Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 31

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parasect (notify | contribs | uploads

).

• Orphaned, low quality. Kelly ^hi! 01:32, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have a better image of that species. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:The New Old Stoic.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bumpothegreat (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Used only on apparently abandoned sandbox article. Kelly ^hi! 01:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unkown Tooth.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Animal guy101 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphan, unidentified subject. Kelly ^hi! 01:37, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:BBMak.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FotoPhest (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Non-free images can't be used for living people/bands
  CTJF83 02:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep The claim is that "The band have been split for six years, and a new one is unlikely. A free contemporary image would not convey the same information." I don't see any argument that contradicts the NFCC fairuse claim... Hobit (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The band has split" is hardly a valid claim reason. We could then use lame reasons like "person is hard to photograph". Read
    CTJF83 13:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I don't believe a picture of each of them, not in the band together and years later, would serve the same purpose. That said, I do suspect that someone has picture of the band they'd be willing to make free. I don't think the buildings and people analogy works. If you really think such a picture is "buildable" however, feel free to give it a shot. Hobit (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also "However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." As I read it the "whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance" clause only applies to individuals, so we seem to be within policy here. Hobit (talk) 17:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is pretty clearly replaceable—I just did a quick google image search and there are a lot of nonprofessional photos of this band out there. None of them that I found happened to be under a free license, but as we know that's not the standard of replaceability—it would be quite feasible to find or request a free image.
  Chick Bowen 23:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Maybe. I always have doubts about "it should be feasible" in cases like this. On what basis can you make that claim until you've actually got one? I agree it seems likely, but because no new image can be found, we are seemingly stuck with a non-free image. As we can't just go out and snap a new one, I think we should use a non-free image until it becomes clear there is an acceptable free one. Hobit (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are providing no policy to support your keep claim.
      CTJF83 04:33, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • ""However, for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." The letter of the policy is on my side here. Can this be replaced by an existent free image? Maybe, but there is no evidence such a thing exists. A mere assertion that it might could be made in nearly ever case. In that case, what is the point of the quoted policy? Hobit (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you provide a link? It isn't on
          CTJF83 15:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Sorry,
            Wikipedia:NFC#UUI. I don't spend much time on images, so generally assume everyone else here is a regular. Which is kinda stupid of me when I think about it. Hobit (talk) 02:00, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Delete -replaceable, just because we haven't got a commons licensed pic, its no excuse under policy to resort to fair use.
  Off2riorob (talk) 14:39, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Humm, I think under policy, for a disbanded band, it is acceptable. Could you explain how the above quote from NFC#UUI doesn't apply here? Hobit (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Son ninja av.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SonofRage (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 03:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raj Anna.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DeepakCGowda (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Appears to be a scan of an old magazine/newspaper image. —SpacemanSpiff 09:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • On what basis do you make that claim? Hobit (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Based on the texture, size and also prior uploads that were similar scans. —SpacemanSpiff 13:33, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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, with disclaimer. The consensus appears to be to keep, however, the image currently lacks fair use rationales for any of this image's three usages. The current fair use rationale, if you can even call it that, refers to the image's subject as a building throughout, and so it would appear to have not been written for any of these usages. Thus while the image is surviving this process, I am putting it into deletable image for no fair use rationale, and if one is not provided for any of these usages before a week is up, it will be deleted after that time. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mumbai Metro Renderer.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by KuwarOnline (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Artist's draft of the design of a new metro train, scheduled to come into operation within the next few months. Will soon be easily replaceable. The visual details of the external design are currently not being discussed in the article, hence fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It will not come to operation until Jan 2012, It expected to start by Jan 2012. source/reference, I would suggest anyone who is in interest to see current updates on Mumbai Metro can visit skycrapercity Mumbai Metro Thread2skycrapercity Mumbai Metro Thread2, it was already been discussed, I dont know why this again has been nominated, here it was discussed replaceable fair use dispute, user/admin User:Nyttend already removed it. Until we get any image on this metro train, I think we can use it, I m actively tracking this metro updates and once it been showcased to public by govt. I will make sure we will have alteast one image from my friends to uploaded here. KuwarOnline ^Talk 10:35, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but it seems you missed the other essential argument: the only legitimate reason to use this image would be if it was needed to discuss the exterior design of the cars, which the article currently isn't doing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:33, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does now,
      User:Brianhe move the image to Mumbai_Metro#Rolling_stock section where it actually belongs. KuwarOnline ^Talk 05:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Still not discussing the exterior design (livery, colours, etc.) It's just discussing technical specs, but the image doesn't improve my understanding of those. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. No freedom of panorama for artwork in the US, either, so moot point. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:PICT4004.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Adam_Carr (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Photo of probably-copyrighted statue (subject died 1957). Subject of statue is Norwegian, so likely this was taken in Norway. There is no freedom of panorama in Norway.[1] Used only in userspace. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:20, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought because we are in the US we used US copyright law on en. As it's only in userspace I don't really care too much, but could you point me in the right direction for how we deal with that here? The link you gave was to the Commons. Hobit (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Ultimately, using a non-free image to set the right mood does not pass

File:Voss-called-to-identify.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs | uploads).

• If this image is really non-free, there's no justification for using it. We don't need to see a screenshot showing a some men identifying some bodies to understand this event (indeed, it's more like that the article's text is necessary for the understanding of the image than the other way round). Damiens.rf 15:12, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again I think you greatly misunderstand the impact of such an image. To see is sometimes to truly understand. A picture sometimes is worth 1000 words. In this case, I don't know that 1000 words would be enough. The clothing, the way the children are laid out and the way that people seem so accepting of the entire situation is informative (and scary). Hobit (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image has "impact", but it does not convey any relevant unique encyclopedic information that isn't already in the article's text. Unfortunately, we don't allow the use non-free material to inflict a sentiment or feeling in the reader. --Damiens.rf 06:03, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think drawing an emotional connection down to the gut level is the very definition of "understanding". Hobit (talk) 15:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not my interpretation of
        WT:NFCC. --Damiens.rf 18:39, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I don't think there is anything to lobby for. If I understand something better, well it improves my understanding. The letter is clear and I think the spirit is too. As I'm reading your argument, no image could ever meet the bar because any "fact" communicated in the picture could be communicated via words also. But understanding is more than the just communication of facts. Hobit (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The threshold is not that the non-free image makes you "understand something better", but that it "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". While almost any image related to the text passes the first test, only some few pass the second (yes, some images do). --Damiens.rf 01:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I do find it greatly increases my understanding of the context. You seriously don't? Hobit (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while the image is definitely emotive it is also, perhaps unfortunately, decorative in the current context(s). By reading the text I understand the murder and identification events, and I do not see what significant additional information I am supposed to gain by seeing this non-free image. Fails NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:AlNaimis father and brother and Joshua Congolese lawyer.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs | uploads).

• This non-free images shows a lawyer posing with his client's father and brother, and the article briefly mentions (only in the image caption) that the lawyer had to use this picture to convince his client he was really on his side. I believe the use of this image fails
  WP:NFCC#8, since there's nothing visually special about the image itself the helps on the understanding of the article. The reader can understand the the lawyer posed with two man without seeing the specific image. And all the other details of the photo are irrelevant for the point. Damiens.rf 18:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I agree it fails NFCC#8. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this incident can be (and is) adequately described in words, the pic is not necessary.KeptSouth (talk) 13:34, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ibn Shaykh al-Libi corpse.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs | uploads).

• The close-up non-free picture of a dead man is not helpful for the understanding of the article. Damiens.rf 18:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per NFCC#8, no significant increase in understanding given. Hobit (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. It is not necessary to have a picture of a text-only document unless the document itself is really special, and that specialness is discussed in the article. In this case, it appears to fail

File:2004 RCMP Briefing Note regarding Abdullah Khadr.PNG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs | uploads).

• We don't need to use a non-free scan of a document to prove a point. We can just reference it. Damiens.rf 18:17, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it does indeed illustrate the point for the reader in a way that no brief description can and no commercial opportunities are being impaired. KeptSouth (talk) 13:41, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:08, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cas1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ThibautLienart (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Obsolete, please see File:Princ_Argument_C1.svg ThibautLienart (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Wrong forum. File on Commons. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cas1.tiff (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by ThibautLienart (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Obsolete, please see as above ThibautLienart (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:07, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jonestown.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Million Little Gods (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 January 24. I abstain. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:52, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prior deletion discussion is at 2011 January 3. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The image is offered commercially at Getty Images, as noted during the deletion review. As such, it violates policy (
  WP:NFCC#2). At present, it is used only at Jonestown. Unfortunately, the image does add some considerable informational value to that page (yes, some of us at Wikipedia actually do care about content creation!), but it seems to me that the copyright infringement outweighs that concern. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Because the issue of NFCC#8 is discussed below, I'd like to comment a bit more about it. As I see it, from a content point of view, the alternatives to showing this image are either no image, or File:Bodies at Jonestown.jpg, the free image that was recently used to replace this one at Criticism of religion. The free image is fine for that page, since it shows the deaths that resulted, which is what the criticism of religion page is concerned with in that regard. For the Jonestown page, the free image has a little value in showing the deaths, but the image discussed here shows the actual setting of the main subject of the page. I realize that some users in this talk see the issue as don't infringe copyright, and we can always get by without images, but for me, this makes it enough of an issue to describe it as unfortunate, but (and please note this before the complaining starts!) I still think the #2 issue settles it for me as delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my argument in the DRV. The use of this file is currently for sale so per
  WP:NFCC#2 we can't use it. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. This is a clear NFCC#2 violation. My fuller argument is in the DRV.
  Chick Bowen 23:55, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question this may belong at NFCC's talk, but I do have a question. On what basis do we claim that us having the image makes it harder for them to sell the use of the image? The image is freely available on the web, and even from the site that sells it I believe. Us having it here doesn't obviously (to me at least) interfere with commercial uses in any way. And in fact it could be argued to be advertising. Obviously I'm missing something, but I'm unclear exactly what. Hobit (talk) 03:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, that question
  has recently been asked there. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• There's a lost marketing opportunity for every unauthorized use of this image, including ours. --Damiens.rf 05:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I still think there is no commercial loss here and if anything it would help as it is a marketing (advertising) opportunity. But obviously those of you with more experience here disagree. So let's ask it this way. If the owner of the article didn't feel there was a lost commercial opportunity and gave us permission to host it here (still as NFCC), would that eliminate the #2 argument? I realize we don't accept non-free licenses and don't normally host articles based on such permission but it would serve to address the narrow point of the #2 argument I think. I mean if _he_ thinks there is no loss, then there is no loss right? Thoughts? Hobit (talk) 11:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, in principle that is correct. A not-quite-free-enough "permission" (of the "you may use it on Wikipedia" type) typically has the effect of placing us on the safe side of NFCC#2. Of course, such an item would then still have to pass every other criterion, and might fail on any of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• But it all would be so against the spirit of Wikipedia. We're supposed to promote free content, so, I don't see with good eyes when we beg copyright holders for their permission to use (and only use) material. Why should we go to lengths to make things harder to our reusers? It's clearly possible to write a wonderful article about the events in Jonestown without the use of this specific image. Why should The Free Encyclopedia be the one that can't do without it? --Damiens.rf 16:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, as it's a clear classica NFCC#2 violation, and also a NFCC#8 in my opinion. --Damiens.rf 05:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#2. I would also this fails NFCC#8 in Jonestown. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - NFCC#2 (NO) Mere usage of an image offered commercially at Getty Images in a Wikipedia article does not constitute "used in a manner" set out in NFCC#2. Also, the NFCC#2 standard is "likely to replace the original market role," not merely a likelihood of a loss of a sale or some sales of the image for that large stock photo agency. Getty Images still would retain its original market role for this image as retailer of this image and newspaper agencies or the like still would have to purchase the image from Getty Images to accent their articles even if Wikipedia used the image, because the image still is copyrighted and because Getty Images has the ability to enforce such a sale. Getty Images is not using this image to draw people to the Getty Images website, so Wikipedia's manner of usage of this image would not replace such an original market role to cause less people visiting the Getty Images website. NFCC#2 has requirements and those need to be applied to receive opinion weight. Regarding NFCC#8 (YES), the photo has to have contextual significance. The test is whether its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (as opposed to a viewer's understanding of the image). Usage of non-free content criteria requires at a minimum a reliable source description of the NFCC image. In other words, the image itself in the photo needs to have been discussed by reliable sources and a sourced conveyance of that discussion needs to appear in the article in connection with the NFCC image. The fact that this image is a photo owned by a stock photo agency and one that would seem to be a greater seller than other means that the reliable source coverage of this image needs to be greater and have an increased relevance to the article topic. In this image were an iconic image, historically notable, or even sufficiently important, people will have written about it in reliable sources. Since the image is described in the article with an original research caption and none of the text in the article accompany it is sufficiently reliably sourced to meet contextual significance, delete as failing NFCC#8. This can be overcome by adding such reliable source material to the article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:00, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I think this clearly meets #8 (I certainly found the image to make very clear exactly the scale and scope of the issue in a way words couldn't possibly do so) but I am much less sure about #2. I don't see how this would impact the commercial value nor do I see how it would be considered to "replace the original market role" in any way. The image is already available, from the publisher, for free on-line. If someone wants to snag it, they can get it. If someone wants to use it legally, they need to pay in either case. That said, those more experianced in the field believe it violates #2, so I'll stay on the weak side realizing I may be missing something (still). I'll contact the owner however. Hobit (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Owner contacted. I'll let folks know the response, if any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs)
    • NFCC#8 is an issue here. The image has some impact, but not much information. It's dead people laid on the ground, period. I wonder what passage of the text you failed to completely understand before seeing this specific photo. --Damiens.rf 16:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Define "understand". From a factual viewpoint it gives me a sense of what the place looked like and how members dressed. More importantly though the quickness of the death and that it actually happened becomes apparent. Yes, before I saw the picture I knew it happened. But after, I _understood_. Hobit (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hobit, let me expand a bit on what I said above, keeping in mind that I'm speaking as someone who comes down on the side of delete. Like you, I find the NFCC#8 arguments here to be completely unconvincing. Uzma recently added a citation-needed tag to the image caption at Jonestown (and I suppose one could write the caption better, although there's little point in bothering now, I think), but the claim that reliable sources have never written about the image is shown to be mistaken by the fact that Time magazine used this photo as the cover image for its issue covering the Jonestown events. I'm afraid that much of the differences in opinion about this image come down to how editors who mainly care about content see it, compared to editors who mainly care about image use policy. There's a Wiki-cultural gap there. But here is why I'm convinced that it fails NFCC#2: In the first XfD, the claim was that it infringed on the use of the image by Encylcopedia Britannica. In my opinion, one has to be a copyright fundamentalist of the most extreme order to think that anyone is going to make less use of Britannica's products because we use one image out of an entire encyclopedia, which is why I initially opposed deletion. But here, we have a situation where, on the one hand, one can get the image for free online, but on the other hand, Getty is offering the image for sale. Regardless of wherever else one may be able to obtain the image, Wikipedia using it and making it freely available infringes on Getty, and that's an NFCC#2 failure. But if you can obtain permission from the copyright owner, that will change everything for me! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Tryptofish, please allow me two points. First, had Time Magazine written about the image or about the events depicted on the image? Second, we're not just making the image freely available, we're using it ourselves. I mean, the problem is not that we're facilitating the unauthorized use of Getty's image. We're doing the unauthorized use ourselves. --Damiens.rf 18:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Particularly in light of your edit summary, I strongly urge you to re-think. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:26, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • I will. But please consider commenting on the points I've raised. I believe you have a failed understanding of how NFCC applies here, an incomplete understanding about commercial opportunities for photographs, and an incomplete view of or mission here. --Damiens.rf 18:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • As noted at the top of this discussion, I support deletion of the image. And I don't need you lecturing me about the mission of Wikipedia. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• No word back yet... Hobit (talk) 02:01, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per Ron - commercial image and currently for sale - so get your money out and pay for it if you want to keep it.
  Off2riorob (talk) 14:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per NFCC#2. NFCC#8 rationale is not applicable, readers can understand the tragedy without seeing this particular picture. The thing that is difficult for readers to comprehend is the large number of people killed; this pic only shows a few, therefore it doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. KeptSouth (talk) 13:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:06, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Promotionaldkr.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jimscrooge (notify | contribs | uploads).

• There's no evidence that this movie poster is official, which is highly unlikely since the movie hasn't begun filming yet and the source is a school newspaper's website. A Google search shows plenty of other fake posters. Capt. Colonel (edits) 21:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Is that a reason to delete? I think I'm missing something. I think the discussion if it belongs in the article should be on the article talk page, not here. Hobit (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's mere fan art, yes, that would be a reason to delete. An official poster ought to be sourcable to the actual producers, shouldn't it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:23, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Humm, I think I was unclear. Let's assume this isn't an official poster. Is that a reason to delete? I assume as a non-free image it would then be replaceable. Is that what the nom is getting at? I'd assume a free fan-made poster would be acceptable if the folks working on the article wanted it (though I can't see why they would, it would then be an issue for the article's talk page, not FfD right?) My guess is I'm just not following the nom's chain of thought from "unofficial" to "delete". Hobit (talk) 01:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, a free non-official item wouldn't be a copyright or NFCC issue, but it would be unencyclopedic because it couldn't legitimately serve the purpose such images usually have in our articles, of identifying the film. Yes, that could be determined at article talk, but I don't see why it couldn't also be determined here. But this one apparently isn't free, or at least it hasn't been claimed it is, so the question is moot. A non-free non-official item would be both unencyclopedic and replaceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:42, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll disagree on FfD being the right place for such a discussion about a free image. But I'll agree it is in this case. delete. Hobit (talk) 15:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It makes sense to use non-free official art, or (maybe) free fan art, but non-free fan art is silly. And yes actually, any unofficial art is silly, this isn't myspace or deviantart. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 11:43, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:WMATA Thin Silver Line Map.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by User:Jkatzen (notify | contribs | uploads).

• This file was deleted after a discussion at
  Chick Bowen 21:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep. I see there is actually extensive, and apparently decently sourced, analytical commentary on the image as an image. That makes it an almost ideal case of legitimate fair use ("transformative use"), something that is often claimed and talked about on Wikipedia but rarely actually done. If there's editorial consensus that the discussion in the article is pertinent and well enough sourced, I would say the image will be a legitimate part of it (together with the "iconic" older map with which it is being compared, which would evidently also be needed.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep - Yes, the article discuss the image itself, based on third part independent sources. It's not simply used to show the reader what the connections at the metro are (what would render it replaceable by a user created map), but as a companion for the discussion about how it has no 3-line encounters, or about the thick lines on the radial lines. Besides that, I can see no possible concerns involving other criteria in NFCC (we're not replacing the original role for the image, for instance). And also of importance, the discussion about the image does not appear to me as something small that have been given a lot of space in the article just to save the non-free image. A good example of a valid use of non-free content. --Damiens.rf 13:23, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.