Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 November 27
November 27
edit- 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:
I am relisting this IFD for further discussion so a current consensus can be reached. -Nv8200p talk 03:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is very likely that the image is of a prepubescent girl, and could thus violate the child pornography laws applicable in the U.S. state of Florida (where Wikimedia servers are located). Please keep in mind that when it comes to possibly illegal content, the policy of no censorship is not applicable. VanTucky Talk 21:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted image at first since there were no dissenting opinions but restored image based on the discussion at Talk:Virgin_Killer#image_showing_a_naked_prepubescent_girl. -Nv8200p talk 02:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC) That discussion is now archived at Talk:Virgin Killer/Archive 1.. Carcharoth (talk) 09:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but consensus can change. Keeping based on outside discussion, when users had plenty of time to comment here and were given plenty of notification per the proscribed process of IFD, is not acceptable. VanTucky talk 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- XFD gives an amount of freedom to the administrator to decide in accordance to consensus. If a consensus was formed based on a verifiably false argument (in this case, that the image in question subjected the Wikimedia Foundation to legal liability), then it is perfectly acceptable to continue the debate until a consensus is formed without reliance on that argument. Considering that, without that argument, the image violates no particular criteria to merit it's deletion, the debate will hopefully return keep. --24.208.124.76 (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but consensus can change. Keeping based on outside discussion, when users had plenty of time to comment here and were given plenty of notification per the proscribed process of IFD, is not acceptable. VanTucky talk 03:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as common, valid and legal fair use album cover. You should contact Mike Godwin if you really think this cover might be illegal in Florida. Prolog (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep [| Child Pornography] definition from the Department of Justice.
While this definition leaves a lot of room to opinion and interpretation, and the only true test of the image's status would be in court (which never occurred and thus was never tested)
There are some facts that help support that this album cover art is not Child Pornography include the following:
- The US Pressing of the album with this cover art was sold in US stores at the time of release. It was later changed not due to legal issues but due to the controversy the album created.
- The album with this cover art continues to be sold as an import from France and Japan by US companies including Amazon.com, Buy.com, members of the auction site eBay, and others, whom then ship the item via the US Postal Service, which if it were Child Pornography would cause quite a bit of trouble for these companies.
- The image is displayed on many US based Web sites
I quote below a contributor to the previous discussion on this image located on the album's discussion page as he raises an additional excellent point
"Furthermore, this would not be the only problematic image. Take, for example, the following (Pulitzer Prize-winning) image of the infamous Kim Phuc Phan Thi (third from left, nude).
- Some might find this to be a tasteless comparison, but it begs the question of whether:
- fear of censorship laws is more dangerous than the laws themselves, or
- context really does make all the difference."
- Some might find this to be a tasteless comparison, but it begs the question of whether:
Jeffreybh (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2007 (UTC)jeffreybh[reply]
- Keep — Fair use album cover. Useful in the context of the article. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 20:43, 27 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
- Keep - As I stated on the Virgin Killer talk page, I don't believe this violates child porn laws in the US, including the state of Florida, especially given the fact that the nude girl version of the album is available for sale as an Import in the US. --Cab88 (talk) 14:24, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and split - Because the regular cover comes on the top and the alternate one should be in the bottom of the infobox. -- Stormwatch 15:33, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep unless there's some real evidence that this could get us in trouble. Excellent arguments by Jeffreybh in favor. Dylan 19:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, no consensus to delete, no evidence of legal liability – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:39, 6 December 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:
- This image has no real source. It seems that this was originally uploaded by User:Michael L. Kaufman at with no source ("publicity photo") and was then re-uploaded by User:Erebus555 at this location. The image was recently deleted for having no source, but was then re-uploaded by User:MarVelo with a source link provided. The source link given is a Wikipedia mirror. This is basically a "I found this on some website" image. I think this is certainly a case where a fair use image is justified - that's not the problem. But where did this photo really come from? Putting this here to centralize discussion instead of multiple talk pages. --- RockMFR 07:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Would this be adequate as a fair use replacement? Skomorokh incite 13:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I e-mailed ARI about this image and received the following response:
- Dear Mr. XXXXXXX,
- I looked at the photograph you mentioned at Wikipedia. Neither the Ayn Rand Institute nor the Estate of Ayn Rand own the rights to that photograph. It was taken by Phyllis Cerf, and I believe we obtained permission to use it in some cases long ago from her son Christopher Cerf. Unfortunately I do not have current contact information at hand.
- Richard E. Ralston
- Publishing Manager
- The Ayn Rand Institute
- 128.252.254.2 00:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. I guess this is a legitimate case of fair use, since both subject and author are deceased. Keep. -- Stormwatch 20:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kept, with the new sourcing info. Great work! – Quadell (talk) (random) 17:46, 6 December 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.
- Not Accurate Jwatling (talk) 10:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Is not a work of the federal government, does not satisfy that license and was not released by YLWD to PD. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:35, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image:EdOrgeron.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Allstarecho (notify | contribs).
- As the owner and uploader of this image, I am requesting it be deleted. -- ALLSTARecho 22:39, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
