Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 24

< March 23	March 25 >

March 24

File:Elizabeth Roberts Elizab2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No valid source and dubious copyright station. Deletion denied by User:HJ Mitchell. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

School photograph prior to 1977. Taken 1957 or 1958. Photographer is deceased. Billy Hathorn (talk) 10:43, 24 March 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.

File:MSBSHSE logo.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File is to be uploaded again to Wikipedia (not Commons) with a non-free logo license. Do not notify me because I myself have uploaded it. Aditya (talk) 09:15, 24 March 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.

File:Adam Tournament 2005 020.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This picture is an excuse for a non-notable autobiography. The uploader last edited in 2007. John of Reading (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, personal events. Reh man 01:57, 27 March 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.

File:Brad McClay.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another... John of Reading (talk) 10:32, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, personal events. Reh man 01:58, 27 March 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.

File:Golzarijamiliraj 1867.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low-quality watermarked picture, only uploaded to advertise his business John of Reading (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, promotional content, per nom. Reh man 01:56, 27 March 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.

File:Nothingless.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo for a non-notable band. The corresponding article was speedied in 2007. John of Reading (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphaned, per nom. Reh man 01:53, 27 March 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.

File:Cars on fire in Daraa during the 2011 Syrian protests.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: delete, with deletion carried out by Peripitus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cars on fire in Daraa during the 2011 Syrian protests.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).

It is reasonable to believe that a replacement for this image is available which contradicts the FUR (and puts it inline with relatively speedy deletion).

The image nor the event (cars being set on fire) are historically significant yet and we should not assume otherwise.

Cars being set on fire does not necessarily need an image to assist in the commentary

Decent image, hopefully the publisher releases it with licensing we can use. Cptnono (talk) 10:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the replacement for this image available? It shows events during the 2011 Syrian protest, which is a historical event, and I also had added another license for this same image: "Non-free television screenshot". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 10:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if there is a replacement but it it is believable that one could be made available. That negates the FUR. Furthermore, the cars being set on fire is not the defining image of the event so "it shows events during the 2011 Syrian protest" does not assist in the use of it being used as the identifiable image. But I dispute the FUR even if you move it into the body for critical commentary. The license template you added does not impact the FUR. AL Jazeera has images licensed in a way that we can use them. So simply wait for them to release some images. Until then, hopefully someone will add one (the did it in Egypt) or it can even go without.Cptnono (talk) 10:30, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: discussion moved here from
WP:PUF, non-free status is not in dispute. – Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:49, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. These particular cars on fire at this particular moment in the protests are neither a particularly notable event within the whole story, nor a particularly memorable ("iconic") scene needed to "visually identify" the event as a whole, nor is this particular scene the object of special comment and analysis in the article, nor is the image necessary for the factual understanding of what the article says. This is a typical situation of "there's this important event in the news, so to underline how important it is we need to pepper up the article with dramatic photographs". That is never a good reason for non-free images. Of course it will be highly desirable to get free ones, but this is also still possible, because the protests are still ongoing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Future Perfect at Sunrise, concerning the TV license you removed, what exactly is the "critical commentary" supposed to consist of? It says: "on the station ID or program and its contents", the caption described the content in the image. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it matters much (the decision about this deletion won't be based on whether or not that additional tag stays), but the non-free TV screenshot tag is for situations where the object of our discussion is the TV programme as such. It would make sense if it was used in the context of an article on Al Jazeera's coverage of the Syrian protests or the like. The way it is used now, it's purely about the events; the fact that they happened to be presented in a particular way in a particular TV channel is of no interest whatsoever. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the news report is specifically about the events during the 2011 Syrian protests, which is the "object of our discussion". --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:23, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The news report may be about those events, but that still doesn't mean our article is about the news report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, of course. We certainly have a reasonable expectation of getting freely licensed photos from ongoing protests. --B (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This may shock some of you but I believe this would be a keep - not because it is any sort of iconic/historical image (It really isn't) - but because it may be "free". Al Jazeera release much of its content under a CCL that is acceptable for Wikipedia. Creative Commons Al Jazeera is the website to look for such content. Having said that - at this time the video this was taken from does not appear on the Creative Commons portion of the website. So, *at this time*, I would have to say "delete" because it simply shows cars on fire. The frame grab itself is not historic or iconic so there really would not be any sort of sourced commentary on this exact frame of video. On the wider concept, the event itself, there is no clear indication of why this exact frame of video best represents the event. Even if sourced commentary says cars were set on fire that is not enough reason to illustrate that - all over the world, cars are often set on fire and burn - it happens when people are protesting something, riots, during a war, sometimes from EIDs and sometimes for no reason at all - as such it is easy to understand by text alone (or by a hyperlink link to a free image if an editor feels the reader cannot understand what a car burning looks like) that cars burn, or were set afire. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think the "Non-free television screenshot" license applys for this image? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: As it stands right now the fact is that, as non-free content, this image fails the policy. Tagging it as a frame grab/screen shot is not going to change that. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a good catch. I didn't know that existed. Even if this particular video isn't there, maybe they have another similar video or photo we could use instead? --B (talk) 18:12, 24 March 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.

File:Aerialdukewest.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free aerial photo of

WP:NFCC #8 - the user's understanding would not be hampered simply by failing to see this photo. B (talk) 12:17, 24 March 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.

File:DukeChapelMorning1.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic photo of the Duke University chapel - a sepia filter has been used to make it appear old for use in History of Duke University. We have plenty of unaltered photos of the chapel. B (talk) 12:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Reh man 01:52, 27 March 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.

File:Horse-and-rider.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC) {{subst:ffdtop"Kept 1 but dramatically reduced the resolution - Peripitus (Talk) 22:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

Both images are non-free derivative works in Horse and Rider (Marini). Neither image has a sufficient fair use rationale. As I see it, there should only be one, and the angles are different, which gives each its own qualities. However, as non-free content, there should only be one, and I believe it best that the community should decide which one to keep and which to get rid of. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

two articles; two images; rationale added. Slowking4 (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So ignoring the FUR, you "solved" the problem by moving one of the images back into Marino Marini (sculptor) where it was previously removed from and where there was already a different (not listed here) non-free image? VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

no, in strict accordance with FU policy, i restored an image to an article where it had been for 2 years, by a sentence of critical commentary. will you now delete the commentary, in order to delete the image? (btw, you might what to check out the copyright vios in this article) Slowking4 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're talking about now. What copyvios in which article? VernoWhitney (talk) 19:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: RE:Slowking4 - I have again removed the image form the article on the artist. If you replace it again you will be issued a vandalism warning. This image is non-free/derivative and there is zero commentary on the statue itself as is required by the policy. There is no policy that states an image that was missed for two years as failing the policy suddenly is grandfathered in, likewise "a sentence of critical commentary" does not count as the required "critical commentary". "The artist also makes statues" does not fulfill the criteria - nor does Marini is particularly famous for his series of stylised

equestrian statues, which feature a man with outstretched arms on a horse. This all ties in to core Wikipedia polices such as reliable sources and being verifiable. The terms most often used are "multiple reliable sources" that would have discussed the specific subject in question. For non-free content it means the required critical commentary is based on those multiple reliable sources discussing the specific non-free material, not a broad general statement. Aside from that "a man with outstretched arms on a horse" does not need a non-free image in order for someone to understand it. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

actually you removed a different image. [1] it is disruptive, and unreasonable, to remove all images from an artist's bio article. it is not "required by policy", rather it is your intrepretation of policy, to provide "transformative" use. "a sentence of critical commentary" does not count as the required "critical commentary" -- what counts? do two sentences count? three? the nebulous "critical commentary" is become "i don't like it". the point about the two years is that you had two years to fix the image problem, and have not. you can roll out all the policy you want, but without an implementation plan, other than breast beating, it might as well not exist. it's not reasonable, to improve articles by deleting images, rather the articles are improved by editing article space, adding rationales and critical commentary. an image certainly adds to my understanding of "a man with outstretched arms on a horse". are you really arguing that it does not? Slowking4 (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I was trying to figure out why this seemed very familiar it is because I commented already on it at another deletion discussion. So I will just cut and past what I said there to here. (RE: File:Marini at the Hirshhorn.jpg) Lets start with what I think we all agree on: The image is free, the statue isn't. So I have marked it as a {{derivative}} and I could see adding {{Non-free 3D art}} and FUR to it as well for use in the Horse and Rider (Marini) article as that article is about the sculpture itself. However that article is already using File:Horse-and-rider.JPG and there isn't a need for two non-free images in the article, as there is not much context for both. Also, per policy we don't allow for a non-free content gallery, which is how this image is being used at the moment. In that regards this image fails a few of the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria - 8. Contextual significance and 9. Restrictions on location. It's use in List of public art in Washington, D.C., Ward 2 is purely for decoration, thus fails policy, so I have removed it from there. As for Marino Marini (sculptor) - the needed "Contextual significance" (or sourced critical commentary) is not there and ,again, simply being used for decoration at this point - so I have also removed it from that article. At this point if a valid reason can be given for use in the Horse and Rider (Marini) article we might be able to retain it. EDIT: To update some since it was first sent to deletion discussion - File:Horse-and-rider.JPG is the only image being used in the Horse and Rider (Marini) article. File:Marini at the Hirshhorn.jpg is not being used and had, once again, been re-added to Marino Marini (sculptor). As I said the firs time there is no sourced commentary at that article, likewise that article in on the person, not the artwork. Sticking it in the "external links" section with a link to the article on the statue does not fulfill the required commentary. Soundvisions1 (talk)
'Comment Since "horse & rider" is a theme of Marini's, a gallery of the different sculptures would be approppriate. ^walk victor falk^talk 10:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If they were free images, sure, but
non-free galleries are "usally unacceptable", so there would have to be some serious sourcing and commentary to justify such a gallery. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:38, 31 March 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Kiev Kurenivka Mudslide Monument 070613.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UNENCYCLOPEDICAL: Pictured is a mock monument of unknown status and location, which was made purposely for

tragedy nor the most visited. 95.133.187.192 (talk) 14:32, 24 March 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.

File:Saddam Hussein on his throne.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough free pictures of Saddam Hussein and nothing on this one is specially visually relevant. Damiens.rf 19:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems like we have plenty of free images. Reh man 01:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, none of those images appear to meet the description "Saddam Hussein on his throne with the
G. ツ 02:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, we don't need separate non-free images of each and every conceivable situation and pose a subject has been in, just because an editor decides it would be nice to have it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As Fut.Perf. pointed out we do not need non free images for a person in various settings to illustrate the person in those various settings. And as Rehman pointed out there are free images that exists of the subject. If it is important to see the flag than there are free images of that as well. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:18, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editors !voting delete, beware of cognitive over-exposure. Yes, it feels there are millions of pictures of Saddam, but really there are only a few that have been endlessly looped 24/7/365. From memory, I can recall the one with him shooting a rifle in the air. The "mother of all battles" speeches before the Kuwait war. A few domestic TV news; some of those are allegedly showing
body doubles. Actually it often went months, if not years between his bona fide public appearances. So his picture was everywhere but you rarely saw him, and only in highly symbolic pauses, highly mediatised yet elusive. This picture, provides a-not-so-common view by an outsider, a western photographer. In fact, according to the notice, it is one of the few pictures of him available between 1991 and 2003; that alone makes it an historic document. From this discussion, you would believe the article was lousy with dozens of copyrighted pictures. In fact it is the only one. ^walk victor falk^talk 15:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- Nothing in what you say here comes even remotely close to being a valid argument under
  WP:NFC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:23, 31 March 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.

File:Fifaalbum.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted per author request. Reh man 01:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sepguilherme (notify | contribs | uploads

).

File is orphan, and its content is useless.

talk) 19:59, 24 March 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.

File:San Jose Mina - Mision cumplida - screen capture.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Kept - confirmed as a PD image Peripitus (Talk) 22:21, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image was nominated for deletion on January 18, where an admin decided for keep. It was then put on deletion review on January 27, because it was clear that the XFD closing admin equally counted votes based-on and ignorant-of our non-free content policy. As the deletion review was going towards a delete (overturn), the idea that the image could be actually free was brought to the table. There were controversy about the free status claim, so an admin decided for declaring the review moot and move the debate for Possible Unfree Images in February 3. That debate determined the image not to be free, and it was thus tagged as non-free again. This bring us to the original XFD/DRV point that the use of this image violates our non-free content policy (specially, item #8). It should be deleted and the closing admin should be careful to avoid similar unintended maneuvers. Damiens.rf 21:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Oh, come on. The image is illustrative to the article and has its rationale for fair use, so? This is yet another moot request, IMHO! And yes, I'm annoyed. --Diego Grez (talk) 21:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the third time in two months that the listing user has nominated this file on several forums. As I mentioned before it is becoming disruptive to have to keep defending this file on various boards and I am beginning to have concerns about
Wikipedia:FORUMSHOP. How many other forums are available and how long can this continue? I am curious to know what "unintended maneuvers" constitutes. Veriss (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment I think the emphasis should be on building a useful and interesting to read article, not merely ticking off the policy points. No one has stated that the image is misleading, non-factual, of poor quality or not useful in some respect. The concerns listed so far are about meeting the letter of the policy. This shouldn't be a policy wrestling match. What this entire exercise is missing is any dialogue on how to improve the article using this image and by extension Wikipedia as a whole. I readily admit that I am not a copyright law or Wikipedia policy expert so would like to learn what needs to be done to the image, the caption or the related text to tie this image more completely into the article so this and future concerns about the image are alleviated. Please inform me here, on my talk page, the article's talk page or elsewhere what constructive steps I/we can take to help rehabilitate it and ensure this image meets policy. I invest my limited time for Wikipedia to edit, not engage in endless bureaucratic infighting. It would be a shame if an image that many editors feel contributes to the article is deleted because I failed to address what to me are minor and less then obvious rules. Educate me, tell me how to fix it and I will - promptly. Sincerely, Veriss (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep low resolution iconic image with fair use rationale. Besides, I also still claim it should have a free license, but that argument isn't for this forum. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Addendum, yay, the image now has a public domain use tag backed up with sourcing statement. The entire rationale for this discussion is moot. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

This is going very like the first XFD, where a lot of editors voted keep without any policy based arguments--Damiens.rf 07:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- I think it's that most people have already made their policy-based arguments multiple times at this point, and so it's probably time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Just saying. Making a slam at a past closing admin as part of your nomination doesn't exactly help your cause, either. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Comment: My reply is going to be long - but it is needed in this case. I wa snot inlvoed in the IfD or the DRV, so I am an outsider looking in. The discussion if the image is "free" or not does not figure into the reasons this fails as "non-free." If the image *is* "free" than the burden of proof is on those who are claiming it is to prove it is and I don't see where that has been done anywhere. Likewise when there is a policy based deletion discussion underway it is the responsibility of those who want the "keep" to establish why the nom is not correct. That is why arguments that make claims that non-free material is "needed" require a lot more informaiton than simply saying an image is "historic" and/or "iconic" therefore it is "needed." There is also a fairly wide misunderstanding of the non-free content policy that simply because an image is of low rez and has a FUR it automatically means it is ok, it is not.

So, in direct discussion of *this* single frame grab I see the nom is based on failing of NFCC 8. And from viewing the first IFD and the DRV I can see a wider issue came into play - but the core concern was still valid and mostly ignored. The first IfD stated the image not really helpful or necessary for the understanding an article about the rescue and I concur with that. One editor asked which Wikipedia policy discounts emotional type information as invalid for protections... after they had voiced a "keep" opinion and backed it up with a quote that The rescue was among the most-watched video streams of all time, according to internet monitors. First, the NFCC policy does *not* base inclusion or exclusion on emotions. One policy that addresses "emotions" is "not censored" - that is in place to prevent an editor from removing or deleting material that is graphic or offensive based solely on emotions. The reverse of that is also true, even if there is not a specifically worded policy for non-free content or images that states it, Wikipedia does not retain material because of editors emotions either. The second part of how this fails the NFCC policy is partly in the quote: The rescue was among the most-watched video streams of all time... The citation given to support a "strong keep" is not discussion any single frame grab, it is discussion of an entire video. That should have set the bar - the entire video vs this single frame. But it didn't, or at least it was ignored.

The DRV actually had more discussion - but, for example, the very first response about endorsing said "If it is an iconic image, it's irreplaceable" - the key word is "if" - and I still have yet to see anything that establishes this one single frame is "iconic". Another didn't raise any issues about the actual discussion, only that the "consensus" was a "keep" so therefore closures was fine. (Again - in a policy based discussion a "consensus" that does not reflect policy does not a "consensus" make - deletion discussions are not in place to rewrite policy. For example a copyvio is still a copyvio so a deletion discussion where "consensus" was to "keep" a copyvio should not be kept simply because "consensus" said so.) The only other "endorse" at the DRV ignored the actual NFCC based nom and said that if it was "likely free content" it should be kept. That should have been ignored all together as it ignores policy *and* the deletion discussion. We do not retain material on an unproven feeling it "might be free" - that is why the concept of burden of proof is needed in these types of deletion discussions. The other two editors who participated, and who voiced the image should be deleted, did not participate in the IfD but were clear - as I am trying to be here. One said Closers of FFDs relating to non-free images are obliged to take policy into account, and a case for this passing NFCC#8 has not been made out and the other said Unlike AFD and notability, there can never be a valid local consensus to ignore the non-free content policy - which is what this amounts to.

So now here we are. A deletion discussion that was based on a policy ended in being kept because of speculation an image might be free and that this image is emotional. Neither are valid reasons for a "keep" in this type of discussion. So far all three of the "keeps" here have used the "it illustrates the article" and "it has a fur" argument. But the discussion is not that is does not have a FUR. (Actually, as this image is being used in two articles right now it is a valid issues as one of them actually does *not* have a FUR). The Nom is not even asking if it illustrate the article - in the first IfD it was established in the nom itself that "It's a wonderful decoration". The only discussion is if this image meets all 10 of the requirement of the related policy. It does not. These is zero proof provided that this single frame gab is iconic and has been the subject of sourced discussion in multiple reliable sources. As there are free images available of the event itself there is no need to have this non-free frame gab to better understand the article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only real argument for deletion here is that the use of the image fails
WP:NFCC#8, which, as a genuinely iconic image of a historical event, it obviously doesn't. Unlike most of the other non-free content criteria, NFCC#8 is rather subjective and can only be determined by consensus. It is not necessary to "prove" that an image is iconic; it is iconic if there is a consensus that it is iconic. Thparkth (talk) 21:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Copied from my talk page:

The rescue images (transmitted by television) were released to the public domain, as stated here. "Además, durante el proceso se mantendrá una de las tónicas de los dos meses de encierro: las imágenes se dan primero a las familias y luego saldrán al dominio público." - "Also, during the process [of rescue] the manner [in which videos were treated] during the two months inside the mine [will be kept]: the images will be given firstly to the families [of the miners] and then they will be released to the public domain." Problem solved, happily. Note, the link I gave above is a totally reliable reference, it's one of the directing organizations regarding mass media in Chile. Cheers, Diego Grez (talk) 14:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully this will solve your problem. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep now, on the basis of the PD claim as referenced by Diego Grez above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 27 March 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.

File:Fukushima I by Digital Globe 2.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this file is not used on the main page anymore so there is no need for a crop. Also, it is taking up the space of the commons pic of higher quality.

Nergaal (talk) 23:01, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete, per nom. Reh man 01:45, 27 March 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.