Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 March 29

< March 28	March 30 >

March 29

File:Calamari1.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 00:14, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too small to make out exactly what it is w/o name prompt.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2013 (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.

Old Erie SeaWolves logos

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; there's extensive discussion of the logos, the understanding of which is really enchanced by the presence of the logos. Dianna (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Erie Seawolves logo.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SeaWolves 1996.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SeaWolves flag.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:SeaWolves retro.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

These four logos were nominated for deletion with a {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} tag, but from reading the text, I think it's sufficiently arguable to bring them here for a fill discussion. All four images are in a gallery at Erie SeaWolves#Logos and uniforms, but the text discusses the logos in such a way that you can certainly make a case that their use is appropriate. (Please don't simply !vote "delete fails WP:NFG" without actually reading the section of the article.) There's about five paragraphs of text discussing the logos of this organization so it's at least arguable enough that I'm not just going to delete them unilaterally. --B (talk) 00:26, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep If you think that there's a point in talking about old logos, then it seems to me obvious that one must see the old logos. Mangoe (talk) 14:46, 29 March 2013 (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:StrawberryFrog Logo.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image is lower quality near duplicate of File:StrawberryFrogLogo.png‎. We don't need both. As the other is higher quality, this should be deleted. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 00:29, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I never really agreed with the idea that this is PD. And it seems that whatever we gain by considering it as such would be outweighed by the company's lawyers sending us a takedown and 20 pounds of legalese with what they consider precedents on the matter. I just don't think it's worth it. That said, yes, this is "larger" but lower quality version of the other one I uploaded, so I agree that it should go. Whether we consider the version we're left with to be fair use or something else is a discussion for another time and place. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 00:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not you agree that it is public domain is moot. The company owns the trademark (which is different than the copyright), but since it is simple text and no more, it cannot be copyright because it does not meet the threshold of originality. See Commons:Commons:Threshold of originality if you are interested in why it is Public Domain. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 02:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're entirely correct that the logo is not subject to copyright protection. But it is potentially subject to trademark protection and I think that's what FreeRangeFrog was getting at. Trademark is arguably a stronger protection than copyright. I've never been comfortable with telling people that trademarked logos are "public domain". If I had my druthers, we would treat all trademarked logos like "fair use" images and lack of copyright would only be an issue when you are making a derivative work (like photographing a bunch of diet coke cans or something). I fully recognize that this is not policy and is purely my opinion - but it's not something to ridicule either. --B (talk) 03:28, 29 March 2013 (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:Cannolis chocolate.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: speedy delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned ad. Kelly ^hi! 00:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete advertisement complete with an online order link -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:01, 29 March 2013 (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:Cannolis white.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: speedy delete. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned ad. Kelly ^hi! 00:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete advertisement. It even includes a link to place an online order. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:59, 29 March 2013 (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:Caponata.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, poor quality. Kelly ^hi! 00:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, cannot discern what the image shows w/o name prompt.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, poor quality. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:22, 2 April 2013 (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:Capsicum green.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, poor quality. Kelly ^hi! 00:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons seems usable enough -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2013 (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:CarmenK.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 00:59, 29 March 2013 (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:Carnitas02.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality. Kelly ^hi! 01:04, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, as its truly low quality.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2013 (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:Cat wtf.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 01:15, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no educational use per nom.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that this image is found all over the internet it's HIGHLY likely a copyright violation. — raeky t 05:36, 31 March 2013 (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:Cauliflower roti.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality. Kelly ^hi! 01:17, 29 March 2013 (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:Cauliflower2.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality. Kelly ^hi! 01:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons seems usable enough -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2013 (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:Chaat.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low resolution. Kelly ^hi! 01:28, 29 March 2013 (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:Chad1.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 01:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete personal photo with no likely educ. usage, other images showing such bonding likely found of higher quality.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2013 (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:Chad3.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned personal photo. Kelly ^hi! 01:29, 29 March 2013 (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:1SSATajik Girls.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 F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, can't see use :Jay8g^{Inspect-Berate-Know} _{WASH-BRIDGE-WPWA-MFIC} 03:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, i havent checked commons, but i dont think we have too many shots of tajik girls w/background like this. so despite low res, may be useful.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:05, 30 March 2013 (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:1st Marine Expeditionary Force (I MEF) Navy Unit Commendation Citation 2004-2005 Iraq War.pdf

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; image quality is very good when viewed as full-size. I will post at the Graphics Lab for help. Dianna (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, can't see use :Jay8g^{Inspect-Berate-Know} _{WASH-BRIDGE-WPWA-MFIC} 03:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment shouldn't this be on WikiSource? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, couldn't this be used as a reliable source for content on the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force article?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Transfer to WikiSource Buckshot06 (talk) 21:28, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that Wikisource prefers to have its files on Commons, so it Wikisource wants the file, it should probably be moved to Commons instead of Wikisource. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One of the few things I actually know about is document imaging. The reason that this image appears to be squashed when rendered by MediaWiki is that most fax software uses an uneven dots per inch (dpi) - such as 100x200 - when sending the image. A number of photo editing programs (and, apparently, MediaWiki software) do not properly read the dpi setting and detect that it is uneven. That's why you see the PDF rendered as squashed on here - if you open it in Acrobat, it looks fine. If we really want this image, we can extract it from the PDF and fix the DPI very easily. --B (talk) 13:30, 6 April 2013 (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:Death by Asphyxia.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Kelly ^hi! 03:48, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete, images like this need absolutely clear copyright release.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2013 (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:Dec07 002.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned penis picture. Kelly ^hi! 03:50, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom. these we have.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:07, 30 March 2013 (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:1st streetedited-1.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality :Jay8g^{Inspect-Berate-Know} _{WASH-BRIDGE-WPWA-MFIC} 03:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only possible use is if we knew where it was, and we didnt have a better image.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:08, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a photo of Downtown Macon, Georgia. - Eureka Lott 00:09, 2 April 2013 (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:Dentyne ice mints.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 04:11, 29 March 2013 (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:Dew.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 04:17, 29 March 2013 (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:DFRKitchen scissors.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, low quality. Kelly ^hi! 04:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete very low qual.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete Orphan, poor quality. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:47, 2 April 2013 (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:Concord Spirit Poles.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just uploaded this image, but the fair use criteria dont allow for fair use photographs of sculptures where the image was taken by someone other than the sculptor. This doesnt make sense to me, so i am bringing the file here to get clarity. note the sculpture has been destroyed, so no new image can be acquired. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think what you may be referring to is the idea that there are two separate sets of rights to consider - the sculptor's copyright of his sculpture and the photographer's copyright of his photograph. If a photograph depicts a copyrighted sculpture, we can only use it under a claim of fair use, but we still need to use a photograph that we have rights to use. --B (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

exactly, but the upload wizard gives me 2 choices: photo is licensed as free use, or the photo was taken by the owner of the copyright of the sculpture. I couldnt find a way to upload a fair use image of a copyrighted sculpture.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should use {{Photo of art|some free licence provided by the photographer||{{Non-free 3D art}}}}. Also, you should obtain a free licence from the photographer first. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not the photographer and don't have an acceptable license from the photographer, this image will need to be deleted since it could be replaced with a "more free" version. --B (talk) 11:48, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete The real problem here appears to be that this is commercial image from the San Francisco Chronicle (see this article). Mangoe (talk) 13:00, 5 April 2013 (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:Team Fortress Classic box.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 --B (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OB Higher res image located at File:TFC Boxart.png AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 09:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why would we want to go with a higher resolution image? The first falls more in line with WP:NFCC with its minimal use, and the new file is much larger that is needed for the infobox. Inversely, I recommend File:TFC Boxart.png for deletion. --Teancum (talk) 12:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Teancum notes, increasing resolution is not a good thing for non-free files under WP:NFCC. I can't see any reason to use an image larger than 300px. The file is still only rendered at 256px in the article, and no non-free image really should be that much larger (if at all) than its use in the article. Likewise support deletion of File:TFC Boxart.png. -- Sabre (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Boy do I feel dumb, I had completely missed the following line at WP:NFCC "Low- rather than high-resolution/fidelity/bit rate is used" sincerest apologies and I agree with Teancum and S@bre's suggestion to delete the higher resolution image that I had uploaded. AnthonyJ Lock (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing as withdrawn based on this comment. --B (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2013 (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:Johnabr3.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 F9 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. License seems very dubious - this photo was used at http://nsfilm.blogspot.com/2008/04/abhishek-and-john-dost-in-karan-johrs.html seven months before being uploaded here. B (talk) 12:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete good research.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:10, 30 March 2013 (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:Civemeline.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Unclear if really own work. The uploader is blocked. Leyo 13:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, +value of this image lost if not tied to article, as its too specific.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:11, 30 March 2013 (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:WWE Championship (2010).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. Dianna (talk) 14:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFG. You don't need a photo of a belt to understand a competition. See also the previous belt FFD nominations for the same article. Stefan2 (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- You're being silly. There is no free alternative. This is as "free" as it gets, seeing that I took the picture. Feedback ^☎ 18:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8 has nothing to do with free alternatives. WP:NFCC#8 means that you could understand the article just as well without an image of a belt. That's why several other non-free photos of the belt were removed from the article recently. See Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 February 19. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If there is no free license to use belt images, then there should only be one image in the infobox - that of the belt's current design. Preferably, it should be a free image with the current holder of the title in full view along with the belt. It may also be necessary to eliminate the "previous designs" parameter, as having multiple images would be contrary to WP:NFCC#3. --Jtalledo (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not an article about the belt, though. Do people really use belts for identification of competitions? Normally, I would assume that you use logos for that purpose instead. If the belt isn't used for identification of the competition, then I don't see how it would pass WP:NFCC#8. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:13, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WWE Championship refers not to a competition, but the title of WWE Champion as well as the physical belt associated with the title. There is no "logo" representing the WWE Championship, but rather the belt represents it. Fair use or not, not having a picture of the physical title would be like having the article Stanley Cup without the actual cup. A logo for the NHL Finals would not suffice in that context and nothing else could take the place of the title belt in the WWE Championship article (although, as I said previously, a free use picture of the current or other recent champion in possession of the belt may suffice). --Jtalledo (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article that this is being used for not about a competition but the title itself which the belt clearly represents. This is no more an article about a competition than the Vince Lombardi Trophy article is an article about the Super Bowl.--64.229.164.74 (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By Stefan2's logic, File:Superbowl Trophy Crop.jpg should also be deleted. Unless I'm horribly misunderstanding something here. Feedback ^☎ 19:56, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The purported copyright issues of belt images makes little sense to me at this point. FIFA World Cup, Stanley Cup and Rugby World Cup all utilise freely licensed images of their respective trophy designs. All are featured articles and would not be up to spec if there were any outstanding copyright issues. Unless anyone is prepared to challenge the image licensing of those pictures and so to the featured status of all those articles, then any point about deleting belt images from the Commons should be moot. --Jtalledo (talk) 02:40, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh man, you definitely don't know Stefan2. Once he gets a load of that comment, you can kiss those pictures goodbye. Feedback ^☎ 04:03, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Special for Stefan2. This article is not about COMPETITIONS. It's about the belt and about how it looks like, about belt's names, designs. There were no competitions for the title in the classic meaning of word "competition". WWE is not something like NHL or NBA or Allsvenskan, there're no tournaments for the title with quarter-, semi- and finals, there're no a lot of matches. Only one match for the championship, so it's hard to say that this may be called COMPETITION. --TnoXX (talk) 17:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC) — TnoXX (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Considering that this is User:TnoXX's very first post, it seems very suspicious. I think Delete is an appropriate action here, the tiny images of the "past design" belts seem to be a bit like a gallery, and clearly not necessary for a reader to understand the article. — raeky t 17:55, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged him with SPA. ~~Someone get a CheckUser on him, he's obviously a sock or meatpuppet. He's making me look bad considering I'm the main opposer.~~ Feedback ^☎ 18:30, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is my very first post, 'cause I'm not writing in English wiki, but Ukrainian. And it's a little bit hard to stay away, although I'm not from en-wiki, 'cause I created ukrainian version of "WWE Championship" article and all this deletions of the belt files complicate the writing of the article. Moreover, there are some strange of arguments about COMPETITION, when it's even not. So, I'm not trying to make some cheating here, but ask you to deal with all these "deletion problems" as soon as possible. Thank you! --TnoXX (talk) 18:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your story checks out. My bad for the accusations. But frankly, the pictures discussed here can only be used on En-wiki, so it's pretty much irrelevant for Uk-Wiki. This same picture was on Commons, but it was already deleted, and until Commons works out its WWE problem, I don't think I'll re-upload it there. For now, it stays here. You have my permission to re-upload it on uk-wiki, but you'll have to discuss it's fair use rationale over there. Feedback ^☎ 19:21, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this file can be used only in English wiki, but actually I wrote this, because all those previous deletions are very annoying and I've just tried to explain that was wrong. I hope that soon it will be better situations and you will be able to re-upload images back to Commons or there appear new ones. It will help to improve all articles 'bout the belt. Didn't want to insult someone but tried to help. --TnoXX (talk) 19:52, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that I misunderstood the purpose of the WWE Championship article. However, per WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFLISTS, it seems inappropriate to have photos of multiple belts, so there should only be one in the infobox. I don't know anything about the image rules for Ukrainian Wikipedia. About the other images, it seems that some of the designs are very old and that they are in the public domain because of age. One image has been nominated for deletion on Commons because there neither seems to be permission from the designer nor from the photographer. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:55, 1 April 2013 (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:RightScale Founder and CEO Michael Crandell.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 F7 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image of RightScale Founder who is still alive fails WP:NFCC#1 as a free image could be taken of that person. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image provides third-party verification that Michaal Crandell has been interviewed by cloud computing industry media outlets. Other images owned by media outlets depicting Michael Crandell at industry conferences may be available but are not known to this author.Angelatripp (talk) 18:17, 29 March 2013 (UTC) Angelatripp[reply]

Whether they are available or not is not the point. Someone owns the copyright and Wikipedia's fair use policy prevent use of copyright images where a free one could be obtained. Hypothetically someone could track Michael down and take his photo and release it under a free license. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 20:11, 29 March 2013 (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:Captain Miller.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 F9 by INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:01, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a book cover, although the quality is so bad that I can't really see what it is. Unlikely own work. Also, since you can't easily see what it is, the image doesn't increase the understanding of the article and thus violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 18:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete if we cant id an image, its got to go.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:14, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just tagged as Copyvio - http://genocidesrilanka.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/black-tigers-day.html Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(As were ALL his other uploads! Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:51, 31 March 2013 (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 image of Gong Nui.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 as F7 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. The image is a graphic of a "Gong Nui" which apparently translates to Hong Kong Girls (a stereotype). A free image (or photograph) could be made depicting this stereotype. Also this particular image does not increase any understanding of a "Gong Nui". -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:12, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete per nom, just about any image of a woman shopping in HK would be better, even if she wasnt of chinese ancestry, which i suspect would also be necessary for the term.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:17, 30 March 2013 (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:Kashif 1988.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 F7 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image fails WP:NFCC#1. It is claimed to be a CD cover but is simply a photo of the artist and used as such. Image is replaceable by a free photograph that could be taken of the artist, Kashif (musician), as he is still alive and active. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 18:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Additionally, this is essentially a violation of WP:NFC#UUI §9. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:32, 29 March 2013 (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:Israel Katz with PM Golda Meir.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; there's no evidence of prior publication, which is a requirement for fair use, and no evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder of the image. Dianna (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The wording "This image found in a photo collection belonged to the late Dr. Israel Katz, now owned by Katz family (inheritors)" suggests that the image might violate WP:NFCC#4. In either case, it violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 18:30, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Pinias (talk · contribs) is apparently Katz's son (see his talk page where he refers to him as "my father"), so I don't know whether this entitles him to make the picture free content? Number 5 7 10:14, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem here is that Pinias is probably not the copyright owner; whoever took or paid for the picture is as far as I know. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:58, 2 April 2013 (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 Dream Lord and The Doctor.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just two men looking at each other. Violates WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 18:33, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just "two men looking at each other". It's the two main characters of the episode confronting each other. Oh, and go fuck yourself. Wtbe7560 (talk) 03:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, seems to just meet threshhold for use showing main thrust of episode. Wtbe, please, please, please dont say that. These proposed deletions are not personal, and even proposers (like myself) have been known to change their mind with well reasoned arguments.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:24, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I know it isn't personal, it's aggravating to fill out forms to justify my use of the image and then have some 10 year old on a power trip immediately propose it (and it looks like scads of others) for deletion without even knowing what he's looking at. Wtbe7560 (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can't include non-free screenshots unless exclusion would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. In this case, you can see what one of the character looks like by reading the article Eleventh Doctor, and the other character is substantially similar to the freely licensed photo in the article Toby Jones. Also, there is no discussion about what the characters look like in the article, so that is irrelevant for the understanding of the article. See also WP:NFCR#Star Trek: Voyager episode images. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:03, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPA. We of course appreciate the effort you've put into the article but you're just hurting your own credibility by making ad hominem remarks. Regardless, I agree with Stefan, the use of the image adds little to the reader's understanding of the article. Images of both actors can be found in their respective articles, and this image adds little to that. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to an online encyclopedia, the foundation has also created a Futurama-style bureaucracy second to none anywhere in the world. No matter what the article, issue, or image there's a committee of people ready to pick it apart piece by piece. I'm sure you all feel quite satisfied now that you've all had a chance to pile on and issue your opinions. Go ahead and delete it, why should I have expected anything different? Wtbe7560 (talk) 19:42, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't take this personally, editors have to come to consensuses on topics like this, Wikipedia is edited by everyone and should include content appropriate to the guidelines and accepted by the majority of editors as relevant and accurate. Some editors being skeptical about an edit or upload made is a good thing, and an open dialogue like this is not a bad thing. Making personal and expletive attacks at other editors is a bad thing; you've been insulting and dismissive in this discussion.

Regardless, no consensus has been reached yet. If you would take some time to lay out an argument for keeping the image, people might agree with you. Telling another editor to fuck his or her self will not encourage anyone to agree with you. Samwalton9 (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per my comment above. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2013 (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:Karen Demirchyan.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: Restored the old image as File:Karen Demirchyan 1.jpg Dianna (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Overwritten file. The current version looks like something which might be a newspaper website. In that case, the current version most likely violates WP:NFCC#2. Stefan2 (talk) 18:42, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you just asking to have the current version deleted and saying that you agree with the old version being legitimate fair use? --B (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2013 (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:Dustin Case.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably related to the deleted article Dustin Case. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Assuming that article is the only place it was used (seems likely with the file upload date and article deletion date), I see no reason this should be kept. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:30, 2 April 2013 (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:Boris Berezovsky.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The photo is from a newspaper website, so it might violate WP:NFCC#2. Stefan2 (talk) 19:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~maybe keep~~ Resolution is rather high, but this another "can we take a picture of someone who has just died?" case. There is a rationale. Mangoe (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Photos from commercial sources may almost never be used. See WP:NFC#UUI §7. A fair use image may be appropriate for this article, but it should be one which doesn't violate WP:NFCC#2. The problem with the high resolution can of course be adjusted by simply reducing the resolution a bit. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:10, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The photo is credited to the Times's own photographer, so I don't see how the AP clause applies here. Mangoe (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The issue isn't which particular commercial content provider it's coming from - it's that there's no "fair use" defense for using the photo of someone who is in the business of licensing photos because our use of it directly competes with their business. Forget Wikipedia for a moment. Suppose that you are in the photography business - you take photos of notable people or events and sell them to newspapers. How would you like it if newspapers simply quit paying you for your photographs and started claiming that they could use them without paying by claiming "fair use"? It's obviously an untenable idea. (No, I can't point to any court cases because it's such an absurdity that it would never get to court.) If this image is really from the newspaper and not just something that actually came from the family, there's no fair use defense here. --B (talk) 01:58, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm OK with that reasoning, but that basically kills the "reasonable expectation" determination. There is always money to be made, and we can thus never use an image we didn't make or which wasn't outright given to us, unless it's old enough. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, no, there's no problem with using images where the family or the subject's business or organization owns the copyright. They're not in the business of licensing photos, so our proposed use doesn't compete with them. Obviously the reality is that going after Wikipedia probably isn't worth the time/effort for most people and we could probably get away with doing anything ... but we choose to respect copyright and if we're choosing to respect copyright, we shouldn't be claiming "fair use" for something that clearly isn't and that if we were doing things legally we'd have to pay royalties for. --B (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2013 (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:1965 Yerevan demonstration.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Credited to Photolure, which appears to be a press agency. The image violates WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFC#UUI §7. Stefan2 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- It's low resolution and I don't think we violate Photolure's rights. --Երևանցի ^talk 23:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - The rule is very simple: press photos can only be used if there is critical discussion about the photos themselves, for example in the article Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. This is not an article about a photo nor is there any critical discussion about the photo. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:05, 1 April 2013 (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.