Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 24

< August 23	August 25 >

August 24

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:

Image:Muddy1.gif

Image:Muddy1.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Project2501a (notify | contribs).

Photo of Muddy Waters from the article on the blues, in a section that only mentions his name and contains no commentary on his appearance that a non-free photo is required to understand. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepHere's another case that should never have been brought to this arena. It almost certainly wouldn't have been if Mr. Omnia had only raised his concerns on the article's Talk page. Muddy Waters is one of the most famous blues musicians in history and unquestionably needs to be illustrated in this article. If Mr. Omnia had only raised the issue on the Talk page, I'm sure that would have been made very clear. Readers interested in cultural history gain much more information from photographs of significant cultural figures than might be conveyed by a textual description or "commentary" on their appearance. For instance, being able to see Muddy Waters in his suit and carefully groomed appearance does more to break down stereotypes of what a blues musician looks like, does more to inform us about the range of their social status, in many ways gives us more of an understanding of what it was like to live and socialize in that era than any number of words could.

It also appears--perhaps because Mr. Omnia is not actually very interested in the article's subject, I don't know--that he did not read it very carefully...which one should really do, if one is going to bring an image here for deletion. Muddy Waters is mentioned at five different points in the section where his photograph appears--including such substantive descriptions as "Muddy Waters and Elmore James were known for their innovative use of slide electric guitar" and "Howlin' Wolf and Muddy Waters were known for their deep, 'gravelly' voices."--as well as in the following section.

Finally, having established the significance of this or an approximate image, if the central issue is that it is "non-free" and it is believed that free potential substitutes abound, then raise that issue on the article's Talk page so the maximum number of interested people can be engaged in finding an excellent and appropriate free image. That's how to demonstrate that your priority concern is with the quality of the encyclopedia. Again, if I hadn't come to this very specialized/recondite arena through a roundabout way, I never would have known about this issue to weigh in on it. And this little system here would be well on its way to summarily deleting a valuable image and weakening an important article.DocKino 20:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we're completely capable of writting a huge Good Article on "Blues" without non-free material. The details of how Mr. Muddy Waters looked at young age are not significant to the article. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is exactly the sort of thing going on here that's make we worry about whether this process is being engaged in in good faith or not. I've given a detailed explanation about why an image of Mr. Waters is relevant and you presume to cancel it out with a simple, unsupported pronouncement. That's the sort of thing that would, properly, carry little weight in a serious discussion on an article page, but seems to be par for the course among those here eager to delete images. Again, this is exactly why these subjective debates need to happen on the Article talk pages--not effectively behind the scenes here--so more people can see what's going on and engage productively.
Again, I have made a detailed argument why this image can not be replaced by text and should not be deleted unless and until an equally valuable replacement has been found. Mr. Badali, I'm afraid you haven't made any case at all, just a baseless declaration.DocKino 21:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Muddy Waters and Elmore James were known for their innovative use of slide electric guitar" would not be supported by this photo, which does nothing to illustrate the concept of slide guitar - in any event, a non-free image is not needed to understand this. The free image Image:Slide guitar.jpg (among others) would do as well. I think "Howlin' Wolf and Muddy Waters were known for their deep, 'gravelly' voices." would justify a non-free audio clip, but does nothing to justify a visual image for reader understanding. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It seems clear to me that the good Doctor cited those lines to affirm that Muddy is discussed substantively--not just "mentioned by name"--in the relevant section. Doc also explained the sort of valuable information that the image itself conveys. I really do hope we can all agree that one of the most important blues musicians in history absolutely must be pictured in our article on the blues. The question then is whether a free image of comparable quality can be located and substituted. Abu badali has suggested that it's no problem. That's good to hear. I looked on Wikimedia Commons and couldn't find a free image of Muddy. I look forward to revisiting this if and when AB comes up with the appropriate free material.—DCGeist 02:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per all above - clear historical and encyclopedic use. Added this image into the article on Waters under the early life section which clearly gives it fair use status. --Strothra 03:36, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep if you allow somepictures - and Wikipedia does - then this one should stay. Cliches are cliches because they are true, and one picture really is worth a thousand words. Muddy was a dapper dresser, and a ladies man, as the picture shows. If you argue against every use, then you are arguing against Wikipedia policy. MarkBul 04:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Kinda like deleting a picture of one of the presidents, except musical. You know, there has to be a certifiable PD image somewhere. A much better policy would be to tag the photo and bring it up on the talk page. Then when a substitute photo is found, then delete the image. But that would involve sensibility and sanity. -Nodekeeper 04:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from Blues, since it doesn't provide any important encyclopedic content in that article. Keep in the article about the person. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:48, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept in Muddy Waters, removed from Blues. -Nv8200p talk 02:54, 5 September 2007 (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.

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:

Image:Daniel_Ruettiger_-_1975.jpg

Image:Daniel_Ruettiger_-_1975.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Collard (notify | contribs).

Non-free image showing an athlete sitting down during an import day in his life, used to illustrate the article about the athlete. It doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 01:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The point of the image is that there's an entire movie based around that moment of his life. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 01:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This image may be PD as its before 1976 Nodekeeper 12:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This valuable image communicates a wealth of information about the most notable passage of the subject's life--how he looked as a walk-on sportsman among much bigger and more experience athletes, the environment of a big-time college football game of the era in which this event took place. No text could convey a sense of what it might have been like to experience that moment the way this superb image does.—DCGeist 02:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ditto. The image is directly tied to the noteworthiness for which the subject merits an article in the first place. Nightscream 04:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Moved image next to the appropriate related text. The image is significant to the subject of the article. -Nv8200p talk 03:00, 5 September 2007 (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.

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:

Image:ALE-Uniform-BAL.PNG

Image:ALE-Uniform-BAL.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Silent_Wind_of_Doom (notify | contribs).

non-free image used to illustra a team's unniform's colors. We don't use non-free material to convey this kind of information. Abu badali ^(talk) 01:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This is used to display the uniform of the team, and is used prominantly in the infobox of the team. This is true of all MLB articles, and it is a major part of most articles, as there are sections describing the current uniform, and the evolution of the uniform through the years. These are key to understanding and identifying the teams, and a graphic that is uniform for each team leads to much more unity in the articles, and is by far much more pleasing.--Silent Wind of Doom 04:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Team uniform schemes are easily replaceable by free images. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Clubs and their articles for ways to handle this situation. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As Silent Wind of Doom correctly explains, the claim made by nominator that "We don't use non-free material to convey this kind of information" is demonstrably incorrect. The proper thing to do here is not to create a mess by deleting essential and consistent content of MLB articles on an ad hoc basis, but to work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball to encourage a transition as practical to free images in a way that maintains the integrity and quality of the encyclopedia.—DCGeist 02:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Take a look at the soccer images, and take a look at the baseball images. We pride ourselves on the accuracy and detail, and the soccer images are very light on the detail and look absolutely horrible. On the other hand, non-free use images used in this capacity are prevalent. Look at the football articles, which use non-free helmet images. The use of non-free images is not causing any problem, and there is no free substitute that will be able to convey the information as accurately.--Silent Wind of Doom 05:18, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The helmet logos are copyrightable and can't be replaced by free equivalents. Unless I'm seriously mistaken, uniform color schemes do not contain enough creative elements to be copyrightable. The fact that you believe the football uniform depitctions don't look good really isn't relevent - the advantage is that they're free. If they don't look good, maybe someone will be motivated to create better ones. But when it comes down to policy, the team uniform schemes are replaceable non-free images per the very first item of our non-free content policy, WP:NFCC#1. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be, but it would be a serious misstep to apply that policy on an ad hoc basis to an article that is part of a project that has a consistent style across more than a couple dozen related, important articles. To do so precipitously, as is proposed here, would undermine the integrity and quality of our encyclopedia in a rather obvious way. The nomination--whose central claim was baldly erroneous to begin with--should be withdrawn and those who have raised these concerns should work directly with the project to achieve a resolution that's win-win.—DCGeist 06:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry, but have you ever looked at the soccer images. We will absolutely not change to such a system. Those images are horribly innacurate, and are an insult to this encyclopedia. Go ahead, and compare the Chicago Fire jersey to the jersey the players wear here: http://chicago.fire.mlsnet.com/t100/index.jsp. The information that is conveyed by the current uniform system is INCORRECT. This is an encyclopedia, and it should contain FACTS not the closest things because it's free and easier, when we can have a TRUE depiction. We can have these images. That's not the issue. We're able to have them on this encyclopedia. What, do you want us to sacrifice integrity and truth just to swap one template on the image page for another? No. That is wrong. This is an encyclopedia, and it should contain information. True information. The first poster mentioned team colors. This isn't team colors. This is a team uniform. It contains logos, insignias, and print names which are inherently copyrighted. Therefore, the claim is false. There is no free replacement possible. This is exactly the same as the football helmets, which no one here seems to have a problem with. If the football helmets stay, this stays. The uniforms are important information, and therefore should be depicted prominantly, as we have done. If anything, the soccer images should be changed. They are incorrect, and false information does not belong in an encyclopedia. --Silent Wind of Doom 17:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this can be replaced by a free image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up Thanks for the references, Silent Wind (I hope you don't mind, I piped the Chicago Fire link so it goes straight to the article). I've looked at a couple other such cases now and this seems determinitive to me: the baseball articles are of markedly superior encyclopedic quality to the soccer articles in this regard. Compare: Baseball: Baltimore Orioles / what uniforms actually look like; Soccer: D.C. United / what uniforms actually look like. Claims that the image presently in question can be replaced by a free one ignore what should be the obvious fact: the image proposed for deletion here cannot be replaced by a free image of comparable quality and accuracy while maintaining encyclopedic consistency across this important series of articles. The nomination should be withdrawn forthwith and the nominator, if he wishes to pursue this matter, should do so in good faith by entering into direct dialogue with the project.—DCGeist 18:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThe baseball images really do look much better than the soccer ones--more importantly they're much more accurate. Just as importantly, their use seems to be in the best spirit of fair use. And keeping a consistent look for related entries is a theme brought up time and again around Wikipedia--I don't understand how Mr. Badali singled out this one image and how anyone thinks that deleting it improves the encyclopedia.DocKino 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you all realize..." that "the unfree image looks incredibly better" is not a valid argument to use non-free material. --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yup, we sure do That's why we emphasize and demonstrate the far superior accuracy of the images used by the baseball project.—DCGeist 04:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not to mention the fact that the logos and print names visible on the uniforms are copyrighted, and therefore the images are NOT REPLACABLE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silent Wind of Doom (talk • contribs) 04:42, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Keep Drawings created by editors, which is what the deletionists are advocating, are blatant original research and thus they are a violation of wikipedia policy. And as noted directly above, inclusion of the logos would be problematic, and thus the copyrighted images are not replaceable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, the often-amateurish appearance of home-grown drawings does nothing to enhance wikipedia's credibility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The cute little home-grown illustration of soccer uniforms cited by someone above (including their cute little shorts) contains no citation, that I can see, of the source of those colors/colours. Thus, it appears to be original research based on what somebody "thinks" those colors/colours are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Image use fails WP:NFCC #1. Also, the copyright holder is not known for sure. -Nv8200p talk 03:14, 6 September 2007 (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.

The deletionists win again. They can celebrate another victory tonight. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deletion based on lies. It is a disgrace to this encyclopedia, and it shall not stand. --Silent Wind of Doom 17:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Het Steen.jpg

~~Image:Het Steen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rd232 (notify | contribs).~~

~~Orphaned, tiny, replaced by two better pictures currently at Het Steen article.- Chick Bowen 02:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)~~ Never mind; I just realized it's already at commons; I've deleted it. Chick Bowen 02:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TheMadPlumber.jpg

Image:TheMadPlumber.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by VirtualSteve (notify | contribs).

Non-free DVD cover being used to illustrate article about the actress. Delete per WP:NFCC#8. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Image:Carellcolbert_ds.jpg

Image:Carellcolbert_ds.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Williamnilly (notify | contribs).

TV screenshot of an actor, being used solely to illustrate that he was in a television show (as himself, not portraying a fictional character). Delete per WP:NFCC#8. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Valuable image of actor's first significant role in mass media entertainment. Text description cannot adequately convey the sort of performance persona Carrell was already fashioning at this point. As the image, and its inclusion of Colbert help us understand, participants in The Daily Show tend to appear as characters who are not fully fictional, but not quite "themselves" either, even though they do retain their own names. As the text explains, he plays a "correspondent" who appears in "sketches." In other words, he in fact does play a character on the show--which no nonfree image could show him as.—DCGeist 02:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the appearance of the "correspondent" differ from the appearance of the person? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "correspondent" character/persona, with his outfit and demeanor, appears within the context of the show; Mr. Carrell, the person, with his different visual presentation, appears in different contexts.—DCGeist 02:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this explained/cited in the article? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't need to be. It is part of the standard informational function of such an image in the context of a reference article or encyclopedia entry. We don't write, "This is what Person X looked like when he appeared as Character Y in Show Z. He doesn't wear this suit of sort or maintain this particular sort of deadpan expression routinely in his offscreen life." We trust our readers to derive certain fundamental information from visual content, just as we trust them to make connections based on and draw inferences from textual content where not every individual point is spelled out.—DCGeist 03:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Stephen Colbert (character) is not Stephen Colbert. The fictional character is not the person. Wily D 16:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThat's exactly right. Though I believe in this case Mr. Carrell is the issue, the point is the same. He plays a character on The Daily Show who shares his name but is not him. This was also a very significant role in his career and needs to be illustrated.DocKino 21:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image Deleted. The fact he appeared on the show does not need an image. Fails NFCC #8 -Nv8200p talk 03:12, 5 September 2007 (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.

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:

Image:OldSchool.jpg

Image:OldSchool.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Drewcifer3000 (notify | contribs).

Non-free film screenshot used only in a list section of the Will Ferrell article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the image to a more appropriate section which is more inline with Fair Use policy. Drewcifer3000 05:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per move. This is surely the best-known image from Ferrell's movie career and it is now appropriately positioned in the text. As the article matures, a bit more could be said about this significant film in the actor's career.—DCGeist 01:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is the best-known appearance, this isn't cited. The only mention of it is a small sentence fragment in the accompanying text. I'm not objecting to Image:Ferrell w.JPG, which has more commentary on this role's significance, but this particular image seems superfluous. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the solution here is not to delete the image but to encourage thoughtful development of the article's text.—DCGeist 03:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article eventually develops to the point that an image would be significant in discussion of this role, I'm sure that DVDs of Old School will still be available for screencaps. As of right now, the image doesn't meet the criteria. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Well, it certainly does now. I've substantially expanded the article's discussion of the film and its significance within the context of Ferrell's career.—DCGeist 06:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for being bold, DCGeist. Drewcifer 08:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI don't think there's any question here anymore, but at any rate, this image is singificant itself and now clearly illustrates the "zealotry" quote from the Times.DocKino 21:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Some minimal commentary added to article to support image use. I suppose it is enough as our standards for allowing non-free images appear to be dropping. -Nv8200p talk 02:48, 6 September 2007 (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.

Image:SOAPnew.jpg

Image:SOAPnew.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nehrams2020 (notify | contribs).

Alternate poster for a film. The film article already contains the primary poster, rationale doesn't explain why a second poster is needed. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is not evident to me what may be gleaned from this second poster, but it also seems quite possible that something might be in this Good Article. I have posted an advisory to the Article's Talk page notifying those engaged and interested in the article that this image is up for deletion and soliciting their input. Before editors even bring images in cases like this here for deletion, I encourage them to do something similar--that is, raise their concerns with the article's participants and readership, on the appropriate Talk page.—DCGeist 01:53, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I put the image up for speedy deletion as it does no longer meet the criteria for inclusion on the article. I appreciate DCGeist leaving a message on my talk page and the article's talk page. Otherwise, it would have been a surprise to see the image just disappear. --Nehrams2020 00:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:THRICEZOMG1337W00TALRIGHTKICKASS.jpg

Image:THRICEZOMG1337W00TALRIGHTKICKASS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pacø (notify | contribs).

File poorly named, no fair use rationale given, also available at Thrice_Alchemy_Index_Vol_1-2.jpg Tdogg241 06:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Milledoler1.jpg

Image:Milledoler1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ExplorerCDT (notify | contribs).

Whether it is old enough to be PD is not obvious from the source site even though the subject died in 1852, so I would like to request more opinions. Jusjih 11:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Scooped off a website that's copyrighted. We do not have positive source information of where it comes from. It looks like it came from a book that is most likely out of copyright. We just do not know. Rutgers students need to get on the ball and dig this one up. Nodekeeper 12:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, since it can't possibly be copyrighted. Explicit source info is only needed for non-free works. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry? Explicit source info is always necessary. How are we even suppose to know that a work is free or non-free without source info? In this specific case, how do you know that this drawing wasn't made in 1997? Just because it looks old? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Clarence Dock.PNG

Image:Clarence Dock.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BNC85 (notify | contribs).

OR + OB by commons image. Also, plan is incorrect, as shown by Google maps Papa November 12:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Altoetting district coa.jpg

Image:Altoetting district coa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cordyph (notify | contribs).

Obsolete image, better version available on commons (here) -Flubeca^Talk 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image now orphan. -Flubeca^Talk 22:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Image:Arafat_in_Lebanon.jpg

Image:Arafat_in_Lebanon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Al_Ameer_son (notify | contribs).

I couldn't find this image on the source url, nor any reference to a cc-by-sa licensing Abu badali ^(talk) 18:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the more accurate url to the file page. It is located in a pdf document about the photographer's stay in Beirut. The author of the photo is a wiki:user of the German Wikipedia. I copied the license tag that he used. You can try contacting him for more information. I will myself also. Al Ameer son —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 19:29, August 24, 2007 (UTC).

Source and licensing info has been User_talk:Al_Ameer_son#Image:Arafat_in_Lebanon.jpg_listed_for_deletion worked out. Thanks a lot to Al Ameer son for being calm and collaborative! Nomination Withdrawn. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:34, 24 August 2007 (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.

Image:Kabul,_Israel.jpg

Image:Kabul,_Israel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Al_Ameer_son (notify | contribs).

tagged as PD-self but description attributes to someone else Abu badali ^(talk) 19:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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:

Image:JMU_Aerial_view.jpg

Image:JMU_Aerial_view.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Strothra (notify | contribs).

unnecessary non-free old image of an universtity's campus used to decorate the section on the campu's history. Doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 19:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Image is a historical photo of the campus under the history section of the university's article and thus is demonstrating that subject where no other free images exist to do so. --Strothra 22:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since the nomination, a fair use rationale has been added, and the image's purpose has been clarified by indicating that it is of the original campus plan, prior to significant expansions of the campus. The original campus plan is referenced in the first few sentences of the "History" section. There is no text description of the original campus plan beyond a sentence, and a text description, for someone who has never seen JMU before, would not aid in the understanding of the concept. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Valuable image that is a powerful aid in understanding the original layout, scale, and thus the physical and, to a degree, social environment of the campus. Also very helpful as a visible comparison to the more recent long-view image--the relation of the two gives the reader a vivid understanding of how the scale of the school has changed and thus how its environment has transformed.—DCGeist 01:40, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Public Domain Image. If you carefully notice, there is a date in the lower left hand corner. This actually says "Spring 1937'. Reseaching the URL this photograph is in the special collections at James Madision University. On the the back is the text 'Frank Turgeon, Jr., Palm Beach FLA'. Researching both subject and photographer we learn that the copyright was not renewed.

This is not a 'non-free' image and should not have been assumed as such in the first place. It should not have been submitted without some elementary research. Also, this is not the forum to make editorial decisions by saying that it 'Doesn't add noteworthy imformation', as this statement is also entirely incorrect (regardless of 'non-free' status. As someone who has attendend a university, I found the old photographs enlightening to my understanding of the learning institution I was attending. Beyond that it's historical). So what we have here is a fatally flawed policy leading to (and in fact encouraging) the bad editorial decision to submit an otherwise relevent public domain photograph for deletion and further editorial debate (which also submits an incorrect premise for the sake of justifying policy) in the wrong forum. -Nodekeeper 07:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Research shows it is public domain. -Nv8200p talk 22:20, 30 August 2007 (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.

Image:Tao.png

Image:Tao.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ajnewbold (notify | contribs).

Orphan, low quality, much better represented as 道 —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your version is much uglier, I think.SuperElephant 20:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How it looks depends on your computer, actually. My computer renders it in the font MS Gothic, which looks fine. Another font, KaiTi, displays it almost identically to the PNG copy up for deletion:

道

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not copyright or incorrect. Harmless. No reason to delete.--Knulclunk 02:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right: it's not copyrighted or incorrect. But it is useless and we have enough of an orphaned image problem already. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Militsya_on_parade.jpg

Image:Militsya_on_parade.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fisenko (notify | contribs).

A free image could be create to illustrate a Russian Militsiya on parade (if one is really necessary) Abu badali ^(talk) 21:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Image:Akintervw.jpg

Image:Akintervw.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tom (notify | contribs).

Image copied from a website that doesn't names the author and/or copyright holder. Wikipedia's standards are higher Abu badali ^(talk) 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. Source and rationale added. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:19, 25 August 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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:

Image:KinseyTIME.jpg

Image:KinseyTIME.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TexasDex (notify | contribs).

Non-free image of a magazine's cover, used to in an article that do not mentions the cover nor the magazine Abu badali ^(talk) 22:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have fixed the article on Kinsey to discuss the article and cover.--TexasDex 01:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dispute: The section discussing the magazine is gives undue weight to Time Magazine. Besides, it's completely unsourced and filled with original research. We shouldn't pollute articles like this just to try to save non-free material. --Abu badali ^(talk) 18:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response Detailed description of how Kinsey and the provocative topic of human sexuality appeared in 1953 on the cover of America's leading news magazine hardly constitutes "pollution." Rather, it is a clear improvement to the content of the article.—DCGeist 20:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's pollution as long as it's unsourced original research. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Queries What in the world makes you think that the added textual content constitutes "original research"? As for "unsourced," as I'm sure you know, we do not demand that our contributors enter the source of every statement in every article; the standard is that every statement be attributable. Sources must be provided for all quotes--irrelevant here--and material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. So...are you challenging the newly detailed description? If you are, please explain exactly what it is you're challenging, so it can be attributed in a way that will satisfy you.—DCGeist 03:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per TexasDex --Strothra 01:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Text of article now supports and is supported by image, which efffectively conveys how Kinsey was treated in the popular news media at the time.—DCGeist 01:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe that including this image gives important encyclopedic information that can't be portrayed simply by saying "He appeared on the cover of Time magazine." – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWell, I believe this gives us quite a bit of information that can't adequately be portrayed with text. First off, there's those birds and bees. We can say they're there in the text, but what do they look like? How...if you don't mind...frisky are they? We really need to see the image to understand the tone of Time magazine's depiction. Even more than that, we need to see how they depict Kinsey himself. He was, by some lights, a rather notorious figure when the magazine came out. Is he depicted as a sober, serious scientist, as something of a leerer, a lecherer, or somewhere in between? It's important to be able to look at the image, think about and judge it for ourselves.DocKino 21:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. The sentence that discusses the cover, "His front-cover image featured depictions of flowers, birds, and a bumblebee; the flower is a reference to a book on flowers which sparked Kinsey's interest in life, and the birds and bees were a likely reference to "the birds and the bees", a euphemism for human sexuality," is totally unsupported original research (and should be removed). There is nothing verifiable in the article that makes the image significant to the article. -Nv8200p talk 22:05, 30 August 2007 (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.

Image:Esquiremag.jpg

Image:Esquiremag.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Xanderall (notify | contribs).

non-free magazine cover that was being used to decorate a "list of magazines..." article. Abu badali ^(talk) 22:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image is a magazine cover in the Esquire (magazine) article and fulfills the requirements of fair use by demonstrating the publication in question. --Strothra 03:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per current and obviously essential use to illustrate the current look of the magazine that is the article's subject.—DCGeist 03:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I believe this passes all our NFCC in the Esquire Magazine article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image kept. -Nv8200p talk 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Harveykeitel.jpg

Image:Harveykeitel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tom (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free screenshot showing an actor's face used to illustrate a movies cat listing. Abu badali ^(talk) 22:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No nonfree image could be created and substituted to show how the star of this movie appeared in this movie. This basic visual information is fundamental to an understanding of the film and an appreciation of its textual description. Image moved from cast listing up into main text of article so reader encounters this informative image sooner.—DCGeist 01:23, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DCGeist. Image's informative nature in the article qualifies it for fair use - no free equivalents are available. --Strothra 03:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Image deleted. Image is not significant to the article. A headshot is not fundamental to the understanding of the movie. -Nv8200p talk 21:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]