Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 March 21

< March 20	March 22 >

March 21

File:1911 news story mentioning "bubble gum".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 ⚡ 02:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, very low quality, can't see use :Jay8g

MFIC 02:43, 21 March 2013 (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:1930parkwood.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was: Delete; there's no evidence presented that the photo was published before 1923 as claimed, and if it is an unpublished photo by an unknown author it does not become PD until 2021. Dianna (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, no description so can't see use :Jay8g

MFIC 02:55, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

comment It was used in an early version of Old West End, which since has gone on to use contemporary color images instead. It's not clear that this particular house is part of the NRHP district though the fed sourcing would tend to imply that. It's not a great image so I'm not especially moved to save it, but there's likewise nothing compelling its deletion either. Mangoe (talk) 17:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons acceptable quality, better than needed for thumbnail or gallery view. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:22, 22 March 2013 (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:1946 Vancouver Island earthquake.gif

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 ⚡ 02:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality :Jay8g

MFIC 03:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

delete superseded by File:1946 Vancouver Island Earthquake.png which is still low quality but... Mangoe (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2013 (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:1947 15th AF OC.gif

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; the version on the Commons is not rendering correctly on all displays. Dianna (talk) 16:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, duplicate to higher quality (commons)

MFIC 03:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment the SVG appears to be broken (or atleast the view of the rasterized image used for the file page), text is spilling outside of the boxes -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On my computer the image looks fine, and does not have the problems you mentioned.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:25, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you looking at the SVG full image, or the MediaWiki rasterized image? The rasterized PNG image is available from http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/15th_air_force_orgchart.svg/424px-15th_air_force_orgchart.svg.png and clearly shows the artifacts of incorrect rendering. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Move to commons rasterization of the SVG version is broken [1]. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:06, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't this be built using wikicoding? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:23, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this version of the file displayed quicker on my computer than the SVG version. I found the behaviour of the SVG version on displaying a little alarming, suggesting that some sort of program was being run. Note that some users have reported problems with their computers misinterpretting the SVG version. Having the GIF version is low-risk, and I see no reason to delete it.

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:BrianFiddle.gif

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no notion of who this person is B (talk) 03:35, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Nothing in the uploader's history suggests a possible use for the image, and as B says there's no identification given. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2013 (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:Firstfootballgame.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 as fair use for the new article about the painting itself. Dianna (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A painting of the first football game. The first football game was played in 1869 and the painting was made in 1968. It is used in a whopping five articles, none of which are articles about the painting itself or about the artist. In

1869 New Jersey vs. Rutgers football game, it is used in infoboxes and neither article mentions the painting nor even tells the user that it is a painting. In the other three articles, it is used in a history section near where the first college football game is discussed, but the painting is never discussed in text - we're simply using it as if it were free clip art of the game (i.e., decoratively). B (talk) 03:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep the fair use rationale makes sense and is clear. If a freely-available version were available, I'd go with that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Paul McDonald (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree with Paul. We're not likely to find another one of these.
Strikeout (T • C • AAPT) 14:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
- Replaceability has nothing to do with my nomination. The question is whether seeing this image significantly increases your understanding of the topic and its exclusion would be detrimental to that understanding. For crying out loud, in two of the articles, it is used in an infobox. Surely you don't think that's essential. When we're talking about a logo of a company or a photo of the person, we put those in infoboxes because it helps you identify what/who we're talking about. Is this painting so iconic that sticking it in infobox makes you say, "oh, THAT first football game"? This isn't a vote and unless you can explain how this image significantly enhances the user's understanding of these topics and how its removal would be detrimental to that understanding, it's going to be deleted. The fact that none of these articles even mentions the painting in text makes it seem pretty unlikely that it's very important. --B (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The image significantly enhances the articles as outlined in the fair use rationale for each application on the image page. Since the image depicts the nature of this first game (number of players, lack of safety equipment, etc) it's safe to say that the image shows what the first football game was most likely like. There are no other images available of the game. No photos. No sketches. And this is a low-resolution version of the original and it is in black and white instead of color. Its use in the infoboxes is certainly helpful by enhancing the quality of the article and helping readers to know that they have arrived at a page on "American" football and not "soccer" among other things. I can find no policy violation here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Umm ... this is an artist's rendition of the game 100 years after the fact. How does it show you what the game looked like any more than a painting of Jesus shows you what He looked like? And if the only reason to use it infoboxes is to explain that this is American football, you could stick a picture of a football in the infobox to accomplish the same thing ... or have a disambiguation link a the top of the page. In order for fair use to be legitimate, the use has to be
    transformative. In other words, you're adding something to the original work (like your own commentary or analysis), not simply appropriating it. If the text of the article doesn't even acknowledge that the painting is there, it seems rather hard to call the use transformative. --B (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    - What policy? Is there a speciific Wikipedia policy (or even a guideline) that is being violated here?--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Please see
        WP:NFCC #8 is the only policy in question in my nomination. --B (talk) 19:08, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Also, please see
        WP:NFC#UUI numbers 3, 5, 7, 8, which are all hinting at this kind of thing. We're trying to use this painting as free stock artwork (not okay) as opposed to using it to illustrate an article or section about the painting itself (okay). --B (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Thanks. I can argue that it clears the hurdle "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." The image clearly depicts what typical gameplay in that first game was like and removing the image would alter the significance of the differences between American football as it is played today (with ample pads, organized plays, 11 men per side, and ... well... rules) as compared to the season of 1869, the first game played, etc. It also is very useful and adds to the articles on football history and the Rutgers program. And it does so like no other avaialable image can ever do--freely available or not. I'll have to look at numbers 3, 5, and 7 to get back on those.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        But it really doesn't show you any of those things. It shows you an artist's depiction of those things 100 years after the fact. It would be like using a scene from
        Invasion of Normandy? That's essentially what we're doing here. If the article contained a sourced discussion/analysis of the painting then this would be a different story ... but we're really just using it as free stock photography. --B (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        Not at all. We have a wide selection of photos from Normandy Beach that are available for use, many are in the public domain--and some of those public domain photos are excellent. It's more like the article David where we don't have a photo of King David who lived 1040–970 BCE. Instead, we have a photo of a statue of him that was made by Nicolas Cordier who lived 1567–1612. So it's safe to say he never actually saw David either.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        But the important difference is, that statue is in the public domain. Suppose, for the sake of argument, that nobody had ever set out to depict King David until 1968. Then in 1968, someone creates a statue of what they think he might have looked like. That would be analogous to the situation here - unless the statue was discussed in the article, we could not use it. Decorative use of public domain (or GFDL, Creative Commons, etc) images is perfectly okay - that's why we're on solid footing with depictions of David, Jesus, Mary, etc. Decorative use of restrictively copyrighted images is not okay. --B (talk) 21:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Find a picture in public domain and we should use it. But until then, the fair use practice applies.--Paul McDonald (talk) 00:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        But replaceability isn't the only question. The question is whether having a painting of the game (or a modern depiction of King David in our analogy) significantly enhances the user's understanding of the subjects of the five respective articles. When we include a fair use photo of, say, Frank Loria, the photo actually depicts him, not just what an artist thinks he might have looked like. There's a substantial benefit to the user in having a photo of the actual person, the actual event, etc. But an interpretive painting does not give you that same benefit - it's purely decorative unless your purpose is to discuss the painting itself. --B (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete - the use is obviously decorative. the image is not used to convey any relevant unique graphic information. --damiens.rf 16:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The painter obviously wasn't there during the game, so there is no evidence that the game looked like that. A painting by a random Wikipedia contributor would probably be just as accurate and encyclopædic as this painting. As there is no evidence that the image actually shows what the game looked like, the image fails
Stefan2 (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

While I disagree with the interpretation, these are all reasons to remove the image from the articles in question but NOT reasons to remove the image file itself. I intend to shortly set up an article titled The First Game and research the image itself. Then it should remain.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Obviously, that use of it is fine for fair use (assuming that the article meets notability requirements, etc). I would suggest, though, trying to find a faithful image (in this case, meaning color) for that that article. http://www.thefirstgame.com/The%20First%20Game/index.htm is the best one I have seen. --B (talk) 14:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, the image looks appropriate in an article about the painting. However, it shouldn't be in any of the other articles if the painting is still protected by copyright.

It seems that this is an American painting. It is always a bit tricky to determine the copyright status of such paintings. If it was exhibited on a museum open to the general public without a copyright notice before 1978, then the painting is in the public domain if the museum allowed photography, but not if the museum didn't allow photography. For this reason, there is a possibility that the painting is in the public domain, but this would require someone to research the exhibition history of the painting and finding out whether a given museum permitted photography at a specific point in the past or whether there was a copyright notice in the vicinity of the painting, and such information is often hard to find. This is usually easier to prove for outdoors artworks (since you can't prevent photography in a public park) and harder to prove for indoors artworks. See

Stefan2 (talk) 15:21, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete per nom. This is a) under copyright and b) purely decorative, as the work is not a documentation of the event, it's an artists interpretation of it, made some 100 years after the event itself. IF this was a contemporaneous drawing, made by a person at the event, then it may have some documentary value, it would be like non-free photographs of unique events that cannot be duplicated (also, if it had been made in 1869, it would be in the public domain, but I digress). This picture, however, serves no purpose for which a free alternative could not be created. That is, if someone today (for example, any of you arguing for keep) wanted to create a brand new, wholly original drawing of the game, and agree to properly license the image for use at Wikipedia, that would be exactly equivalent to this image, and would be free to use. Since the possibility of doing that exists, this image cannot also exist at Wikipedia. It's that simple. --Jayron32 19:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You've never seen me draw! I am okay with the new article The First Game being the only place to display the image but I am against removal of the image completely.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:10, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This black and white picture is a bit pointless - the only things that can usefully be illustrated by the painting, you can only see in colour versions. The picture is copyrighted. The fair use claim is mistaken.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:17, 23 March 2013 (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:Peer Syed Mohammad Irshad Hussain Shah.(R.A)(Hafiz Jee Sarkar).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 as

F5 by James086 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Copyright photo of poster. Claim of fair use does not stand up, as there are two other photos of the subject and one of a relative on the article Peer Syed Saeed ul Hassan Shah. --Toddy1 (talk) 08:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The poster shows three people:

Syed Saeed-ul-Hassan, who is a living Pakistani politician. The Wikipedia article has two other photos of him. So the justification of fair use given cannot apply to that element of the poster.
Syed Irshad Hussain, who was Syed Saeed-ul-Hassan's father. He was also known as Hafiz Jee Sarkar, and died in 1997. There is no article about this man. And in any case, Wikipedia already has an image of this man File:Peer_Irshad_Hussain_reading_Namaz.jpg.
Syed Mohammad Charagh Ali, who was Syed Saeed-ul-Hassan's grandfather. As with the father, there is no article about him. If there were an article about the grandfather, then in my opinion, it might be justified to cut an image of him from the poster and use it. This photo of the grandfather's face is used on Syed Saeed-ul-Hassan's official Facebook page, so there is a potential route to getting permission in case of need.

--Toddy1 (talk) 09:19, 23 March 2013 (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:SlideWiki Logo.svg

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned malformed logo - there is a correct version at File:SlideWiki logo.png B (talk) 12:35, 21 March 2013 (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:Aj weberman dylan book cover.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 ⚡ 07:03, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stefan2 (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

That's reasonable. I uploaded the pic, but on consideration I think it's purely decorative. A full article about the book itself is unlikely. Herostratus (talk) 14:45, 21 March 2013 (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:Snoz Logo, from Snoz, snoz.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: Procedural close another deletion process, by another user, was commenced just prior to me adding this. Safiel (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File was uploaded for use on a promotional article, which has since been deleted. Safiel (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2013 (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:Hardy Williams.gif

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; image meets current fair-use guidelines. Dianna (talk) 01:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this guy was a politician, there may be PD pics of him around. maybe this one, or may it's the case that this file is already PD (we need better source information). damiens.rf 16:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

keep for now. He was never a fed-level politician so there's not much of a reason to presume there's a fed (and therefore PD) picture out there. The fair-use rationale seems adequate. Mangoe (talk) 17:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- He died in 2010. My personal view (admittedly more restrictive than the current policy) is that we should have a hard cutoff for fair use photos for people who were alive during the age of digital cameras and certainly people who were public figures during the age of digital cameras. He left office in 1998 and died in 2010 ... okay 1998 is before digital cameras became omnipresent so I have some sympathy here ... but the question of replaceability isn't just whether there might be a public domain photo already in existence - it's whether we could reasonably expect to obtain one. Is it reasonable to expect that, given time, we might locate someone who has a photo of him that they took at a campaign rally or some such occasion and that this person might be willing to publish their photo under an acceptable license? I don't know the answer, but I know that if we use a fair use photo, then there is absolutely zero chance we will ever locate such a person. --B (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Really, there's near-zero chance of getting someone's old candid, digital or not. A lack of image isn't going to bump that chance up significantly, and the difference between absolutely zero and near-zero is not enough to get us into "reasonable" territory. We're far more likely to be able to persuade these state governments to release their file photos with licensing that makes them useful to us. I do agree that the presence of a picture will probably keep us from getting something donated; but I also think the expectation that there is something out there to be donated is usually unreasonable. I'll check up on old discussions but it seems to me that the issue needs to be considered in the large. Mangoe (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - Has there been any request for comment or some other kind of discussion about when we might reasonably expect there to be free images of a dead person? It is obvious that something is replaceable if I can link to a copy of a freely licensed image, but there are other cases when it is not as obvious. Apart from the issue with recently deceased people, there is also the issue with people who died a long time ago. In many cases, you could perhaps reasonably expect there to be photos of the person in newspapers published before 1923. I have tagged images as replaceable on a few occasions after locating newspaper photos, but it is hard to search through lots of newspapers. Google News Archive lacks a lot of newspapers, for example all non-English newspapers. --
      Stefan2 (talk) 19:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      - I don't know that there is any definition of "not replaceable". We all accept that living people who are not permanently in hiding / incarcerated / hermits are "replaceable", but the reverse of that isn't really established. People who died a long time ago, I'm more sympathetic about, particularly if they were not public figures. My bigger beef is when we slap a fair use tag on it the day someone dies and proclaim no free photo will ever be received. --B (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm less interested in an old candid and, as much as I wish that state governments were persuadable on licensing, they probably are not in most cases. But he has family, his party would have high quality photos, and his campaign probably has some sort of successor organization that inherited their IP. I'm not suggesting we should trawl for stalker-type photos of the guy walking down the street, but I'm just not satisfied with "he's dead, let's upload a fair use photo now" either. For example, when Dr. Falwell passed away, I emailed his church and they put me in touch with someone from Liberty University and they provided us with a high quality photo of him licensed under the GFDL. As long as we're willing to settle with fair use photos, we're never going to get anything like this. --B (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2013 (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:Edward Lee "Bennie" Bedwell in police custody 01-1957.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Knowing what the murderer looks like doesn't help understanding the murder. Fails

Stefan2 (talk) 16:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Doubt you even read article then. User:KKosiewicz 16:48, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) According to the article, he wasn't the murderer - he was a suspect in the murder, which remains unsolved to this day - and his allegedly bearing "some resemblance to Elvis Presley" was a significant factor in his arrest. Even though I think it is legitimate fair use, I am inclined to opine delete or recaption for BLP reasons - if he is still alive (he would be 76 and BLP says that anyone under 115 is presumed to be alive unless there is a reliable source for their death), then sticking his photo there with that caption can lead someone casually browsing to make the same mistake you did. --B (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete Maybe the article isn't presenting this well, but I don't see any indication that the supposed resemblance had any bearing in his arrest. If the photo itself had some historic significance I would be more inclined to let this pass, but the BLP issue and the lack of resolution to his status leads me to push for deletion. Mangoe (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2013 (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:Satanic pentagram white house.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 as

F9 by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Unused image which is an extract from Google Earth. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deleted as an obvious copyright violation. Probably as part of a conspiracy to silence The Truth (tm). --B (talk) 18:44, 21 March 2013 (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:15 years SSLC progress card.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 as

F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Violates

Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 21 March 2013 (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:MultipleChoice more.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: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, depiction of checkboxes that seems unlikely to have an encyclopedic use B (talk) 22:15, 21 March 2013 (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:1976 Don Biederman.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a collage of two non-free images, but only the top one is needed. The bottom one should be deleted per

Stefan2 (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I have cropped out the bottom portion of the image and deleted the old revision, so the above should be satisfied and I believe this discussion can be closed. (Next time, please feel free to ping me on my talk page with concerns such as this, as this could have easily been resolved without FfD.

) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is still a problem (related to

WP:NFC#UUI #7 forbids using press agency photos unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary. For that matter, I did a Google search and found [2]. He credits "Rod McLeod of KDM Racesports" for most of his photos. Rod McLeod has a Picasa site and a Facebook page (I'm assuming that these are the same guy - how many Rod McLeods can there be?) It couldn't hurt to try and contact him and ask him if he has a photo of Don Biederman that he owns the copyright to and would be willing to contribute under an acceptable license. If we just settle with using a fair use image then there is zero chance that someone is going to take the time/effort to do that. If we have a fair use image on the page, then there is zero chance that a copyright holder is going to say yes. (Why should they publish anything under the Creative Commons license if we're willing to accept the image without it?) This is the problem with proclaiming, "He's dead, Jim" and slapping a fair use tag on it. --B (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

The source goes directly to the image, so it's not possible to tell where it comes from or whether it satisfies

Stefan2 (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2013 (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.