Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 July 20

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 20)
< July 19 July 21 >

July 20

edit

Image:E-Hemingway WorldWarIYoung.jpg

edit
Image:E-Hemingway WorldWarIYoung.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Gieselle (notify | contribs).
  • Photoshopped version of an image we already have. It has been altered to remove a crease, thus destroying the historical accuracy of it. Futhermore, while converting the file to jpg, the uploader introduced many digital artifacts (speckling) that make this version inferior to the original. — -N 00:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both this and the original. The crease removal doesn't destroys its historical accuracy anymore that the crease itself does. --Abu badali (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, delete it.

Image:Stella May.jpg

edit
Image:Stella May.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Shippoluv (notify | contribs).
  • All of the uploader's other images were blatant copyvios. All of his other edits were to his user page, which I deleted as WP:CSD#U3. This one can be deleted unless he decides to contribute to the encyclopedia.- Chick Bowen 00:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: OR UE --Abu badali (talk) 13:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PENIS_in_erection.jpg

edit
Image:PENIS_in_erection.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Vuksi (notify | contribs).
  • Neutral listing. This was nominated for speedy deletion as vandalism, but I don't think that's clear. It is the uploader's only listed contribution. It was also tagged IfD, but I didn't see it in the list, so I'm adding it without taking a position.  But|seriously|folks  04:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The labels give it a degree of educational value, but they are too small in thumbnail to be read. Therefor, I don't see enough added value over the pre-existing Image:Uncircumcised_Penis.jpg to bother keeping it.

Image:Zuleyka Rivera.jpg

edit
Image:Zuleyka Rivera.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Kai20180 (notify | contribs).

Image:Foie_gras_broken_bill.jpg

edit
Image:Foie_gras_broken_bill.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by FarmSanctuary (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned image. Uploader not notified because inactive for 5 months and had talkpage deleted (db-owner), so appears to be absentee. Admin can notify if it's really necessary. — --Icarus (Hi!) 06:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Foie_gras_1.jpg

edit
Image:Foie_gras_1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by FarmSanctuary (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned image. Uploader not notified because inactive for 5 months and had talkpage deleted (db-owner), so appears to be absentee. Admin can notify if it's really necessary. — --Icarus (Hi!) 06:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tokyo_Rainbow_Bridge.jpg

edit
Image:Tokyo_Rainbow_Bridge.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Nakazima (notify | contribs).

Image:Jkal photo02.jpg

edit
Image:Jkal photo02.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Smkeithley (notify | contribs).
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:General alcazar.jpg

edit
Image:General alcazar.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Abelson (notify | contribs).

Kept. The rationale that was added was kind of lacking, so I changed it. The image is now only being used in ligne claire as an example of that style. howcheng {chat} 20:14, 26 July 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.


Image:Albionfabletlc.jpg

edit
Image:Albionfabletlc.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by HighSimSim (notify | contribs).
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:Bianca and Nestor.jpg

edit
Image:Bianca and Nestor.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Abelson (notify | contribs).

Kept. howcheng {chat} 20:06, 26 July 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.

Image:Bianca Castafiore.jpg

edit
Image:Bianca Castafiore.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Abelson (notify | contribs).

Kept. howcheng {chat} 20:06, 26 July 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.


Image:LittleChapelofFlowers.jpg

edit
Image:LittleChapelofFlowers.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jdfoote (notify | contribs).
  • Tagged as PD but with a notice that use of the file is only permitted on Wikipedia. Image comes from a copyrighted website so probably is Copyright violation. Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 14:19, 20 July 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:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg

edit
Image:Saddam_rumsfeld.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Zereshk (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-free screenshot showing Saddam and Rumsfeld shaking hands, used to illustrate the information that they once met. The images doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 15:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Some explanations
  1. Make sure you understand item #8 of of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria.
  2. This nomination is not implying that the event depicted on this images is not relevant.
  3. This nomination is not implying that the this image does not captures that event nicely.
  4. This nomination is not implying that there are free alternative images to replace this one.
  5. This nomination is not implying that this image is being used in breach of copyright (so, "copyright paranois" comments are specially unhelpful here).
  6. This nomination is not implying that this image isn't useful.
  7. Comment about the image, the articles and the policy. But not about the editors involved.
  8. Make sure you understand item #8 of of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria before commenting.

--Abu badali (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - As discussion on the article's talk page has shown, this picture doesn't actually illustrate anything about Iran but is used to show the "unholy alliance" or demonstrate how bad the US was to Iran - in other words, to make a "point" to the reader. Definitely not an appropriate reason to include in the article, much less under a fair use claim. The Behnam 16:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image is unique and already in the public domain via the National Security Archive and should not be considered a copyrighted work - effectivly a free image/screenshot. The policy #8 which you are basing this whole thing on is actually contentious and in debate at the moment. You admit that the revelevance isn't in dispute or that it could be used in articles and your main wish to see it deleted totally as you think it is not significant enough to be used in this article is not a solid argument for complete deletion. -- maxrspct ping me 18:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, see point 7 above.
If it's PD, it doesn't need to be deleted. --Abu badali (talk) 19:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a editor put 8 point list about the his/her deletion nomination i don't see the problem with another another editor commenting on them. Does the nominating editor agree that the image tag could be changed to public domain? -- maxrspct ping me 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per maxrspct, the image is relevant from an historical perspective. SSZ 22:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is the Wall Street Journal's blog section bullshit, or is it like casual, but professional? they attribute the film to the national security archive - (most sources don't attribute it to a source at all, and the ALCU at NCSU distributes the whole video without a source, [1] - I dunno. My gut feeling is that the attribution to the National Security Archive is correct - they republish documents obtained through the FOI or otherwise from the American Government - if it is from there, it's definitely PD. And ... it appears to be from there. Based on this, I believe this is Keep, actually public domain. WilyD 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - reason for deletion isnt a very good one in my opinion. The picture is highly relevant and significant, especially with regards to the Iran-Iraq War, the present day Iraq War, US-Iraqi relations, Saddam Hussein, Rumsfled, etc...Hajji Piruz 11:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, see point 1 (and 8) above. --Abu badali (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The image is quite relevant to any article relating to the Iraq War. Dfitzgerald 15:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, see point 1 (and 8) above. --Abu badali (talk) 17:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I have seen this image in a documentary in CNN, and there is no doubt for its importance for presenting an important part of history that may not be reproduced in anyway. and I don't think Item #8 of of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria applies here.--Pejman47 19:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you saying that this image is necessary for the understanding of the topic? --Abu badali (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The image is useful, though the context in which it's been used was not so good. I've reworked the caption and moved it up in the page to illustrate the top of the "foreign affairs" section (diff) - see what you think. -- ChrisO 23:10, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see points #1 and #8 above. We don't use non-free image simply to "illustrate topics". It must be necessary for the understanding of the topic. --Abu badali (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- at this point an iconic image; not quite sure what the actual reason for deletion is beyond the rather tenuous suggestion that it is "unnecessary". If there are real concerns about the image being non-free, I haven't seen any, so yes actually this seems to be a case of copyright (or "non-free") paranoia. Sdedeo (tips) 00:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you sure you understand what's a "non-free image"? Also, please see point #5 above. --Abu badali (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks! Sdedeo (tips) 02:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Do you understand this image is being used under a fair use claim on Wikipedia, which pretty much implies it's being considered non-free (by the uploader to begin-with)? What do you meant by "If there are real concerns about the image being non-free, I haven't seen any."? --Abu badali (talk) 02:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since it was a screengrab from a television program, rather than a photograph from the US Government, it is non-free. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In what way has the non-free nature of this image negatively affected wikipedia? For such an iconic image to be deleted, the case needs to be made -- vague paranoia is insufficient. Sdedeo (tips) 19:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't use non-free images unless it absolutely has to because Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia by design. "Paranoia" has nothing to do with it. —Angr 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is unfree (I see debate above and below on this legal question -- lots of IANAL going on!), nobody has explicitly stated how this particular image has in any way hindered the project's goals. For example, has CNN caused a stink about its presence? If this were a random photo of a celebrity, I'd say fine, who cares, kill it. Sdedeo (tips) 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't the point. We don't delete nonfree images only if they hinder the project's goals. Rather, we only include nonfree images if they meet all of the non-free media criteria, and this one doesn't. —Angr 04:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - should be public domain -see above —maxrspct ping me 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it was public domain, we wouldn't need to be having this debate. Apparently the uploader determined it was non-free (and the National Security Archive gives no indication of original source). For all we know, it could be an NSA intercept of Iraqi TV (we don't know), which would be a copyright violation for us to republish. Unless it is proven to be public domain, the fact that it "should be" public domain is irrelevant. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its PD because it's been used and displayed by the NSA and has been treated as such by other bodies - see WilyD comment above —maxrspct ping me 21:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, screenshots of TV programs may only be used in conjunction with critical commentary on the TV program itself. This isn't. —Angr 19:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFCC#2 (possible competition with copyright holder), WP:NFCC#8 (doesn't significantly increase reader's understanding in a way words cannot), and WP:NFCC#10a (unclear source and copyright holder). Videmus Omnia Talk 19:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - Point one: This is quite a famous image. In some circles, it's very famous. Are we really unable to determine the source? If so, we suck. Point two: There has been a ton of commentary on this image in lefty news sources, on blogs, heck, even on the Oprah Winfrey show! Certainly an encyclopedic article could be written that discusses the impact of the image itself (and not just the event). Saddam Hussein imagery? Media in the Iraq War? The image obviously had a lot of impact. But of the five articles it's used in, none of them even mentions the image itself. That just doesn't cut it. Sadly, we can't keep the image -- at least until someone does the gruntwork of figuring out the source and writing an article that mentions it. – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but limit use to the article where the meeting is discussed, this screenshot approaches the same iconic and famous nature (in a modern context) as the Elian Gonzales affair photo [2] I don't believe Donald Rumsfeld or Saddam ever acknowledged meeting each other, so it would be difficult to provide much context without this screenshot, it's true it doesn't fit the strict definition of fair use but I don't think WP:NFCC#2 applies as the Iraqi news agency never profited from this footage being broadcast by the NSA archive and others, if you keep screenshots from terrorist videos you may as well keep this as well, otherwise they should be deleted too. Bleh999 08:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dispute - The Elian Gonzales affair photo won a Pulitzer Prize, and is used only in the context of discussing the image itself (and not to illustrate the event depicted). Also, we don't need to keep this image just as a "proof" that these men once met. We just need to cite reliable sources commenting about their meeting. And this image is not necessary for a text backed up by such reliable sources. --Abu badali (talk) 14:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    If a paper copy of wikipedia was discovered on a deserted island WITHOUT images but with a description, i'm sure a shipwrecked sailor would get an idea of what the missing image would look like. But for everyday life the absence of this picture would be detrimental to the article.There is no absolute need as with any picture or photo which can be described in text (even for the Gonzales article this could be argued, complete with external link to pic), but for the benefit of readers who can't pour over one article for an hour (or go exploring offsite), modern encyclopedias have words AND pictures. In Wikipedia's case we have the glorious benefit of being able to deliberate over each individual article or sections or pictures of it. And we can consider each of these things as unique and having its own value or properties and APPLY THE POLICY IN EACH PARTICULAR CASE. We can decide to what degree it may be significantly helpful to place ... perhaps a photograph of an event for the reader to see with their own eyes etc., in a similar way to a judge or jury interpreting or applying a law. In this case it appear most of the editors above feel that the Saddam article would significantly lose out if this Rumsfeld-Saddam picture was removed. To me that sounds like the picture is a perfect candidate for complying with that stringent (and context free if not vague) #8 of 'Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria' policy. Besides, it is almost certainly Public Domain.. and is a great example of that too. —maxrspct ping me 16:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    That's what I meant, I thought an article could be written discussing the footage in relation to the meeting, it should be written about how this image/footage became famous after the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to deride Donald Rumsfeld, that would be encyclopedic. I don't think because an image won a Pulitzer Prize, it should automatically be allowed here, this is a screenshot and due it's nature could not have won that award regardless. I think using Associated Press photographs in any form such as the Elian Gonzales photo is a bigger violation of the spirit of WP:NFCC#2 than this, because as I said the Iraqi news agency never profited from the use of this footage by the NSA or CNN, whereas the Associated Press and their photographers do indeed make money from their images and footage, by using this screenshot on wikipedia you aren't competing with commercial interests, or the original market role of this image/footage (which is non existent to the original copyright holder as of today). Bleh999 03:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I believe it is completely relevant. I can't believe this is even being discussed for deletion. Epachamo 17:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a funny feeling we've all been trolled --maxrspct ping me 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. I find this image to be non-free. First, the NSArchive credits this to Iraqi state television, as rebroadcast on CNN. Now, the U.S. and Iraq do not have reciprocal copyright treaties, but per Jimbo Wales, we are supposed to respect their copyrights regardless (yes, the email at this link talks about Iran, but the statement is easily extrapolated). That being the case, all ten points of WP:NFCC must be applied, and certainly the statement "Rumsfeld once met with Hussein" does not need an image to be understood. howcheng {chat} 19:23, 26 July 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.

Image:Imam_in_Mehrabad.jpg

edit
Image:Imam_in_Mehrabad.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Sa.vakilian (notify | contribs).

Kept. The GFDL declaration seems valid to me. howcheng {chat} 20:02, 26 July 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.


Image:CPU-Z_1.39.jpeg

edit
Uploaded by MichaelR

Image:Corduff_oseighin.jpg

edit
Image:Corduff_oseighin.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Lapsed Pacifist (notify | contribs).

Image:NurPashiKulayev2.jpg

edit
Image:NurPashiKulayev2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).
Got a link saying it's from the CT? Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 17:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, it's right on the image description page, which you added in this edit. And if it's not them, then the copyright holder is unknown. Hmmm... now that I look at it more closely, the one on the CT page is not the same angle as this photo, so this then becomes an image without a source and subject to speedy deletion instead. howcheng {chat} 17:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ultramagnusdeath.jpg

edit
Image:Ultramagnusdeath.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Orbital (notify | contribs).

Image:Wowow03.jpg

edit
Image:Wowow03.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Homboy (notify | contribs).

DELETE. I agree that the image should be deleted.harlock_jds 17:29, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stampedeultra2.jpg

edit
Image:Stampedeultra2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by John earlm (notify | contribs).

Image:Tom_T._Hall.jpg

edit
Image:Tom_T._Hall.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by LovePatsyCline (notify | contribs).

Image:Barefoot by vshtevnin.jpg

edit
Image:Barefoot by vshtevnin.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Nantesbenchpress (notify | contribs).
  • The image is originally in violation with CV, and photography theft as well. The original was located at this link: http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/51624016/ The uploader also claims to be the subject's mother within the photo, but the original entry with that gallery contradicts this as well. I request this image be deleted IMMEDIATELY. 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hopmancup07russia.jpg

edit
Image:Hopmancup07russia.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by SportsAddicted (notify | contribs).

Image:MWR Matthew Rowan.jpg

edit
Image:MWR Matthew Rowan.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Matthewrowan (notify | contribs).

Image:CNV00009.JPG

edit
Image:CNV00009.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Joerichlaw (notify | contribs).


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:Swingstates.png

edit
Image:Swingstates.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Monbro (notify | contribs).
The problem is that it's introducing an editor's point of view/original research through a generated image. What's the source for labelling these states as "swing states"? Jpers36 01:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article swing state goes into the criteria used, and lists why each individual state is a swing state. Of course, I could put all the reasons here, but it is easier just to direct you there. (Cardsplayer4life 05:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Upon further inspection, it appears you have edited the afore mentioned article, so it appears you are familiar with it. If the contention is that there is bias in the image, then there is certainly bias in the article, and all references to all states should be taken out. I, however, think that there is the ability to tell through a variety of indicators (so listed in the article) which states are swing states and which are not. The image can always be updated (as the article is, and as I did with the image) as needed. (Cardsplayer4life 05:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'd say the concern is more with original research than bias per se. There's no unambiguous set of states identified as the swing states, as this map implies; rather, some states are "swingier" than others, and the map needs to identify whose criteria it's following, and those criteria need to come from some reliable, non-Wikipedia source. —Angr 08:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thats cool. That would definitely be criteria for making edits to the image to make those adjustments, but not for deletion. (Cardsplayer4life 22:30, 21 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Here's the problem -- the article itself is unsourced, and does not explain where it is getting its information in labelling "swing states". What I've been trying to do in the article is to actually source the statements it makes, as well as remove or mark unsourced statements. Jpers36 16:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. The image is reflective of the article, not the other way around. Source the statements and fix the image, please. howcheng {chat} 19:09, 26 July 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.


Image:Brimstone_VC.jpg

edit
Image:Brimstone_VC.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Fall Of Darkness (notify | contribs).

Image:Bringing_Baby_Logo.jpg

edit
Image:Bringing_Baby_Logo.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Bringingbaby (notify | contribs).

Image:British_Airways_777_SJO.jpg

edit
Image:British_Airways_777_SJO.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Radulov2010 (notify | contribs).

Image:San_pedro_morazan.jpg

edit
Image:San_pedro_morazan.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Olimpia10031 (notify | contribs).

Image:Olimpiateam.JPG

edit
Image:Olimpiateam.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Olimpia10031 (notify | contribs).

Image:Lebanese_Hezbollah_recruts_being_sworn_in.jpg

edit
Image:Lebanese_Hezbollah_recruts_being_sworn_in.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Tickle me (notify | contribs).
  • image was taken by an AFP photographer and is taken from a stock photography agency (Getty Images) this directly violates policy by using a news agency photo in this manner Bleh999 21:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop this nonsense - it's not the first time Bleh999 is abusing images or img deletion templates. If it violates policy 'directly', Bleh999 will be able and willing to link to the corresponding 'policy'. Can he be bothered to have a go? This is the second attempt-of many to come-to have a politically unwelcome img deleted. Quite to the contrary, the fair use exigencies have been never met as accurately as in this case. --tickle me 01:31, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph is not old enough and widely distributed enough to be considered particularly iconic, the way it's being used is to discuss the type of salute depicted rather than the photograph itself, this violates #2 of the non-free content policy, respect for commercial opportunities [4] Bleh999 01:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You perused WP:Non-free_content and slammed together some words and sub clauses. Fair use images don't have to be iconic, that's only one of many criteria. The pic is 6 years old, there's no definition that would make 6 years 'not old enough'.
> the way it's being used is to discuss the type of salute depicted rather than the photograph itself
Of course it is used to illustrate something, that's what fair use is all about - since when do we use a photograph to illustrate 'the photograph itself'? This doesn't make any sense. Stop abusing procedure. --tickle me 02:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So out of 4 articles it is being used in, only one actually mentions Hezbollah using any sort of salute Roman_salute, in the rest it is used for purely decorative purposes it appears since nothing beyond the caption adds any context to the article. Also the fair use rationale contains unsourced claims about German instructors teaching hezbollah how to salute after WWII yet none of the articles talk about this. A source for the single claim of hezbollah salute in Roman_salute reveals a New York Sun editorial used a very similar photo by Suhaila Sahmarani/AFP in August 2006, which is actually proof that this image is still commercially viable to the copyright owners. Bleh999 05:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're pushing new specious claims and bogus reasoning once the old claims have been disproved, without even bothering to look back - all while amassing protest for disruptive behavior elesewhere. This could go on forever. I want an admin to tell me whether I have to cope with this. --tickle me 23:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think making personal attacks strengthens your case, instead you could have tried to address of the concerns I raised, none of these claims specious or bogus. Wikipedia has a specific fair use policy and this image fails the test. Bleh999 23:55, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable image from a news agency, not used in a discussion about the image itself. Notable images have been discussed somewhere. Can anyone provide a link to some reliable source discussing this image? --Abu badali (talk) 13:39, 23 July 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. 
deleted at user request. —Angr 10:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jwlxx.jpg

edit
Image:Jwlxx.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by jwlx (notify | contribs).
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.


Image:Tiger Hill.njd.jpg

edit
Image:Tiger Hill.njd.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Guptadeepak (notify | contribs).
  • inaccurate image. Tiger hill is most likely located here [7]. Map showing BOTH locations. inaccurate area is in the center and the yellow square on the left is the most likely correct location [8] — Preetikapoor0 22:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_July_20&oldid=1143363968"