Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 November 4

< November 3	November 5 >

November 4

File:Eden20071225.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. Now on Commons as File:Woman using cordless telephone.jpg. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:29, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file, WP:NOTHOST Ronhjones ^(Talk) 01:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. It's properly licensed, and I see this as being useful for potentially illustrating cordless phones and such. We just don't need to host it locally. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:13, 4 November 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:The New Girl in Town cover.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 G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see this discussion this is taken from a fan site and the source given is clearly falsified Skier Dude (talk) 02:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I asked for it to be checked here but no one had made a comment. Best, Jona yo! ^{Selena 4 ever} 02:26, 4 November 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:RSAF PC-21 test flight.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 ⚡ 09:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this shows there are freely licenced photos available, as per Commons:Template:PhilVabre and others. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 02:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:' Based on that, I see one freely licenced photo there - which is not in flight? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:52, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no stipulation that any aircraft has to be present in WP inflight. That is an WP:AIRCRAFT guideline. But in the presence of free media being available, we use only the free media, otherwise NFCC is automatically breached. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 09:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something, but I can't see any images there that aren't, as is usual for airliners.net, copyright images rather than free. Do you have a particular one in mind? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is free as per Commons:Template:PhilVabre. This and this is free as per Commons:Template:AndreiBezmylov. Over 175,000 photos are now licenced under free licences as per Commons:Category:Aviation_photographers. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 19:38, 8 November 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:Timisoara-andi (7).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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, skewed, no encyc value Skier Dude (talk) 03:26, 4 November 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:Tiny K.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 ⚡ 09:03, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned cat pic; no encyc value Skier Dude (talk) 03:34, 4 November 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:Tim freedman.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, too small to be of any encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 03:41, 4 November 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:Pewitt Football.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned, blurred, no encyc value Skier Dude (talk) 03:49, 4 November 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:N831RV.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 - replaceability was never the issue; WP:NFCC#8 is. Compare to WP:NFG. See also WP:CSD#F3 for why permission isn't sufficient. Same as for the below images. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:40, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Commons:Template:ClintonGroves for details on why this does not comply with WP:NFCC. There is nothing written anywhere that says we need to have photos of almost every aircraft the airline has operated -- and if photos are used under fair use, they should only be done when the image itself is part of critical commentary. None of these criteria is fulfilled. Hence, use the freely licenced photos at the link I have provided. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 04:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the images are non-replaceable, and permission for their use was granted by the author, as demonstrated by the link. Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The images are replaceable with free images, from the link I gave above. As to NFCC, the images are only being used for decoration in the article at the moment; the images themselves are not the subject of critical commentary. There are plenty of RAA photos available so these images are more than replaceable, and with freely licenced ones at that. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author gave permisson, link is provided. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files can't be used based upon the permission in that pprune thread unfortunately. If this is the case, then both the NFCC is not being adhered to, and the permission is only for use in Wikipedia, which is nowhere near enough. As someone who has obtained permission in the last month and a half from over a hundred photographers, it will be deleted as insufficient OTRS permission. But this is to do with the NFCC criteria. I have already given an example of freely licenced photos which can be used. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:28, 4 November 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:N173RV.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Commons:Template:ClintonGroves for details on why this does not comply with WP:NFCC. There is nothing written anywhere that says we need to have photos of almost every aircraft the airline has operated -- and if photos are used under fair use, they should only be done when the image itself is part of critical commentary. None of these criteria is fulfilled. Hence, use the freely licenced photos at the link I have provided. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 04:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the images are non-replaceable, and permission for their use was granted by the author, as demonstrated by the link. Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The images are replaceable with free images, from the link I gave above. As to NFCC, the images are only being used for decoration in the article at the moment; the images themselves are not the subject of critical commentary. There are plenty of RAA photos available so these images are more than replaceable, and with freely licenced ones at that. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:40, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author gave permisson, link is provided. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files can't be used based upon the permission in that pprune thread unfortunately. If this is the case, then both the NFCC is not being adhered to, and the permission is only for use in Wikipedia, which is nowhere near enough. As someone who has obtained permission in the last month and a half from over a hundred photographers, it will be deleted as insufficient OTRS permission. But this is to do with the NFCC criteria. I have already given an example of freely licenced photos which can be used. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:28, 4 November 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:N269RV.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refer to Commons:Template:ClintonGroves for details on why this does not comply with WP:NFCC. There is nothing written anywhere that says we need to have photos of almost every aircraft the airline has operated -- and if photos are used under fair use, they should only be done when the image itself is part of critical commentary. None of these criteria is fulfilled. Hence, use the freely licenced photos at the link I have provided. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 04:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the images are non-replaceable, and permission for their use was granted by the author, as demonstrated by the link. Mjroots (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The images are replaceable with free images, from the link I gave above. As to NFCC, the images are only being used for decoration in the article at the moment; the images themselves are not the subject of critical commentary. There are plenty of RAA photos available so these images are more than replaceable, and with freely licenced ones at that. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 12:41, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Author gave permisson, link is provided. Wee Curry Monster talk 14:27, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Files can't be used based upon the permission in that pprune thread unfortunately. If this is the case, then both the NFCC is not being adhered to, and the permission is only for use in Wikipedia, which is nowhere near enough. As someone who has obtained permission in the last month and a half from over a hundred photographers, it will be deleted as insufficient OTRS permission. But this is to do with the NFCC criteria. I have already given an example of freely licenced photos which can be used. Russavia ^{Let's dialogue} 21:28, 4 November 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:Lenna.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: Keep. The file is a low-resolution portion of a larger image, not a separately copyrighted image in its own right, so WP:NFCC#3b appears to be satisfied. Note that this FFD outcome should not be taken as a mandate that the image must be used in a particular way in any article (which appears to be what spurred the discussion), merely a conclusion that the image itself meets the criteria for keeping. RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image currently fails WP:NFCC#3b, which requires low resolution images for non-free content. The image is rendered at thumbnail size in the two articles in which it is used, and was sized down earlier to the maximum size that it would ever be rendered in, which was 300x300 (the maximum size that thumbnails can be set to render). Since then, an editor has attempted to edit war over the size, and I have come to realize that nothing short of a deletion discussion will put this matter to rest. Specifically, it is not Wikipedia's responsibility to provide a non-free image used for testing purposes in various industries (the original use being a copyright violation in that instance which Playboy has chosen to overlook). Our responsibility with non-free content is to provide an illustration of what a notable photo looks like in an encyclopedia article. A sized down version is sufficient for that purpose. Thus this FFD discussion requests deletion only of the 512x512 version of this image. A reduced size version meets all ten requirements of WP:NFCC. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: The original Playboy centerfold from which this image was scanned is shown here (Warning: that is a porn site - hence, maybe NSFW!) - you can clearly see how little of the original image is used here - and comparing it to the standard test image, you can clearly see how poor scanning technology of the 1970's resulted in poor color reproduction and other important image artifacts. SteveBaker (talk) 19:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Given the size of the original image, the 512×512 cropped version is low enough resolution to satisfy NFCC#3b. 28bytes (talk) 15:23, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To correctly answer this question we need to address a few issues:

Is the image in the public domain?: Possibly, but unclear. This image is a derivative (low-resolution crop) of a centerfold from Playboy. Playboy has never enforced their copyright on this derivative image while being aware of its existence. In fact, is has effectively given their support to using this low-resolution crop as a standard reference image [1]. It is widely used for this purpose. It would seem strange to me that under these conditions they could suddenly start enforcing their rights again, but without a clear statement from the copyright holder the situation remains unclear.
Is it important to retain the reference image in the 512 x 512 resolution?: Yes. The image is a standard reference image and the importance lies in the single pixel details of the image, not in the portrait of the model itself. User:SteveBaker has argued at File talk:Lenna.png#Improper deletion and reduction and File talk:Lenna.png#Size of non-free image why even a small amount of downscaling would destroy such details in the image. This can made plainly visible in the following image:

A counter-argument raised is that the image is already thumbnailed in the article. However, this is not strictly necessary, the image can be displayed at the 512 x 512 resolution in the article, alternatively people wishing to further inspect the image may want to click on the thumbnail to view the unscaled image. To reproduce this image in a printed version of the article at approximately 1 by 1 inch (downscaled from the, already cropped, 5.12 by 5.12 inch) would require a resolution of at least 600 x 600.
Is the 512 x 512 reference image of sufficiently low enough resolution not to damage the commercial interest of Playboy?: Yes. The reference image already is a low-resolution (100 dpi) crop of a much larger and higher-resolution centerfold. It already has been sufficiently downscaled. The proposed resolution of 300 x 300 is arbitrary and not directly supported by WP:NFCC#3b. Fair-use law requires use instead to strike balance between the commercial interests of the copyright holder and our interests. Given the widespread distribution of the 512 x 512 sized image, no commercial interests would be protected by further downscaling the image, while we have good reasons to retain the image in this resolution.

Given these considerations I would suggest to keep the 512 x 512 variant of the image. —Ruud 15:46, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's important to note that Lenna, as this file is known, is a well-known image in itself and is in fact arguably much more famous than the uncropped version. And "Lenna" is a digital file, rather than simply an image. file:Lenna.png is an encoding of that particular bitstream. It's difficult to see how we could argue that it's merely a fair-use image when we're not primarily using it to depict the model, but instead to depict the file, and it's a bit-for-bit copy of the original file. It's also worth noting that Playboy's publishers do not seem to consider the widespread copying of this file to be permissible under fair use, but simply not worth pursuing as a matter of copyright violation. I'm not really sure that NFCC should take into consideration whether a given copyright holder has expressed any particular desire not to enforce their copyright, especially as that easily change tomorrow (see also: the GIF patent). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 15:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "the file" being a derivative complicates matters greatly in this case. We are effectively asserting both fair-use against the original centerfold, as the creator of the derivative can't assert any additional copyright, but use those fair-use rights to be able to critically comment on the derivative. —Ruud 15:59, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Very true. Our fair use guidelines are very much designed around the idea that we will be making the derivatives ourselves rather than using an existing derivative somewhere out there on the 'Net, especially one which is arguable better-known that the work it was derived from. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As one of the central points of the Lenna article is that this specific standard test image must be exactly 512 x 512 px to illustrate what it does and how it is used, that size is both the smallest and the largest (i.e. the only) one at which this digital file (the "image") can be used to achieve that end and accurately illustrate what the article is about. Centpacrr (talk) 16:28, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean that 512x512 is an acceptably low-resolution for fair use. 512x512 is higher-resolution than the majority of our fair-use crops. Were a standard test image 1280x1024, would your argument still apply? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 16:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As the article points out, the size of 512x512 is the only size that can accurately illustrate what this image is used for. Displaying it at a smaller -- or even larger -- size destroys its usefulness as an illustration of what the article is all about which is this exact image at this exact size. As the image under discussion is not 1280x1024, however, that is really a moot point which has no real bearing on the use of this image. The image also does not fail WP:NFCC#3b as it is in fact "low resolution" (72dpi) which is not suitable for either commercial exploitation or reproduction. Centpacrr (talk) 16:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Points below may reproduce some of the points made above:
- To the casual observer, this is a pretty picture. To the imaging community it is much more: it is a 512x512 pixel test image - a particular string of bytes which are generally used to compare to a string of bytes resulting from the application of various image compression algorithms to the original test image. It is ubiquitous in the image processing literature, being used in many peer-reviewed journal articles. Any modification of the image destroys its use as a test image for the community, leaving only a pretty picture. The Lenna article is not an article about a pretty picture, it is an article about a famous test image.
- The test image is not a copyrighted digital image, it is a low-quality, low-resolution scan of a copyrighted image. (i.e. a "derivative work"). On Wikipedia, it should not be subject to the rules which apply to a copyrighted digital image, but rather, at most, to the rules that apply to a scan of a copyrighted image. In other words, the idea that a copyrighted image must be in reduced form to be displayed on Wikipedia is not applicable. It is already an extremely reduced scan of a copyrighted image.
- WP:NFCC#3b is NOT violated. Nowhere does it prohibit the use of a 512x512 image while allowing the use of a 300x300 image. The full copyrighted image is at much higher resolution than 600 dpi, but even assuming 600 dpi, the cropped, low resolution test image would constitute less that three tenths of one percent of the content of the copyrighted image. If this were an excerpt from a 3 minute copyrighted audio track, it would contain about as much information as a half second of sound. Furthermore, the color fidelity of the image is not correct. It would be a half second of sound heard thru your cellphone.
- It is the responsibility of those opposed to the use of the 512x512 image to explain in what way Wikipedia policy allows the use of a 300x300 derivative image, yet prohibits the use of a 512x512 derivative image. WP:NFCC#3b does NOT justify this. Every time this subject comes up, those in favor of the 512x512 image have written point by point explanations of why the 512x512 image is not only admissible for use per Wikipedia policy, but why it is much, much more preferable to a reduced version of the test image which is a severely reduced version of the copyrighted image.
- Playboy does not contest, but rather encourages the use of this test image (without yielding their rights). This is important because at the very least it causes the commercial value of the test image to be absolute zero. PAR (talk) 18:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - If the question is whether we're in breach of Playboy's centerfold copyright - then fair use is an entirely adequate defense - the 512x512 image hits every single bullet item in WP:FAIRUSE perfectly. If the question is whether we're in breach of some copyright for the derivative work that was cropped out of the original centerfold (the 512x512 image) then we still have no problem because (per the decisions in National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute) we don't regard scanning, cropping, etc to be a 'creative' input. That Playboy have stated that they won't pursue copyright claims against the 512x512 image is a bonus. That SIPI (who scanned the image in the first place) have been giving away copies of this image for 35 years without once asserting copyright in the tens of thousands of cases when it's been reproduced - is also just a bonus. The remaining issue is whether 512x512 is too much resolution. I don't want to repeat that debate here (because this is a deletion debate, not a de-rez debate) - but basically, the 512x512 crop of the original centerfold is already incredibly low-rez compared to the original - and taking it even one pixel lower than that would introduce image artifacts that (in an article about a standard test image where image artifacting is a critical part of the subject) would result in our article containing untruths (of a graphical rather than textual nature) that cannot be backed up by WP:RS. SteveBaker (talk) 19:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and restore 512x512 size. The case for fair use of this image has been widely made, and accepted by its copyright owner; and it has been well put above in the context of WP policies. There's no need to go further and delete or downsize the image, which destroys its usefulness. And please keep a pointer to this discussion on the image page, so we won't have to be dragged through this every few years. Dicklyon (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep at 512x512. It is intentional that WP:NFCC does not spell out what should be considered low resolution. As a rule of thumb, we often apply 300x300 or ~1 megapixel. But there is deliberately no hard limit set, and it is fully accepted that slightly larger images may be acceptable when there is a good reason for them (these are still very very much lower resolution than the original print media images). So for example larger images have been used where otherwise it would be hard to make out significant text or faces or other relevant details; or to give a true pixel-for-pixel rendering of screenshots from 8-bit video games, which otherwise would not be accurately rendered; or many other purposes. So long as we still comply with "no more than needed for the purpose identified", per U.S. fair use law, this has been seen as acceptable. The bottom line is NFCC #8: whether being able to click through to see this resolution adds something relevant to reader understanding of the topic of the article. In this case, it surely does. The relevance of Lenna is that it is the most famous digital test image of all time; so being able to accurately assess the technical qualities of that image at its exact 512x512 resolution is something of worth. As Steve Baker has noted above, and Ruud's pictorial demonstration above shows, any resizing significantly alters the crispness and technical quality of the image, so the user can no longer gain the same assessment of what its qualities are as a test image. In the language of NFCC #8 the modification of the image is detrimental to reader understanding. Furthermore, it is relevant to consider why NFCC #3b exists: it is to protect the commercial value of the original image. In this case, that is the original Playboy still, as there is no copyright created by the mechanical scanning and cropping of the image. This test image has been very widely distributed and used for over 30 years, and Playboy themselves have clearly rebutted the idea that they see any objectionable adverse commercial impact from that -- in fact they have publicly put out releases celebrating the fame it has achieved. The 512x512 size is therefore entirely appropriate, and educational, and use of it here will in no way affect the commercial interests of the copyright holder. This is just about as clear-cut a case of appropriate fair use as it is possible to imagine; the nominator will I hope recognise this and now withdraw this utterly ill-conceived nomination. Jheald (talk) 00:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From the 'commercial value' perspective, it is instructive to look at the original centerfold (which I linked to up-top. This is a pornographic image - it shows a naked woman. The cropped version that we display here is devoid of all of the 'naughty bits' - and could scarcely be described as porn. Hence all commercial value to Playboy is destroyed by doing the cropping. The only remaining value would be as a standard test image - but there it has no commercial value because all such images are always given away for free because nobody could use them otherwise. SteveBaker (talk) 19:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep at 512x512. This is already a small portion of the image, reproduced at much less than the original resolution. A yet smaller size would be no better with respect to copyright, and lose the educational significance. LouScheffer (talk) 02:41, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep at 512x512. After reading all the arguments, it's just so plainly obvious what the right decision is here, and I have no new arguments to add. But may I point out that I'm utterly flabbergasted by the stubbornness and (minor) incivility demonstrated in the discussions leading up to this? Just... wow. --DanielPharos (talk) 23:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at 512 for use in CG-related articles. The specific pixel-level artifacts of this derivative work have some (perhaps exaggerated, but some) expositive value. While I would not wish to argue that in general 512x512 is appropriate for fair use, the history of the distribution of this image and in particular the comment in Wired suggest strongly that there's no significant concern on PE's part. Nor do I see any plausible argument for a negative commercial impact, due to the image's age, poor reproduction, moderate resolution, significant cropping relative to the Playboy original, and finally again the disavowal of any negative impact in the Wired piece. --joe decker ^{talk to me} 14:55, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Playboy consider the image OK for academic purposes. W~ is using this for education. The academics who cropped and scanned the image have released their rights into the public domain. QuentinUK (talk) 15:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously. It conforms to policy with regards to the Playboy image, and resizing a standard test image makes about as much sense as paraphrasing "The Quick Brown Fox Jumps Over the Lazy Dog". APL (talk) 21:06, 10 November 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:Correlation.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 F4 by Gfoley4 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality orphan file (with spelling error). Uploaded by user blocked for persistent copyvio. Danger ^{High voltage!} 16:31, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is easily replaceable with a (known to be) free image. 28bytes (talk) 16:38, 4 November 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:MarpatW.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with File:MARPAT woodland pattern.jpg and File:Marpat wood.gif, but not exact duplicates. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 20:09, 4 November 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:BenMcClure.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 22:30, 4 November 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:Benwalkerquaid.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 22:37, 4 November 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:Beta beta j.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 22:59, 4 November 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:Billy at faraday.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 23:00, 4 November 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:Bioinfo.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unidentified subject. Kelly ^hi! 23:03, 4 November 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:BlackLogo200.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned logo. Kelly ^hi! 23:04, 4 November 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:Blaeshai.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 23:04, 4 November 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:Blends2.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 23:05, 4 November 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:Brianb.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 23:16, 4 November 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:BruceCairney.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 23:43, 4 November 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:BSmits.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 23:44, 4 November 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:BUDLSpilly.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unidentified subject. Kelly ^hi! 23:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete: After checking the original uploader's contributions, I think it's safe to say this is/was a member of the Baltimore Urban Debate League. I can't however find the image actually being used (although I must admit not putting much effort into that). So I suppose it's not that important, hence my vote. --DanielPharos (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Wait, I think I got it: "Pamela Spiliadis, Executive Director" ... Spilly! --DanielPharos (talk) 23:56, 7 November 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:BUNNY PIC!!!.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 23:46, 4 November 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:CamoAr klein.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 23:51, 4 November 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:CamSouthey.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 23:52, 4 November 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:CAMWITHGOAT.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 23:53, 4 November 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.