Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 April 23

< April 22	April 24 >

April 23

File:Why Can't I.ogg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article. WP:NFC. This is (hopefully) a prompt to get some sourced commentary in the article. Dawnseeker2000 00:11, 23 April 2010 (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:WhoKnowsWhereTheTimeGoesExcerpt.ogg

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. Concern has been addressed. — ξ ^xplicit 18:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Content of song not discussed in article. WP:NFC. This is (hopefully) a prompt to get some sourced commentary in the article. Dawnseeker2000 00:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then ask first before nominating for deletion, which is a wholly improper use of a deletion proposal. I have a Talk page for the purpose; it's open to reasonable approaches. Do you seriously think I have nothing better to do? I strongly suggest you withdraw this silly nomination, then discuss it, rather than getting the horse/cart order the wrong way round. Rodhull andemu 00:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, I'm just using the process to get some attention on the subject. Usually the uploaders are nowhere to be found or don't respond at all. Please don't take this personal. I'm only looking for an improvement to the encyclopedia. If we can get some discussion about the song it will be fine. Sorry to have offended. Dawnseeker2000 01:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu, I feel you came off as unnecessarily aggressive. This file was nominated here at WP:FFD, not WP:MFD, so there's no improper use of any venue. Additionally, there's absolutely nothing silly about this nomination. This file currently fails to meet WP:NFCC#8 for lacking to add contextual significant; bringing it here is a completely suitable approach. — ξ ^xplicit 01:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Using a discussion to "force" any action whatsoever, without discussion on the uploader's Talk page or the article's Talk page seems to me to be a supreme breach of WP:AGF. If anything can be fixed, it should be, and can be. That is best addressed by pointing out WP:FUR deficiencies directly, not by throwing it out to an audience who may not understand some of the subtleties involved, as I have previously discovered to my cost. In short, it comes across as an insult. Rodhull andemu 01:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's certainly made me think about this a bit, but I think the process seems to work as it is. I mean the notification is sent to the uploader, who is then free to join in the discussion or work on the issue that's presented. Dawnseeker2000 02:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) That's what this nomination is. The file fails to meet the non-free content criteria policy and you received a notice to this discussion. You either address the concern or the file is deleted for not meeting said policy. As the policy states, it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created. — ξ ^xplicit 02:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will fix this. Rodhull andemu 14:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Concerns have been addressed. Rodhull andemu 16:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - That looks great. Dawnseeker2000 16:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There we go. Dawnseeker2000, since you're the nominator and have suggested keeping it, would you like to withdraw the nomination? — ξ ^xplicit 19:43, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. Dawnseeker2000 16:24, 25 April 2010 (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:1zone.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 01:40, 23 April 2010 (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:Aewards.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 02:11, 23 April 2010 (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:AshesConcert.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: No consensus, defaulting to keep. PhilKnight (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, target article was deleted long ago. — ξ ^xplicit 02:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There may be a case for recreating the article as it just about notable, googling for the band provides three or four third party sites including a Encyclopaedia Metallum entry. The band is signed to a label, though not a major one, has released two albums and has recieved at least one magazine review. Failing the resurrection of a target article, transfer to Commons.KTo288 (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2010 (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:Blackfez1.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 02:24, 23 April 2010 (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:Blacksteelandbadger.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, target article was deleted as being a non-notable band. — ξ ^xplicit 02:27, 23 April 2010 (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:COLT.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 02:29, 23 April 2010 (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:Carmenhayes1.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file of an apparently non-notable pornographic actress. — ξ ^xplicit 02:32, 23 April 2010 (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:DEVLARGEE.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no target article. — ξ ^xplicit 02:42, 23 April 2010 (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:DOUBLEPLATYPUSKILLKILL.jpeg

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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 02:44, 23 April 2010 (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:Daveanddestiny2.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 02:45, 23 April 2010 (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:Dirknelson.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, no encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 02:48, 23 April 2010 (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:Hellenic alternative charts.jpeg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio. Used in a PROD'd and now deleted article. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:41, 23 April 2010 (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:Gac2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio. Used in a PROD'd and now deleted article. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:41, 23 April 2010 (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:All-hail-jimbo-lolcat.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 G3 by Kinu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:45, 23 April 2010 (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:Sp 1406 Sorry.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: Keep. PhilKnight (talk) 16:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Additionally, this image is not necessary to convey the text on it; it's not visually interesting or distinctive enough that the (short) amount of text on it needs to be presented in image format as opposed to quoted in the relevant form.  Mike 05:54, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Image is unique demonstrating the controversy surrounding the episode; And it was only orphaned due to Mike Removing it from the article before nominating it for deletion. I have Restored it in the article and i wish it to remain until this concludes. In full disclosure i Uploaded it. Weaponbb7 (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep his episode has a major effect on at least one old episode and maybe also future episodes. This never happened in the 14 years since South Park started and I guess it can be considered as important. From my point of view this text is not creative enough to be eligible for copyright. So Template:PD-ineligible could be used and it could be also moved to Commons so other WMF prjects can use it (e.g. Wikinews). Again: This is MY point of view. Others may or may not agree with me. (btw: The filename could be better) --D-Kuru (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yeah when i take a file from one site to another i keep the original file name so it can be verifiably traced back to the original. Weaponbb7 (talk) 03:19, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This image details merely words on a black screen, which means it's eligible for free-use and should actually should be moved to Commons. The Flash ^{I am Jack's complete lack of surprise} 19:01, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / move to Commons. As SuperFlash101 stated, this text image isn't copyrightable, since it doesn't meet the Threshold of originality. This discussion should be closed, and the image moved to commons.—DMCer™ 06:15, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Keep/Move to Commons because this choice to not air an episode of "South Park" for these reasons has never happened before, and because the orange text on black background doesn't meet the threshold for originality. Heck, it could even be converted into an SVG image if we wanted it to be like that. dogman15 (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move to Commons, agree with D-Kuru (talk · contribs), SuperFlash101 (talk · contribs), Dogman15 (talk · contribs), and DMCer (talk · contribs) that this image is not creative to be eligible for copyright. Regardless, it is also extremely noteworthy so as to have educational and encyclopedic value about the history of Censorship and Freedom of speech. -- Cirt (talk) 14:38, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as fair use here if need be, don't move to Commons. It is more then just a non creative image. It is more than just an image of random letters, those letters have been arranged to form words, and those words arranged to form sentences. You wouldn't be able to take a scan of a page from a book, and then claim that because there was no originality in the layout of the page that the page and its contents are PD. You would still be able to read the text on the page and would therefore be violating the copyright of the author of those words. The same applies here.KTo288 (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been thinking about this, and in the event that this file is transfered to Commons, I would feel compelled to nominate it for deletion review there.KTo288 (talk) 13:08, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point and as the person who uploaded it i agree that it is not under PD but fair use. Weaponbb7 (talk) 18:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with the emerging consensus of Keep/Move to Commons. I think the wording is simple enough below the threshold for originality, and the presentation is simple typography and certainly below that level, so should be OK on Commons. Conversely, the censorship it documents is enough to meet our notability threshold. If people are really concerned about the possible copyright issue, I'd be willing to guess the South Park folks would give us an appropriate "free license" as a precaution: it is hardly a valuable piece of their intellectual property. - 00:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
- If you asked and they were willing that would be great, but you shouldn't assume that they would be.KTo288 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A note to everybody a debate on this file is being held in parallel at the village pump in Commons under Threshold of originality question.KTo288 (talk) 11:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Commons It's yellow text on a black background, it has no value as intellectual property, and any one of us could make a similar All persons fictitious disclaimer and release it under a PD license. Furthermore, I also vote that File:SP-s10e04-censor.jpg also be moved to Commons as well, minus the Comedy Central Logo.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 11:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Commonsise Agree that this falls below the threshold or originality required for copyright to exist. The designer of the typeface has more claim over this than whoever assembled these letters into a message. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be original for an image, but it seems like it is copyrightable as a paragraph of text. Mabye I missed something above about a para being to small to copyright. I believe every quote we use is actually under fair use. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I see it is discussed above and at commons. As said, we can't use scans of books just because the text doesn't make an original picture. So Keep as fair use or delete. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Commons: completely agree that (a) it has no value as intellectual property, it's just an announcement, not a copyrighted text, and (b) it is unique demonstrating the controversy surrounding the episode and the show. - Stansult (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2010 (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:Kartaimagelogo2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, Low quality, WP:NOTFACEBOOK, WP:NOT#WEBHOST -- GateKeeper ^(talk) @ 07:07, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also by same user:

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:Deutsche Wochenschau 1966 ZL 837 Ein-Zweite- Studentendemonstrationen in Berlin - Legion-Condor.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all clear why an image is needed to show that the Legion "became a source of shame". I'm sure this event is worth talking about, but it does not need to be illustrated. J Milburn (talk) 10:17, 23 April 2010 (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:Yolanda Prada.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 Black Kite (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given the number of recent copy-vios by this user I don't believe this user owns the copyright to this file. Here is the website it was probably stolen from. http://www.boliviahoy.com/modules/news/print.php?storyid=587 Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 20:00, 23 April 2010 (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:Meredith-Kercher.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: Keep. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of a murder victim on an article about the murder. While there may not be a free version, I don't see why the case couldn't be explained without using the image at all. The image itself doesn't convey any information about the case. Averell (talk) 23:12, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as modified. I have modified the article & image-description page to note the photo provides a simple example of the woman partying at a nightclub, as a photo released by police for news reports, showing her dancing in a sleeveless top, under the variegated multi-color lights, with other women in the background holding drinks, and with the photo taken by someone at that nightclub. One suspect claimed that he had met her at a party, such as at Merlin's pub in Perugia, Italy, but the article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" has indicated that her nightclub activities had become common knowledge in newspapers or the Internet, as seen in this photo posted by news groups, allowing anyone to claim that they had seen her dancing (etc.) in such a nightclub. All that information is conveyed, with clarity, by displaying this photo in the article as evidence of her nightclub activities. From the adage, "A picture is worth a thousand words," this photo certainly avoids a hundred words to explain how the newspapers or the Internet revealed her nightclub activities. After 2.5 years, no free alternative photo has been found. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:00, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see those edits have the only function to give the reason to exist. It should be the other way round - not the article supporting the image, but the image supporting the article. Averell (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete because a page formerly omitted some required details. The fair-use rationale was expanded to explain why the image is important in supporting the article text. That photo was published on 12 November 2007, and the suspect was arrested on 20 November claiming that he had met her in nightclubs (such as in that photo). Do you understand that the photo is tied to a full description of the suspect's claims as to how he met Kercher? -Wikid77 (talk) 00:54, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of these photos should have been deleted. There was never any notice posted on the article about this discussion. All photos should be put back into the article and the votes should be on all the photos at once. Either all go or all stay. I don't see why these photos are being deleted. They make the article so much more interesting to see the photos. Any deletions like this without giving proper notice to ALL the editors on the article is bogus. Apparently only certain editors were given notice.Zlykinskyja (talk) 02:52, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The original uploaders of the images were notified, and also linked on the article page (albeit a bit late for the first batch). In any case, the original uploader had (and took) the chance to speak up in all cases. For the rest, see below and remember that this is not a vote, 'cause Wikipedia is not a democracy Averell (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, I think that to have Kercher's photo in the article helps to give a face to the victim, thereby making her a real person — who was viciously murdered —. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 16:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment I remind everyone that this is not a discussion if we like the photos, if they make the article interesting or if they give a face to the victim. Since these are copyrighted images, the only question is is the image really necessary to understand the article?. If the question to that answer is "no", it must be deleted. This is a hard rule - as you can see on WP:Files for deletion, non-free images will only stay if there is clear consensus that they must be kept. The burden of proof is on the person who wants to keep that image. I'm quite happy to leave that decision to whatever admin will be closing this discussion. Averell (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete using an image under fair use criteria is an admission that the use of the image here is a copyright violation. But that the image is so important that that copyright violation is justified, one of those justifications being that it would be impossible to replace the image. A corollory of the statement that a picture is worth a 1000 words would be that a 1000 words is as good as a picture. So the choice is between a thousand free words donated by editors here or an unfree picture.KTo288 (talk) 19:44, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. As the subject is dead, the chances of getting a free alternative are slim. It could be argued that the picture had something of an iconic status because it was released by the police to the news media and was the predominant image of the victim reproduced by the media in several countries. But I appreciate that this is a fairly weak argument for keeping. Also, if it must be deleted, please don't anyone replace it with 1000 words :-) Bluewave (talk) 12:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think an image of the victim is indispensable to the article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 13:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting question is: Why do you think that is so? Averell (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This is a difficult issue to approach with neutrality; on that point, we have an image of the victim on Murder of James Bulger, and nobody complains about that. Whilst I accept that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS ain't a great argument, in this case, the prosecution made a great deal of the morality and party lifestyle of some young students abroad. Also, Meredith Kercher herself, although she did not deserve to die, was no shrinking violet when it came to self-publicity. Additionally, the image in question was used by the Italian police in their publicity and has some relevance on that point alone. Meanwhile, the remaining issue is whether the image is necessary in replacing words in this article; on balance, I think it is, not just on a short-term basis, but as a historical document for future readers, and I am deliberately taking a long term view here. In a hundred years time, this article will still be around in some form or another, and the image will provide some historical and social context. Rodhull andemu 01:15, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about neutrality. That is about whether or not there exist a reason if this image is necessary. As for "was no shrinking violet" - I don't even begin to see where you want to go with that, as it'd have absolutely zero relation to her murder. Averell (talk) 11:32, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where it might be going, and I do not like it at all. pablo_hablo. 22:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the source of this image is unclear, and the image description page carries some odd claims as to what it represents. See talk page. pablo_hablo. 13:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

update - The Magnificent Clean-keeper has located the (presumably) intended source and I have trimmed the text on the description page to reflect that source. pablo_hablo. 22:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the article is improved by an image of the victim.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Although the fair-use rationale keeps getting trimmed away, the Purpose of the image is to show this photo of the victim at a pub (or nightclub, with girls holding drinks), which was published on 10 & 12 November 2007, before the 3rd suspect was arrested on 20 November, and provides an example of how the girl's activities were posted in news or Internet pages, allowing anyone to claim they met her in a pub, after seeing photos like this one. The photo is not used as mere identification. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is still a bit of an edit-war happening on the fair-use rationale, to remove the purpose as to why the photo is appearing in the article. I am noting the photo is an example of early news (and pictures) about the victim, which announced her activities to potential suspects. -Wikid77 (talk) 07:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fair-use rationale has been edited to remove your speculation about what the photograph shows and where it was taken, because such unsourced, speculative commentary is neither necessary nor appropriate. pablo_hablo. 09:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Text from The Guardian 19 Nov 2007 (same photo of Kercher): The basic idea is repeated in this text: "co-owner of the city's Merlin pub, said <suspect> was a frequent visitor to the Domus nightclub in Perugia, where Kercher danced the night before she was killed." Web: Guardian-19. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:00, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... which text relates to this picture not at all, apart from the picture also appearing at that URL. What's your point? pablo_hablo. 01:01, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not needed and specifically because it was used to push a "was no shrinking violet" view of her. Find a free image without pov-baggage or simply omit. Jack Merridew 01:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That photo has been published in new reports during 2007, 2008 & 2009 (see image for Source list), with multiple viewpoints about the case. There is nothing in the photo, per se, implying inappropriate behavior in a pub (with other girls shown holding drinks), while sources state that Kercher (age 21) went with friends to nightclubs, and she left the classical music concert at intermission where Knox, left alone, then met Sollecito. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:47, 1 May 2010 (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.