Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 July 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 19 July 21 >

July 20[edit]

File:GordonParksLife10231970.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GordonParksLife10231970.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SteveHopson (notify | contribs).
  • There are already other images (including some free ones) being used to illustrate this photographer's style. Since this one is non-free and not specially discussed, it should be removed from the article. (PLESE, don't rush-edit the article to add some stuff about the image so that it don't get deleted.) Damiens.rf 02:23, 20 July 2009 (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:Sports Illustrated January 29, 1968, UH UCLA.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sports Illustrated January 29, 1968, UH UCLA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brianreading (notify | contribs).
  • Copyrighted magazine cover with a nice photo of a notable basketball moment, being used to illustrate the article about that basketball moment. The magazine itself is not notable and is not discussed in the article. Damiens.rf 02:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've added some context for the magazine cover in the article. Does this suffice? Does that need to be expanded? Brian Reading (talk) 10:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm affraid not. I don't think this edit establishes any notability for this cover story, nor does it asks for an illustration in order to be understood. --Damiens.rf 17:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please explain how the image would be properly used in this article. The magazine itself is notable, so I don't quite understand your premise of non-notability. Brian Reading (talk) 19:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see how this image could be properly used in this article. What makes the magazine itself notable and how does it makes this cover-image necessary for this article? --Damiens.rf 21:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Image is adding nothing- it illustrates the unimportant an uncited line that "The January 1968 cover of Sports Illustrated depicted the game with Houston's Elvin Hayes shooting over UCLA's Lew Alcindor." and I can see no way that this significantly increases reader understanding of the topic, as per non-free content criterion 8. J Milburn (talk) 21:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I guess the image is worthless. Being featured on a Sports Illustrated cover is nothing notable according to the previous posters. Brian Reading (talk) 19:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would say it may be notable, but it's still not the kind of information that requires an visual aid. If I tell you my aunt was featured on a Sports Illustrated cover, you pretty much get the point that my aunt was featured on a Sports Illustrated cover. You don't have to see the actual cover to understand that my aunt was featured on a Sports Illustrated cover. You don't need this visual aid to understand something so simple as the fact that my aunt was featured on a Sports Illustrated cover. Seeing the cover will give you no better understanding of the information that my aunt was featured on a Sports Illustrated cover. And our non-free content criteria asks us to reserve the use of copyright protected images for the cases where a visual aid is needed. --Damiens.rf 21:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, would using a non-free image that illustrated the game that WASN'T a magazine cover be acceptable? Brian Reading (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Noooo.... no non-free image would be acceptable as an illustration where an illustration isn't called for. --Damiens.rf 23:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This image has been deleted before, in November 2007 as "File:Elvin vs lew SI cover.jpg". A Sports Illustrated cover is a non-free image. This article needs an illustration, but only someone's personal photo might suffice here. Group29 (talk) 00:36, 23 July 2009 (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:SI Swimsuit Cover 2005 Carolyn Murphy.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SI Swimsuit Cover 2005 Carolyn Murphy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).
  • We don't need to show this non-free magazine cover to make the reader understand that the body-paint work of Joanne Gair was once used as a small inset on the top-left corner of an Sports Illustrated cover. Damiens.rf 02:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not useful in its current only use. J Milburn (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per analysis by nom. Ty 00:15, 24 July 2009 (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:2006 German Sports Illustrated Cover.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep, pending consensus to the contrary being developed elsewhere Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2006 German Sports Illustrated Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).
  • We don't need to use one non-free Sports Illustrated magazine cover to explain the readers that Joanne Gair's body-painting work has appeared as the main cover photo in various years of the German edition of Sports Illustrated. This is the king of information that we can convey with text alone. Damiens.rf 02:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gair is an artist and like all contemporary artists some limited examples of their work must be included under fair use. I do not understand your argument, but if one Sports Illustrated cover image should be saved it should be this one. Her Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is among her most famous work. The article would be incomplete without at least one example.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article has plenty of examples of his work (and most go undiscussed). --Damiens.rf 04:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You clearly have not read the article if you do not know the artist is a female. The Sports Illustrated work is one of the three defining works she has done. There is no other Sports Illustrated image if you remove this one. I will concede removing the other Sports Illustrated image, if this one is kept.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 12:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A discussion is taking place at Talk:Joanne_Gair#Fair_use_images to reduce the number of NFC images and determine which are valid for the article. It makes sense to reach a consensus there, and then to delete those agreed as non-essential, rather than to hold the debate over this image in isolation. There is a case made that it may be needed, but there is as yet no conclusion. So I would say "keep" for the time being, so it can be evaluated properly in context. Ty 00:22, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this is also an important and notable example of her work and should be kept...Modernist (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful contrast to the other two images, to show the range of her work. These three images seem about right to me, to give a good understanding of her work without excessive use of WP:NFC -- Jheald (talk) 12:40, 28 July 2009 (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:Disappearing Model.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Disappearing Model.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger (notify | contribs).
  • Copyright holder no identified (the photographer, not the painter). Source given is just a blog. Damiens.rf 02:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, clearly useful in the article about the work of art itself. No opinion on the other use at this time, but the file does not need to be deleted. J Milburn (talk) 21:14, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per J Milburn and proper image acknowledgement now made. Ty 00:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Important work by the artist, that needs to be seen to be understood...Modernist (talk) 01:36, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Image of the artwork in the article on the artwork. Jheald (talk) 12:36, 28 July 2009 (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:2BirdsSICover.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2BirdsSICover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Smallbones (notify | contribs).
  • Cool non-free magazine cover being used just because it's cool. The cover image is not notable and is not discussed, the the image's role on the article is just to serve as a nice illustration of the guy on the cover. Damiens.rf 02:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The cover image is notable and is discussed in the article: "Teams started asking Detroit to change its pitching rotation so Fidrych could pitch in their ballparks, and he appeared on the cover of numerous magazines, such as Sports Illustrated (twice, including once with Sesame Street character Big Bird), The Sporting News, and became the first athlete to appear on the cover of Rolling Stone." This illustrates "Bird-mania" where Fidrych was the talk of the Baseball and even the non-Baseball world. I had originally placed the pix in the section with this quote, but it has now been moved to the info box - I'm not against moving it back. Note that I removed this picture from 2009 in Baseball [1] because I didn't believe that it was fair-use there. Smallbones (talk) 04:09, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The image certainly should not be used in the infobox- I have removed it from the article. The use is more legitimate further down, but I don't really think the image is needed- yes, it's mentioned, but readers do not have any pressing need to know what the cover looks like, and nor do I really see how it significantly increases the understanding of the subject. I accept that this is not a hideous violation (and applaud your removal from the other article), but I do feel it is still a violation. J Milburn (talk) 21:18, 20 July 2009 (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:RT1957.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RT1957.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zir (notify | contribs).
  • This is a non-free magazine cover showing a guy on a tv program, being used to illustrate the article about the guy and the article about the tv program. The cover image itself is not notable and as such, is not discussed. We're just using it because we happen to need the same illustration they once needed. Our use is not transformative. Damiens.rf 02:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the "guy on a TV program" is Richard Dimbleby, the BBC's leading news commentator during the 1950s & 60s, of whom there are few copyright-free stills. The "tv program" is Panorama - the longest-running current affairs documentary TV series in the world. The former is credited with establishing the latter and this RT cover clearly links the two.Zir (talk) 08:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please read the nomination. I'm not arguing the image is useful. --Damiens.rf 17:32, 26 July 2009 (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:RT1958.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RT1958.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zir (notify | contribs).
  • This is a non-free magazine cover showing a guy on a tv program, being used to illustrate the article about the guy and the article about the tv program. The cover image itself is not notable and as such, is not discussed. We're just using it because we happen to need the same illustration they once needed. Our use is not transformative. Damiens.rf 02:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the "guy on a TV program" is Cliff Michelmore, synonymous with the "tv program" Tonight - and this cover shows the Viking studio where the show started in 1957, making this a very rare publicity still. The former presented the latter throughout its eight year run - this RT cover clearly links the two.Zir (talk) 08:54, 24 July 2009 (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:RTFeb1966.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTFeb1966.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The Man From Auntie (notify | contribs).
  • This is a non-free magazine cover showing a guy on a tv program, being used to illustrate the article about the guy and the article about the tv program. The cover image itself is not notable and as such, is not discussed. We're just using it because we happen to need the same illustration they once needed. Our use is not transformative. Damiens.rf 02:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the "guy on a tv program" is Cliff Michelmore, one of the presenters of the "tv program" 24 Hours during its seven year run - this RT cover clearly links the two.Zir (talk) 09:01, 24 July 2009 (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:Sellers4.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sellers4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 75pickup (notify | contribs).
  • There are many free alternatives images to illustrate Peter Sellers, since some of his movies are in the public domain (like this one). Damiens.rf 03:02, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replaceable fair use. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2009 (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:Golden Slippers 5.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golden Slippers 5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wandadollgirl (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use B (talk) 04:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. Doing a search for "Wandan Bohon", the name listed in the description of the file yields no results. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:17, 21 July 2009 (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:Queen Wanda frame Polish .jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Queen Wanda frame Polish .jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wandadollgirl (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, unenclopedic B (talk) 04:32, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Low quality, unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:18, 21 July 2009 (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:Ycf program cover.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ycf program cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dudesleeper (notify | contribs).
  • This image is not really adding anything to the article as per non-free content criterion 8, and lacks a real rationale. J Milburn (talk) 12:04, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A fair-use explanation was requested and given, so now it's time to motion for its deletion? Not interested in playing games. - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As an aside, is it commonplace for the image-deletion template to replace the image's caption, as was the case here? - Dudesleeper / Talk 22:56, 21 July 2009 (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:11th Doctor.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Nomination withdrawn. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:11th Doctor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Etron81 (notify | contribs).
  • Character is already identified by a publicity shot. This image adds nothing to the article. J Milburn (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The previous picture was not Matt Smith in costume as the Doctor - this new picture is. I would argue that the other one should be removed from the article.
  • Keep my initial misgiving about using the (for lack of better term) "goth" image of Matt Smith when he was first announced as the Doctor was that it was not confirmed if the goth look was going to be his official character's outfit, and thus using that and inferring it as the Doctor would be inappropriate (there was neither confirmation at the time it was the official outfit - it was only an official publicity shot - thus there was no reason why a free image of Matt Smith could be used at that time). Now that this image which is officially of the actor in his Doctor outfit exists, it should be kept (rationale improved of course) as a much better and relevant picture for the Doctor-related articles. Mind you, the image is a tad candid, and until more images in character come up, this is the best way to show "the 11th Doctor" as opposed to "Matt Smith who plays the 11th Doctor". --MASEM (t) 14:34, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then, surely, the "goth" image should be removed? J Milburn (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Absolutely. This image should replace all uses of the "goth" image because it otherwise is a non-free pic of a living actor in no particular role, which is a no-no; it was claimed to be justified at the time as it was a BBC-endorsed picture of Smith for Doctor Who, some claiming that to be how the BBC is representing the Doctor. Obviously no longer the case. --MASEM (t) 15:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great; orphan the "goth" image and ensure the rationale(s) on this one is/are sound (a lot of what is said here will fit in nicely) and I'll be happy to withdraw this nomination. J Milburn (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2009 (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:Colorculdesac.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Most of nominator's original objections no longer apply, and no additional arguments have been raised in more than two weeeks. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colorculdesac.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pepso2 (notify | contribs).
  • Image is redundant as the cartoonist's style is already illustrated by another image in the article. This particular strip is not discussed to the extent that an image is required, and this (very large) images adds nothing to the article. J Milburn (talk) 14:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Image no longer redundant as it is now the only image on that page. More material has been added about the comic strip. Image has been reduced yet again (for the fourth time). Page looks great. Thanks for your help! Pepso2 (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2009 (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:Town of Marettimo.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn/Kept. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 01:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Town of Marettimo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JMHannigan (notify | contribs).

*Delete: orphaned duplicate of File:Town of Marettimo Casa Romana.jpg. Withdraw deletion: that solution works for me. ww2censor (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2009 (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:Qxz-ad187.gif[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Qxz-ad187.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Neftchi (notify | contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:BUSINESSWEEK 01MAY06 COVER.gif[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BUSINESSWEEK 01MAY06 COVER.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Steven Andrew Miller (notify | contribs).
  • We don't have to show a non-free Busines Week magazine cover image with Anshe Chung to make the point that she was covered magazine. We should be able to illustrate Anshe Chung without using Business Week work, (or advertising it). Damiens.rf 23:03, 20 July 2009 (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:BWcover92198.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BWcover92198.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Smallbones (notify | contribs).
  • We don't need to show this non-free Business Week magazine cover image (or any other non-free image) to make the reader understand "the seriousness of LTCM's financial problems". The cover image is not notable and, as expected, non covered in the article. Damiens.rf 23:06, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not terribly familiar with how far Wikipedia's WP:FAIRUSE currently exceeds the actual legal doctrine of Fair Use and I don't have that strong of feelings about these things, but I'll note a few points: The media coverage of LTCM is actually quite significant as it was really the first time that the world of derivatives and hedge funds and the entire shadow banking system entered the main stream. Thus the cover is a bit more historic and relevant than the WP:FAIRUSE rationale and the article currently suggest ie it may be preferable to improve the article and WP:FAIRUSE rationale rather than do away with it entirely. Another consideration is the much discussed magazine cover effect for the subjects of the major business magazines. Here's Paul Krugman[2] or the WSJ[3] and it's just generally a favorite topic for dissection among observers of finance[4][5]. --JayHenry (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the cover of the magazine is not in any way important to understanding the article. J Milburn (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2009 (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:EIIR-different.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:EIIR-different.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by G2bambino (notify | contribs).
  • Combination of copyrighted images. Although simple, this image is a derivative work of copyright-protected images, what's not allowed. Also, I'm not convinced we need non-free images to explain the concept of Head of state or to talk about the Monarchy of Canada. Damiens.rf 23:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It evidently is a physical illustration of the concept of personal union, which the Commonwealth realms (at the moment) uniquely are. And, looking at exactly where the image is presently placed, it is used for just such a purpose; it's included in Commonwealth realm, the section of Monarchy of Canada that explains the shared nature of the institution, and at Head of state in the area that covers, well, persons who are head of more than one state. If the three images are usable on their own, I don't see at all why the same three side-by-side is of any particular issue. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per above and unless it's absolutely certain that this is not allowed by copyright. --~Knowzilla (Talk) 07:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Elizabeth is the queen of all of these nations whether she's in a non-free image or a free one. We have free images of her, some very high quality, so they should be used. Exactly what do you feel that these images are illustrating that needs to be illustrated so urgently? J Milburn (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails the following policies
    • WP:NFCC#1 - we have perfectly good free images of the Queen
    • WP:NFCC#3a - three simimlar images are clearly not minimal use
    • WP:NFCC#8 (significance) the three images do not increase the reader's understanding over any single one. Black Kite 12:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per the clear violations of WP:NFC listed by Black Kite. --Izno (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As it is the state-specific symbols and insignia that are the key to the purpose of this image, to those who say to delete it because free ones of the subject already exist, I challenge them to find three or more free images showing the Queen wearing different state-specific insignia. If they can't fulfill this request, then their reasoning for deletion is rendered invalid. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 15:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not at all. Unless the three images are all required to significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject in a way that could not be done without the images, then they clearly fail WP:NFCC. It can be explained (and indeed, is explained) in the articles that the Queen is the head of state of these differing countries and does not need the images for the reader to understand that. There may be a case for including each individual item in its own article (Monarchy of New Zealand, Monarchy of Canada, and Monarchy of the United Kingdom) - indeed Monarchy of Canada already does - but there can be no justification for including three non-free images in multiple articles that are not specifically about that topic. Black Kite 16:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • By that argument, though, no non-free images would ever be allowed, as everything can be described with words. Of course, non-free images are sometimes permitted, likely as illustrations can augment, and thus decrease the need for, verbiage - a picture's worth a thousand words, to use the cliché. These particular non-free images together illustrate how one person can be three different heads of state. If the file is maybe used in one article too many, well, that's a different issue that can be resolved without deleting the picture all-together. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that the picture is three copyrighted images in one, and thus three non-free uses. As I said, the individual images would be much easier to justify - this one can't really be in its present usage. Incidentally, the above does not mean that non-free images are never allowed - clearly an image is sometimes very preferable to text - but they still need to pass all 10 tenets of WP:NFCC, and this one (or these three) doesn't. Black Kite 19:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've said they don't pass WP:NFCC, but, from the three points you highlighted, I fail to see why not. There are no free images of the Queen wearing the insignia of her different state orders, and one portrait alone does not illustrate how one person acts as three different heads of state; it takes the three images to do so. That could be done with three separate files arranged side by side in an article; but why would that be allowed and one image made of three is not? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the point is that the articles don't need the images for the reader to understand the text. The image is used in three articles; in Head of state and Commonwealth realm it is not necessary to use three non-free images merely to transmit the fact that the Queen is head of state of three different countries (these are occurences where text would be perfectly sufficient - WP:NFCC#1), and in Monarchy of Canada only the single image of the Canadian regalia is required. We should only be using non-free images where there is no other method of significantly increasing the reader's understanding of the article(s) (WP:NFCC#8). Black Kite 21:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I apologize for repeating myself, but that takes me back to the point I made about not needing images at all, as text is ultimately sufficient to describe everything. This particular image can be removed from Monarchy of Canada, I suppose, as the shared nature of thec Crown is not the main focus of that article. But, for Commonwealth realm and Head of state, it amply illustrates an intangible concept through physical representation. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 01:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is "The Queen is the head of State of Canada and New Zealand as well as the UK" an intangible concept? Sorry, I don't understand that. Black Kite 11:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal union and the legal divisions between the different roles are intangible. Those concepts can, and are, outlined using text, but this image illustrates nicely what the words are saying; the Queen is wearing different insignia and posing for different portraits for the exact purpose of physically symbolizing the idea that she is different heads of state. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Those concepts can, and are, outlined using text, but this image illustrates nicely what the words are saying" - in other words, the usage is purely illustrative, thus failing NFCC#8. This really isn't the main point, though - the image is clearly replaceable anyway. Black Kite 17:49, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What illustration isn't illustrative? And what is this image replacable with? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 22:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not allow illustrative non-free images that can be replaced by text. I think we've pretty much worked out that that is the case. Also, since the Queen is still alive, a free image of her with the regalia is possible - see WP:NFC - "Pictures of people still alive, groups still active, and buildings still standing; provided that taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image.". Black Kite 00:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, perhaps I just can't see where Wikipedia uses non-free images in place of text; every fair-use image I've ever seen in this project has accompanied related prose. Further, the Queen wears state regalia to formal state functions, to which the general public is not invited and where guests will not be snapping pics of the Queen on their mobile phones; free images are thus not available. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 03:41, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (indenting). OK, this seems to be going round in circles, so I'll just sum up instead. This image fails our non-free policies in at least four ways.
    • (1) It is very clear that this image isn't necessary for the reader to understand the concept of "the Queen being head of state for more than one country". That's not an abstract concept and doesn't need an image to illustrate it. Failure of WP:NFCC#1 (replaceability with text).
    • (2) Since there are free images available of the Queen (i.e. this,this), then per WP:NFC such photos are possible to obtain. That is therefore a second failure of WP:NFCC#1 as the image is deemed replaceable by a free one.
    • (3) The image is in fact three non-free images merged together, and is therefore three uses of non-free images every time it is used. Unless it can be justified that all three non-free uses are necessary every time this image is used (which it hasn't been so far), then this is a failure of WP:NFCC#3a - overuse.
    • (4) Because the image isn't necessary for the reader to understand that the Queen can be head of more than one state, the image also fails WP:NFCC#8 (significance).

Black Kite 11:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, you've found one usable free image (I did search Commons, so I don't know how I missed it): the second one, in which the Queen wearing, I believe, her insignia for the Order of the Garter; the first shows her wearing the insignia of the Order of the Southern Cross (a Brazilian honour), and so isn't usable in this context. Unlike the American and Brazilian governments, however, Canada and New Zealand images of the Queen at state functions are under their respective Crown copyrights; so, no free files of Elizabeth in her Canadian and NZ state regalia. If the non-free British segment of File:EIIR-different.jpg is replaced with a cropped File:Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace, 07 Mar 2006.jpeg, I believe ample justification has already been given for the use of the other two non-free images on two articles. They can either be included on those pages together in one file, or arranged as two separate files side-by-side; save for graphics and some extra work, I don't see much of a difference. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have to agree with Black Kite on all points; I can find no case for keeping this montaged-image anywhere on WP; the individual photos on specific country commonwealth pages, yes, but not all three together in a single image. --MASEM (t) 12:04, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nice comparative montage, but I don't see that it adds any significant understanding of the topic of either Commonwealth realm, Monarchy of Canada or Head of state. -- Jheald (talk) 12:48, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Derivative work; also per above, as the combo pic is pretty small and honestly doesn't help me much, and it doesn't seem crucial to the articles.--Celtus (talk) 09:04, 29 July 2009 (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:F-FDTL Parade (NZ Army photo).jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. No rebuttal provided to explain how this image satisfies NFCC #1 or #8. CIreland (talk) 15:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:F-FDTL Parade (NZ Army photo).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick-D (notify | contribs).
  • As shown by other images used in the article, we don't need non-free images to illustrate the army of Timor Leste. Damiens.rf 23:17, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as uploader. Speaking as the person responsible for getting Military of Timor Leste to FA status, I can assure you that I was unable to source PD images of the Army. The other photos in the article depict veterans of the pre-independence wars and members of the Navy. In addition, the photo has historical significance as it depicts the Army's first parade after being issued with their new East Timor-specific uniforms. Nick-D (talk) 02:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If these are the current uniforms, couldn't a free image be located? If they are not the current uniforms, is it really that important we show what they look like anyway? J Milburn (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Does the article goes on the details of Timor Lest Army's Haute couture? --Damiens.rf 18:02, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per the uploader's comments the image dipicts a historical moment and seems unlikely that it could be replaced easily. How many private citizens are likely to have been at the parade, taken a photo and decided to jump on Wiki and upload? — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per uploader - wiki is going to be a dull place if we start deleting images such as this.Anotherclown (talk) 11:52, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - historical significance is claimed, but the allegedly historically significant event doesn't appear to be even mentioned in the article. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:26, 7 August 2009 (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:Hgg-016.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hgg-016.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lostwander (notify | contribs).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Human impacts on New Zealand's natural forest and tall shrubland.gif[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Human impacts on New Zealand's natural forest and tall shrubland.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alan Liefting (notify | contribs).
  • Replaceable non-free map. Damiens.rf 23:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom. A pd/creative commons version could be drawn up and uploaded in this image's place. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone could do that I would be much obliged - my graphics skills are not up to it. It is an important illustration for the linked articles. Talk to me about layout of it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:10, 21 July 2009 (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:NZ MRV (NZDF).jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NZ MRV (NZDF).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick-D (notify | contribs).
  • There are many free images of this ship and, although this one show she under construction, the article text currently has no need to illustrate any specific points about its construction. Damiens.rf 23:21, 20 July 2009 (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:NZ Javelin wn06031149tn.JPG[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Valid concerns raised that this image does not satisfy NFCC 8. These concerns are have not been addressed or rebutted by those advocating retaining the image.

File:NZ Javelin wn06031149tn.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick-D (notify | contribs).
  • There are free images available to decorate the article about New Zeland's army. This one has nothing special and is being use for nothing special. Damiens.rf 23:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Really, there are free images available to illustrate the NZ Army's use of the Javelin? Got any? It seems a perfectly reasonable use of a PD image in my opinion. Anotherclown (talk) 11:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the need to maintain range safety (not to mention op sec), I do not think it very likely that the NZ Defence Force allows civilians to roam around taking pictures of its soldiers on the (probably) rare occasions that they fire off very expensive Javelin missiles. As such, I feel it is unlikely that there really are free images available depicting such an event. As such, in order to have any photos of these situations, Wikipedia is pretty much reliant upon either the NZ government being so kind as to release some (as is the example here), or a US serviceman or woman taking the photo on an exercise, therefore making it PD. By continuing to delete images that are not copyright violations but are not PD (i.e images being used under a claim of fair use), Wikipedia is in danger of basically limiting its content to mainly US military photos, which would significantly reduced its coverage. As it is not a copyright violation, and the NZ government doesn't seem to have a problem with its use, what is the harm in keeping it? — AustralianRupert (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Anotherclown and AustralianRupert. I am losing my sense of humour about this little wave of nominations for deletion by a self appointed gate keeper who does not seem to understand the rules he supposedly seeks to enforce. - Nick Thorne talk 11:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as uploader and per the above posts. It's worth noting that as part of NZ being suspended from ANZUS the US military is generally prohibited from exercising with the NZ military, so there's no chance of PD-US photos of this. Nick-D (talk) 11:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no comment on replacability, but clearly fails WP:NFCC #8. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:27, 7 August 2009 (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:NH90 NZDF.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NH90 NZDF.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick-D (notify | contribs).
  • There are hundreds of free images available (and at use) to illustrate the Royal New Zealand Air Force, and we have no special urge to illustrate this upcoming helicopter with a non-free image. Damiens.rf 23:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: replaceable per WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 21:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Again is there really 'hundreds of free images available' to illustrate the RNZAFs latest helicopter? Seems unlikely. This is a significant addition to the fleet and warrants illustration. The image adds to the article and should be kept. Anotherclown (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2009 (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:MargaretWilson.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted for failure to satisfy the significance criteria of the non-free content policy, and also being replaceable by basic text. Since the image is used solely to illustrate the fact that at the time the Prime minister, Governor general and Speaker of the house where all women it seems to me that the image is entirely replaceable by simple text explaining this fact. Also regardless of replacability issues, it is not necessary to see an image of the three women together to understand the fact that all three positions where occupied by women (a fact not touched upon at all in the current version of the article I might add), just capturing a unique moment in time is not sufficient reason to use a non-free image. It needs to significantly increase the readers understanding of the article topic, in this case I have not read any convincing arguments for how this image does that. Just claims that the photo is unique and that the situation itself was significant, neither of which adress why the image is significant for understanding the article. --Sherool (talk) 19:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MargaretWilson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gadfium (notify | contribs).
  • Seeing this three distinguished ladies lined gives the reader no relevant information about Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand that couldn't be given with free material. Damiens.rf 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per discussion at File talk:MargaretWilson.jpg and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_August_23 and Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_28#Image:MargaretWilson.jpg. My argument at the latter was: "If this were just used for identification of the individuals, it would be replacable. In fact it depicts a situation, a specific moment in time, as stated in the fair use rationale: "it shows three of the key figures of the Fifth Labour Government of New Zealand together, at a unique time in New Zealand's history when all three positions were occupied by women. Dame Cartright has since finished her term of office and so this combination will never be repeated ... This photo was taken at the occasion when the last of these three people gained her office so this was a unique occasion." It therefore has a symbolic and iconic quality. The image provides information not obtainable from text and allows the reader their own perception of the relationship demonstrated through body language, facial expression etc. No one would suggest that this image could be replaced by three separate photos of the individuals taken at different times." Ty 00:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That image is free. If it was non-free, I would only support its inclusion if the discussion of the impact of the photograph of the three together was included (I certainly think sources discussing that could be rustled up). However, that is not important. We are not discussing that image. J Milburn (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly replaceable. Yes, it shows them at a specific time, but why is it so urgent that we show what they looked like at that time? That time was not an important one for the way the women looked, it was an important one in terms of their achievement- it could therefore easily be illustrated by images of them that were not from that time. J Milburn (talk) 12:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having women occupying the positions of Governor General, Prime Minister and Speaker of the House was a notable milestone in NZ history, and this shows them together at that time. Having a montage of photos would not illustrate that achievement. This picture does. [[User:Efil's god|]] (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't have to use a illustration to explain this notable milestone in NZ history. The reader will be able to understand that it was an all-girl Governor-General-Prime Minister-Speaker trio without this image. It's just a decoration for the purely textual information. --Damiens.rf 18:05, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —Ty 00:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as failing WP:NFCC #8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Steve Smith (talk • contribs) 19:29, 7 August 2009
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:RNZAF P3.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: deleted. Consensus can't override policy. Nobody advocating keeping the image was able to demonstrate that it met NFCC #8. Perhaps the comments here were referring to a different version of the article, but I couldn't find this photo or the particular occasion it depicts even mentioned in the text so it couldn't possibly be necessary to the user's understanding of the topic. Images such as Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima or Kent State shootings are iconic and without seeing them, you cannot possibly have a full understanding of the topic. But a photo of a plane sitting on top of snow is not essential. --B (talk) 20:42, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RNZAF P3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nick-D (notify | contribs).
  • Picture of a landed plane that is not essential for the understanding. Damiens.rf 23:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as uploader. This is a historially significant photo showing the first deployment of a combat-capable aircraft to Antarctica for fishery protection patrols (which remains an unusual activity) - this was been explained in the image's fair use rationale since it was uploaded. As such, it has great value in the Military activity in the Antarctic article and the claim that it only depicts a 'parked aircraft' is disingenuous. As the photo depicts a historically significant military operation and was taken in Antarctica, it is impossible to replace it with a free photo. Nick-D (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Nick-D. - Nick Thorne talk 11:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nick-D, I'm afraid your arguments are not persuasive- yes, they explain why the expedition itself is of interest and is important (so much so, that I intend to take another read through the article now) but they do not explain the pressing need to illustrate the expedition with a non-free image. What does the image actually show, that needs to be shown so urgently? J Milburn (talk) 12:24, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but if we were to follow that line of argument we would never have any non-free photographs in Wikipedia. If that is your aim, then I suggest that this is not the appropriate forum to discuss it and you should start a discussion on the relevant policy talk page. Nick has expained that the there are no free alternatives and the photgraph does illustrate the subject quite eloquently - a picture being worth a thousand words and all that. IMHO, the use in the article in question satisfies all provisions of WP:NFCC, particulalry the one that the image should enhance the readers understanding of the article. Just how many people really have any understanding of what it is like in the Antarctic? The photo clearly places the aircraft in the shadow of Mt Erebus and shows just how hostile an environment it was being operated in, in a succinct manner that is easy for the reader to understand without a very great deal of verbage, that would not in fact convey the same information nearly so well Perhaps this nomination is just a tad over zealous? - Nick Thorne talk 14:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you want an image to show what it looks like in the Antarctic, we have plenty of free ones. Again, what is this image actually showing that needs to be shown so much? This nomination was not overzealous at all- as I see it, this is a pretty standard case of an image not meeting non-free content criterion 8. J Milburn (talk) 22:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read my previous comment above, you have added nothing. Your argument immediately above this comment could be used to justify the removal of just about all images from Wikipedia free and not free. Given that Wikipedia allows the use of images and indeed encourages their use, this particular line of argument is nul and void. You need to specify exactly which part of WP:NFCC the image fails to satisfy and then if presented with counter arguments (as you have already) you need to explain exactly how and why those arguments fail, if indeed they do. Your opinion that they fail is just that - your opinion - and is meaningless, unless you can back it up. - Nick Thorne talk 03:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Nick-D. Only image found of the expedition, amply justifies it being retained as non-free image. Buckshot06(prof) 16:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have not addressed the point raised by the nomination. This is not a vote. Why do we need an image at all? --Damiens.rf 18:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My comment in reply to J Milburn applies equally to your "argument". Why do we need any images? The fact is you have failed to demonstrate which criteria for WP:NFCC the image fails to meet. You made no point in your nomination, you only made a bare assertion. Simply making that assertion without providing any supporting argument is not sufficient. - Nick Thorne talk 21:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free content criterion 8. The burden of proof lies with those wishing to include an image, and we're just not seeing what this image is actually adding. Please explain. J Milburn (talk) 22:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. The burden of proof always lies with those wishing change to occur - in this case, those proposing the deletion of the file. Reasons why the image satisfies the WP:NFCC criteria and should be retained have been given, in respone all you do is repeat that you don't see it. You have already been called on this yet you fail to back up your assertion and ignore the reasons given for retention. This is not an honest way to debate any subject. Your opinion does not automatically carry more weight than mine, nor that of any other Wikipedian. Back up your position with real arguments and show through the strength of those arguments that your position is the right one, otherwise your position is simply simply fluff and deserve to be dismissed as such. Simply re-stating your unsupported assertion is not an argument, BTW. - Nick Thorne talk 03:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From WP:NFCC: "Note that it is the burden of users seeking to it's include or retain content to provide a valid rationale;" Please, add a comment shamelessly pretending you didn't really say what you said. --Damiens.rf 18:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC8 is easily met - this is a photo of a combat aircraft (a P-3 Orion maritime patrol aircraft) during a historically significant and highly unusual operation - it's very rare for combat aircraft to visit Antarctica as international treaties limit how they're used in the region. This photo illustrates the potential for increasing military operations and possible warfare as discussed by the section of the article it's used for. This is very different from the other photo in the article, which is a cargo aircraft performing a routine operation moving supplies to the US scientific base at the South Pole. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reader don't need to see a picture of a combat aircraft visiting Antartica to understand a text about how highly unusual it is for a combat airplane to visit Antartica. It's not unusual because combat planes turn into a different color when in Antartica, nor because polar bears and penguins start to glow in the presence of combat planes. I.e.: there's nothing visual about this information that asks for an illustration. The reader will learn about the potential for increasing military operations and possible warfare in the region by reading the article, not by seeing this picture of a grounded plane. --Damiens.rf 14:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I am getting a bit bored with this line of non-argument. For a start, if you expect to be taken at all seriously, it would be a good idea to learn a little about the subject. There is no such place as "Antartica", it is Antarctica, one mis-spelling I can dismiss as a typo but three in a row demonstrates either abject carelessness or ignorance. Secondly, polar bears do not co-exist with penguins - polar bears inhabit the Arctic unlike penguins which live in the Antarctic, about as far apart as you can get. Finally you continue to make the assertion that for some reason you think that a photograph of a historic event is not worthy of an illustration. Why is that? What exactly is your agenda here? As for you non-sense that there is nothing visual "about the information" I could equally argue that about any image you care to name. A perfectly valid description of any photograph can be made, to use your "argument" as you have WRT to a historic event, it could be argued than no photographs should ever be used in Wikipedia. Get some perspective outside you narrow little box. - Nick Thorne talk 06:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There is already one PD image in the article - a second non-free one isn't required. Fails WP:NFCC#8 by failing to significantly increase the understanding of the article by the reader, who is perfectly capable of understanding what a plane in the Antarctic looks like, especially as there's already a perfectly good image showing exactly that. Black Kite 18:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So far all we have had from those supporting deletion have been bare assertions that the image fails WP:NFCC. A number of arguments have been presented that explain why in fact the image does meet the requirements for retention but each and every such argument has been ignored. This is not an honest way to conduct business. You do not win by default. You ask for reasons for retention then ignore them when provided and come up with non-sequitur "arguments" in response, or do not reply to those arguments at all. This could easily appear to someone who has not spent a lot time in this area like a coordinated response by a clique of editors who consider themselves to be the arbiters of Wikipedia and thus feel they do not need to justify themselves. I hope that this is not true, but I can only judge by what I see, and so far the picture is beginning to look fairly clear. Please prove me wrong, please address the arguments that have been presented or admit that those arguments should stand, anything less than that is an abuse of process and I will continue to call people on it. - Nick Thorne talk 09:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As the image dipicts something different to the PD also on the page and is (as has been raised earlier) dipicting a rare event, it does serve to illustrate the section that it is being used in. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: As per uploader's comments. This image adds significantly to the article.Anotherclown (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The historically significant event it allegedly documents is not even mentioned in the article, and NFCC #8 therefore cannot possibly apply. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 19:31, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Utter nonsense. There is a whole paragraph devoted to the subject. - Nick Thorne talk 01:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Nick said - there's a paragraph on the RNZAF's Orion flights from Antarctica in the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 12 August 2009 (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:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to no consensus. It has not been shown whether the image significantly aids understanding or is merely decorative. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:New Zealand soldiers in Iraq, March, 2004.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Smoth 007 (notify | contribs).
  • Decorative non-free image showing some soldiers doing their job fails WP:NFCC#8. Damiens.rf 23:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a historically signficant photo of the small New Zealand Army unit deployed to Iraq after the invasion (which was a bit unusual as NZ actually opposed the war). It is impossible to replace this photo with a free one as it depicts a military operation in a warzone for which US military PD photos are not available (the Kiwi soldiers were operating in the British area of responsibility). The photo is being used to illustrate the Military history of New Zealand article's coverage of NZ's role in post-invasion Iraq, and I don't see how that's 'decorative' given that it's showing the soldiers doing what they were deployed to do - minor engineering works. Nick-D (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not suggesting we replace it. I'm suggesting we don't use one at all. --Damiens.rf 18:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we don't need a non-free image to know what soldiers doing "minor engineering works" look like. Image adds nothing to the article. J Milburn (talk) 12:22, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I don't believe that this image could be replaced. Also I believe it to be of some value in illustrating the NZ deployment to Iraq. Certainly doesn't seem decorative to me. Given that NZ's commitment is relatively small comparatively speaking (please do not take this as a criticism of NZ's efforts) it is unlikely that many images are available. It is also even more unlikely that any are available that can be used with a less restrictive tag. — AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Historically significant and non-replacable.Anotherclown (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above comments. Another spurious nomination. - Nick Thorne talk 11:10, 2 August 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_July_20&oldid=1138516412"