don't exist is irrelevant. The only thing that would matter if "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information". It can be created which the amount of non-free images in various media (even amateur shots on the web) clearly demonstrates. The same goes for other three users who "voted" after me. Please read the discussion before reiterating false arguments. A photograph is "needed" to accurately convey celebrities as well, but that doesn't mean we should start mass-uploading their pictures from random websites and keep them until free alternatives pop up. — Yerpo ^Eh? 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep A photograph is needed to accurately convey the aircraft; and there are no free use images available. When a free use photograph is taken of the aircraft, we can delete this image. wacky wace 16:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per Sven. Is it really possible to obtain a free image. Maybe in several years. Right now a free image is not possible, surely. Its not due to enter service until 2017–2019!! I find it very difficult to believe that anybody could be able to get a free photo of this at least before 2015. Its a valuable image and should definately be kept. LOL at File:Chendu J-20.pdf..Sorry.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Yerpo Celebrities are often photographed by professional photographers or other groups that can be tracked down in order to obtain permission, this is nowhere near the same case. According to China this aircraft does not even exist, there has been no official statement regarding it what-so-ever. The deluded and ignorant ideal that this aircraft is on open display needs to be completely dissolved. There is no information saying this aircraft will appear again in the next few years, and all available information suggests that if the aircraft does appear it wont be open to the press for photographs. Best case scenario is that more images surface from unprofessional, unnamed photographers, which will spread in a manner that makes it practically impossible to find the original owner. The idea that we can get some random person in the middle of China to go stand outside for an undetermined period until the plane resurfaces is ridiculous. It also should be noted that most of the arguments for keeping the image come from users who have made attempts to find a free image, and/or obtain permission. Suggesting that the users who have made several attempts to find an image are simply being lazy is incorrect and insulting. -Nem1yan (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I previously was not involved as an editor in the subject above. But I'd like to share some thoughts (as polite and constructive as possible). Brianann MacAmhlaidh, you suggest to ask if anyone lived near Chengdu, where the plane lives, into getting a free pic of the plane. It sounded like, you're saying, that if I book a ticket tomorrow to Chengdu, China, I will be able to grab a shot of the plane in a few days. The problem is: i) I'll never be able to know when the plane will come out in my plain sight; ii) I don't think it'll be a wild guess that the area around the facility is restricted. Yes, photos and video of the subject plane exist on the net. But if the police or security establishment find out I wander around wanting to take a photo of the plane or I possess such photo, would I be arrested and charged? Is it an espionage?---Now wiki (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Nem1yan: putting words in my mouth is equally insulting, so your comment doesn't sound very polite or constructive to me. The plane was out twice and there's already a dozen of amateur shots and several videos in circulation. For making this video, people were out there by the field long enough for it to take off, make a complete test flight and land. Plus, there are commercial jetliners in the background and A WHOLE CROWD nearby. Does that give you the impression that it's still top secret? In PRC?? Please. It's true that maybe an opportunity to photograph it again won't arise in several weeks. But so what? Is this an encyclopedia or a news organization? If people feel that a photo is needed to understand the subject, we can link to some reliable online sources in the mean time. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete. Seriously, this should have just been slapped with {{subst:rfu}}. Just because a free image doesn't exist now doesn't mean one cannot be created. As has been aptly demonstrated, it is not impossible to get a photo of this plane if you're a civilian. It might not be easy, but it's doable, and far more likely than it was to get a free photo of noted recluse J. D. Salinger (while he was alive). howcheng {chat} 01:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is another blatant example of Free enthusiasts overextending their philosophy to make the encyclopedia less complete and less useful. I would also note (as I did on the talk page of the policy) that placing burden of proof on the uploader is a logical fallacy. You cannot prove that something (a free alternative) does not exist. You can easily prove that something (a free alternative) does exist, by uploading it. So if we can borrow logic rather than ideology, this image is a prime example of how the current policy needs to be reformed. The burden of proof ought to be on the deletion proponents to show us a free photo that is representative of the subject. The line drawing proposal is cute, but thankfully does not appear to be taken seriously by anyone other than the extremist minority. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw a line drawing similar to this. Doesn't seem hard to do. The above line drawing may be cute (per Ham Pastrami) but thie following one is better than the photo and can be done as a free use. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It certainly does not seem to be plausible at this moment that a free image exists or can be found/created within a reasonable time frame. This image certainly meets the criteria for inclusion in the J-20 article although I believe that it should be removed from the PLAF article. Shovon (talk) 13:27, 12 January 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:Coat of Arms Kingdom of Hungary.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 ⚡ 03:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no real source, no way to verify licensing status Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's an 1867 image used as the official coat of arms of Hungary until 1918, and is itself composed entirely of heraldic elements dating back to previous centuries. It appears to be a historically authentic version of the image, as opposed to the user-created one currently being used at Coat of arms of Hungary for the same period (File:HUN Coa medium 1915.svg). I may be missing something, but why on Earth would we have any reason to believe it may not be in the public domain, or that it's unlikely to be of future use in improving the project? - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know what year this picture dates from if there's no source. How do you know anything about this particular drawing, when you don't even know where it came from?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The comically low quality of this image, coupled with the images File:Hungary medium coa 1910.png and File:HUN_Coa_medium_1915.svg, both freely available on commons, make the possibility of any future use of this image roughly zero. Keeping free images is good, but keeping really bad versions when good ones exist is silly. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this appears to be an actual version, rather than one of the user-created ones linked by Sven Manguard. It's unquestionably too old for copyright. Nyttend (talk) 22:43, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "unquestionably too old for copyright" -- no one knows where it comes from or how old it is! LOL. That's why we need a source - to verify its license.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 11:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Old enough to be PD, if you actually took a few seconds to look on Google. I say delete, though, as this "original" is of better quality. I don't know anything about heraldry though, so if the slight differences do mean something important, then I would argue keep. /ƒETCH COMMS / 15:34, 11 January 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:Willow Run airplane inspection.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: both files moved to Commons under same names. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, OB by File:Willow Run airplane inspection edited.jpg Admrboltz (talk) 02:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Many original images are left alone when an edited version is created. This allows editors to decide which version to use in case they don't agree with the level of retouching to the photo. Imzadi 1979 → 08:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it is PD no reason why it cant just be moved to commons and then deleted. MilborneOne (talk) 23:31, 7 January 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:Connector plate.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: Speedy - Author supports deletion. Admrboltz (talk) 05:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, OB by File:Connector plate.svg Admrboltz (talk) 03:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as obsoleted. Imzadi 1979 → 08:37, 6 January 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:Moqtada-al-sadr.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 ⚡ 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in the rationale to explain why this is less replaceable than other images of living people. Presumably this picture was taken at a press conference with media, and such events could happen again in the future, where others could take a picture. There is nothing special about this specific image, versus any other image that has been taken,or may be taken in the future. Rob (talk) 03:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, this is a politician. There are thousands of his photos around! Ryan White Jr. (talk) 04:50, 6 January 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:Pbear.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 ⚡ 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work of an Canadian stamp that is either under Crown Copyright or the copyright of the artist. As such, the uploader cannot release it to the public domain. Reso lute 06:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one who removed it from the only article that it was in Polar bear. I don't have an opinion about the deleiton, but would like to provide the following information. My notes on this were as follows:

This article has been submitted for Good Article status. I'm the reviewer. What an excellent article! The only remaining issue that I see is the use/permission status of the Canadian Polar Bear postage stamp image. Nobody resolved it and so I tried working on it myself. I asked elsewhere in WP and it appears that it has a real problem under WP standards. I plan to remove (the image from the article) and see if the change is stable

Sincerely,

North8000 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 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:U-image-5.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 ⚡ 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting free and non-free licensing. The source url appears to be a dead link. Rockfang (talk) 10:22, 6 January 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:Was Mao Really A Monster.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. No valid reason was given to retain this non-free image. As an orphaned non-free image, it must go. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this image is not properly explained. It was used on the Mao: The Unknown Story article to show a publication that criticises the book. This is not a sufficient reason for having it. Book covers should be used only on articles about the book in question if it's a non-free rationale. Furthermore, seeing a book cover of a critical publication does not really assist a reader in any way. John Smith's (talk) 15:53, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, as the uploader, I of course am going to think that it is necessary in the article, as it illustrates and improves the aesthetics of the section, which would otherwise just be dull paragraphs of text. The book in question, Was Mao Really a Monster? is specifically discussed in the text, and so an accompanying image is of course of some use to the reader; it is just as useful, or useless (whichever way you wish to see it) as the pictures of Mao: The Unknown Story are, which also illustrate the page.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC))[reply]
  - It has been established that it is valid to use images like this if it's to show the book the article is about. So a picture of Mao:TUS can be used, and most people would expect one. In contrast I don't know of a similar policy about other publications that discuss the article. John Smith's (talk) 23:39, 6 January 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:San-mar-mil.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 ⚡ 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image contains information that could be just as adequatly rendered (with the exception of the crest) in text/markup as a table. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:06, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Interesting that you had seen this image before, but only adopted this new tack after I pointed out your sloppy editorial skills in criticising the lack of copyright information that had in fact been deleted in an act of vandalism. As for your new deletion campaign, maybe you prefer written information - some users are more responsive to illustration. The image presents the data in an easy to read manner, and with the assistance of 'traffic-light' colour coding which is fairly universally recongnised. However, if you'd rather see the info in a table, then I have no objection at all. Why don't you just go ahead and design the table, rather than wasting everyone's time with a deletion campaign? No argument from me - if you can do a better job, then I welcome it - this project should constantly grow and improve. But if you're just here to knock down other people's work, and make no positive contributions (as your talk page seems to suggest) then I do wonder what you get out of it. So my comment is: do what you like - I've more important things to do with my time. (Interesting how many times this message, or very similar ones, appear in your conversations with good editors - maybe time to pause for thought and self-reflection?). Timothy Titus ^{Talk To TT} 22:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I took you up on your suggestion, see the Talk page for image under disscussion..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:09, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can be presented as a text table as demonstrated above, this also helps in long term maintenance as it is a pain to change an image like this but data in a table could be changed quickly. MilborneOne (talk) 23:53, 7 January 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:Yoichi Fukumoto1.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 ⚡ 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR. Image came from deleted Yoichi Fukumoto article. No educational value now that article is gone. Admrboltz (talk) 21:53, 6 January 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:Osawa Kenji thumb.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 ⚡ 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and low quality image. Admrboltz (talk) 23:50, 6 January 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.