Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 18

< April 17	April 19 >

April 18[edit]

File:Phoenix in Austin Texas.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 ⚡ 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same image uploaded by the same user [[1]]. They have uploaded this same image a total of three times. Fixer23 (talk) 03:29, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JoeStege.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopaedic. Uploaded as test, used as part of test edit or vandalism Mildly Mad^T_C 13:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Denis Avey - ceremony.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image copied from a news source shows an important man in an important day of his life, although seeing this image is not necessary for understanding the discussion about that important event. Damiens.rf 17:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: According to the source, the photo is from Press Association. Is that a “commercial source” in the meaning of CSD F7? If so, the photo might be a candidate for speedy deletion. —teb728 t c 01:42, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it is required to review the provenance of an image beyond the source it came from, in this case a newspaper. Many press agencies purchase their photos from freelance photographers, for instance, who get a royalty.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Frederic March and John John Frankenheimer.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 ⚡ 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image shows two men working. Damiens.rf 17:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Image is a publicity photo of film director John Frankenheimer and actor Frederic March working on the set during the filming of Seven Days in May.Marcd30319 (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Publicity-type images are generally not copyrighted by studios. In any case, it's use in the section about the film makes it relevant, descriptive of the commentary, and more than a mere decoration.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless it can be shown to be PD): The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 The text about Frankenheimer as director and March as costar is perfectly understandable without being decorated by the photo. —teb728 t c 23:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image rationale, "Said production photograph depicts behind-the-scene activity described in the Film production notes section found in the article in question," indicates that the people shown are irrelevant, and the photo has a utilitarian, not decorative, purpose.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per TEB above. Clearly fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:38, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is about a film director John Frankenheimer. Film is a visual medium, but if this image depicting Frankenheimer directing an actor in a motion picture is deleted, the only image remaining will be Frankenheimer's portrait image in the infobox. This is a disservice to our readers since the image in question does show Frankenheimer in his role as a director. Otherwise, you are consigning our readers to a sea of written content withour any visual references to show Frankenheimer in his capacity as a film director. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatant failure of WP:NFCC #8. The text has absolutely no connection to the image. The image isn't mentioned in the text. It's superfluous decoration. Wikiwatcher, I know you're going to say it's directly tied to the passage in the article because the article mentions him directing the film, and since we have an image showing him directing it's relevant. Doesn't work that way. Without the image being tied to the (properly sourced) text in a meaningful way, it's disconnected from it and fails WP:NFCC #8. @Marcd: the idea that we should retain non-free content because otherwise it would leave the article "a sea of written content" is not an argument for retention. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Goldie Hawn Private B..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 ⚡ 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are free images of Goldie Hawn. Damiens.rf 17:24, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 The commentary on Private Benjamin is perfectly understandable without being illustrated by the photo. —teb728 t c 02:07, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Shows her during her earlier years in an important role for which she received an Oscar nomination. The image significantly adds to the readers' understanding of the related commentary. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:04, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is essentially no critical commentary of the film or Hawn's role in the article. There is also nothing unusual about this shot of Hawn compared to free shots of Hawn. See WP:NFCI#5 and WP:NFLISTS#5.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Spalding Gray.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 ⚡ 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative repetitive non-free image. Damiens.rf 17:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The image directly relates to much of the commentary within the article, not just about this particular play image, but his style of acting, stage settings, and his attire. The contextual linkage of the image and article is definite.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:04, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 The text about his monologues is perfectly understandable without being illustrated by the photo. —teb728 t c 00:14, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: An article on a monologist is irreducibly improved by a photo of him performing. --zenohockey (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Monologists do not perform in photos. Don't pretend he is a photographer or a model, in which case a photo would show his work. --Damiens.rf 20:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Try reading the commentary before tagging something as "decorative: He broke it all down to a table, a glass of water, a spiral notebook and a mic. Poor theatre—a man and an audience and a story. Spalding sitting at that table, speaking into the mic, calling forth the script of his life from his memory and those notebooks. A simple ritual: part news report, part confessional, part American raconteur. One man piecing his life back together, one memory, one true thing at a time. Like all genius things, it was a simple idea turned on its axis to become absolutely fresh and radical. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The prose quoted by Wikiwatcher quite clearly demonstrates that the prose describes Spalding Gray's monologue abilities very well, so failing WP:NFCC#8, without the use of another non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Hopper Rider.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 Skier Dude (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free headshot of actor. Damiens.rf 17:33, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The image is described by the commentary discussing the film role, his most important one that made him a star. The photo shows how he looked during that role, along with his clothing. Those items are all discussed in the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Wikiwatcher1, I agree that the commentary justifies fair use. Yworo (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Sellers-Time 3-3-80.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 ⚡ 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unecessary non-free magazine cover being used just because the cover is mentioned. Damiens.rf 17:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The cover image has significant contextual value as it show him in illustrated in many of the leading roles as a recognized character actor. It's not the magazine alone that adds value, but the various images within it. This kind of illustration adds significantly to a reader's understanding of the article.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 The text, including the mention of the cover story and the list of characters on the cover is perfectly understandable without actually showing the cover. —teb728 t c 00:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:OpenCity poster 45.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative dvd cover. Damiens.rf 17:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: DVD cover used to decorate a filmography in blatant violation of WP:NFCC#8 If there were any encyclopedic purpose, it could be achieved in free text. —teb728 t c 01:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:RoseTattooposter.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative dvd cover. Damiens.rf 17:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: DVD cover used to decorate a filmography in blatant violation of WP:NFCC#8 If there were any encyclopedic purpose, it could be achieved in free text. —teb728 t c 01:08, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lolita Lebron.arrest.Congress attack.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 by User:Peripitus exposing a file on Commons of the same name. —teb728 t c 23:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image copied from Associated Press. It shows an important woman in an important day on her life, but we don't need to see this photo to understand the discussion about those important events. Damiens.rf 19:12, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: AP photo is not the subject of sourced commentary in either article. —teb728 t c 01:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Lolita Lebron.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image not found on source. Copyright holder unknown. Damiens.rf 19:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: AP photo (see credit here) is not the subject of sourced commentary. —teb728 t c 01:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Clint Walker.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a living guy. Damiens.rf 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is studio pubilicity photo of the subject of this article. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While normally I'd say we need to delete this image, I'm curious as to what others think of [2]: "Publicity Photos (star headshots) older publicity stills have usually not been copyrighted and since they have been disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain and therefore there is no necessity to clear them with the studio that produced them (if you can even determine who did)" Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The head shot of Clint Walker was a Warner Bros. studio publicity photo taken while Mr. Walker was starring in the television series Cheyenne which was broadcast between 1955 and 1963, and consequently the image in question is between 48 and 56 years old. Marcd30319 (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (unless it can be shown to be PD): Non-free photo of living person in violation of WP:NFCC#1. —teb728 t c 01:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Image is a publicity photograph that in all likelihood is in the Public Domain. According to Creative Clearances.com, "Publicity Photos (star headshots) older publicity stills have usually not been copyrighted and since they have been disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain and therefore there is no necessity to clear them with the studio that produced them (if you can even determine who did). Newer publicity stills shot for a specific film or television program may contain a copyright - if they do you are required to clear them with the owner of the copyright, usually the film or television company that produced the program." See [3]. If not in PD, then I will contact Warner Bros of Clint Walker himself to get clearance. Marcd30319 (talk) 16:21, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While it is true that often publicity photos from this era are PD what proof is there that this is such an image ? There is nothing on the linked page that states this is a publicity image and gives provenance such that we can be confident about it's status. He is alive and was photographed during his long film career - can be replaced with free content and fails WP:NFCC#1 - Peripitus (Talk) 22:49, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The image caption from the source article clearly states "Clint Walker as Cheyenne Bodie" Mr. Walker played a character named Cheyenne Bodie in the American TV western series Cheyenne. Please note that Mr. Walker is wearing a cowboy hat and western wear consistent with the charatcer that he played in the TV series, and it is clearly a posed photographic portrait used as a publicity photograph. Marcd30319 (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's examine the availability of a free image of Clint Walker using the Google search engine.

Using the label for commercial reuse with modeifcation useage rights filter, here are the results: None
Using the labeled for reuse with modification useage rights filter, here are the results: None
Using the labeled for commercial reuse useage rights filter, here are the results: None
Using the labeled for reuse rights filter, here are the results: None
Using not filtered by license rights filter, here are the results: 54,900 results

I selected the specific mage from the newspaper article "Belleville had its share of fame: Nice guy Clint Walker became Hollywood hunk" by By Jaime Ingle that appeared in News-Democrat on June 18, 2008. I did due diligence on this matter, and this is reflected in the Purpose of use and Replaceable in the Summary section for this image. The picture was originally created more than 50 years ago and was, at the time, of its creation, distributed freely for publicity purposes. It is assumed to be in the public domain and is being used here in good faith for information only and that, after so many years, it will not have any negative impact on its creators or on Mr. Walker himself. Publicity Photos (star headshots) older publicity stills have usually not been copyrighted and since they have been disseminated to the public, they are generally considered public domain and therefore there is no necessity to clear them with the studio that produced them per the guidance at the Creative Guidance web site. Marcd30319 (talk) 23:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this... has nothing to do with this deletion nomination.--Damiens.rf 00:31, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It illustrates that I made every effort to obtain a free image of Clint Walker but there are no free images available on the Internet using the Google search engine as set forth above, so a non-free image was used for the Clint Walker article. Every effort was made to conform with WP:NFCC#1. I hope you are able to understand this now. Marcd30319 (talk) 13:04, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, now I understand. No free image was found on a series of elaborate searches on Google Image, so we have to use a non-free image of this guy. You should had made it clear before. The discussion would have been much short. Thanks! --Damiens.rf 17:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

And yet it didn't make a bit of difference.Marcd30319 (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gallant Hours-Montgomery-Halsey-Cagney.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. Wikipedia isn't a ballot, but when four of five statements are good-faith "keep", it's obvious what way the discussion is going. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free image showing three man working. Damiens.rf 20:25, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The image is a studio publicity photo of director Robert Montgomery, actor James Cagney, and retired Fleet Admiral William F. Halsey, the subject of the 1960 biographical war film The Gallant Hours.Marcd30319 (talk) 21:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure what the argument being made here for deletion is, that the photo is simply decorative? Certainly it's a posed publicity shot -- and publicity shots were distributed freely without compunction, so while the photo is copyrighted, it's not a closely-held copyright, since the purpose of publicity shots is to get publicit, they were, and continue to be, given away freely without concern for their use or context -- there's no denying that, but the shot does show that there was a least one meeting between the director, star and subject of the film (even if it was only for the purpose of taking the shot), and the relationship between the star (Cagney) and the subject (Halsey) is a topic which is discussed in the article. This raises it from the purely decorative to the illustrative. I see no bar to the photo beeing used under NFCC, and I see distict benefit to the reader in seeing the three men together, even under such controlled circumstances. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:18, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: WP:NFCC#8. --Damiens.rf 01:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion process not a "fill in the blanks" form where you nom an image for deletion, wave the magic wand of NFCC#8 and whammo, the image is deleted -- even if that's the way it works more often than not. It's still intended to be a consensus-based decision arrived at by discussion from within the community, fortunately. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see anything wrong with the image. A (very old -- he's not in his WWII form anymore) Halsey reviews the script with the director and the actor portraying him. I don't see this as decorative. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:53, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - what ? We need an image of three men meeting otherwise reader's understanding of the meeting will be significantly impaired ? This image does not significantly add to reader's understanding (fails WP:NFCC#8) of the article's subject matter. Beyond My Ken, we need much more that simply illustration to include non-free images - Peripitus (Talk) 22:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Although the text doesn't comment on the photo, the photo should perhaps be kept because it visually illustrates the (IMO striking) physical similarity between Halsey and Cagney, which is mentioned in the text. —teb728 t c 23:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For that comparison we could use two free images and a bit of photoshop work to bring them together (like

and

) - if that is the only reason to keep this image then it fails WP:NFCC#1. There are ample free images of the pair for such a comparison - Peripitus (Talk) 10:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would be constitute original research. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have added the following paragraph to the Production section of the The Gallant Hours article. I think this should resolve any questions about the significance of this image and thereby duly addressing WP:NFCC#8. Please note that the three individuals in the image -- Robert Montgomery, William F. Halsey, and James Cagney -- are all dead and the image in question was a publicity photograph taken 52 years ago, and therefore WP:NFCC#1 is also duly addressed. Marcd30319 (talk) 21:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Under his contract agreement with Cagney-Montgomery Productions, Admiral Halsey would receive 10 per cent of the profits from the motion picture. During a visit with his son, William F. Halsey III, in La Jolla, California, Admiral Halsey went to Camp Pendelton where The Gallant Hours was being filmed (pictured). William F. Halsey III later remarked that he was startled at how much James Cagney looked like his father did during World War Two."

Reference: Potter, E.B. (1985). Bull Halsey. Annapolis, Maryland: Naval Institute Press. p. 376. ISBN 0-87021-146-3. Retrieved 2011-04-30.

Query: These discussions are allegedly consensus based, and we have three (3) votes for keep plus one weak keep versus one vote for delete. That's 3 1/2 pro and 1 against. No further comments have been added since April 30th, and this is the only image file still open to discussion. When will there be a determination on this image since it is the last image in this long stream of image deletions that have not received a decision? Marcd30319 (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Being based on consensus means exactly that the vote counting is irrelevant. Ed's vote, for instance, should be directly disregarded. And teb728's weak keep was opposed. Your own vote is also null since it gave no reason no to delete this unnecessary non-free image. Instead, you just described what's shown in the image. And to be honest, the remaining keep vote (the one by Beyond My Ken) is also clueless. --Damiens.rf 21:56, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - My comment is far from "clueless", thank you very much, though I have no doubt that you disagree with it. I am quite clear about how things work vs. how they are intended to work. NFCC#8 is as subject to discussion and consensus in how it is implemented in a specific instance as is every other Wikipedia policy and guideline. It is not a sledgehammer, a magic talisman, a get-out-of-jail-free-card, a no-knock warrant, or piece of anti-terrorist legislation. You do not get to invoke it and magically invalidate all the resonable and thoughtful opinions that have been expressed. Nor, may I say, does it give you leaave to demean those opinions simply because you disagree with them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Internationalsocialist.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 - Peripitus (Talk) 22:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claims "public domain","Out of copyright", "Fair use", "ineligible for copyright" all in a short space of time. Template:PD-UK shows it needs to be 70 years old to be out of copyright, so I suspect it's not. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 20:55, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: the claims "public domain, because it is out of copyright, fair use" are irrelevant because the {{PD-ineligible}} licence appears to be correct because it is composed entirely only of simple text. It just requires a completed {{information}} template. ww2censor (talk) 02:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have added the PD-text tag. --Duncan (talk) 09:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Wallenberg stamp.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 - Markd30319, I would also direct you to read item#8 on Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2. We have a specific bar to pass for images used in this context that your argument is not addressing - Peripitus (Talk) 22:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there is no commentary about this post 1978 US stamp itself other than is was issued and what it shows which is described in prose, but this is not sufficient to pass WP:NFCC#8 for non-free stamp images being used in non-stamp articles. ww2censor (talk) 21:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification requested: There is a paragraph of cited commentary about the stamp along with quotes. The citation used includes much more detail, but it was assumed that adding such voluminous extra text to the article was unnecessary with a linked source. In any case, it's more than simple prose. Can you try to explain the kind of additional commentary needed to support this image?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

While the citation is quite interesting in and of itself, there is no critical commentary about the stamp. There is just comments that it is appropriate to honour Wallenberg and most of the rest of the press release comments about Wallenberg and Lantos but there is nothing about the stamp, other than the fact it would be issued and what it shows, so it still fails WP:NFCC#8. You want to know what kind of commentary would be suitable; perhaps there was debate about what should be in the background, or what portrait should be used for Wallenberg, perhaps the illustration shows some aspect of Wallenberg improperly, or the people in the background are not as claimed, or some other critical commentary about the stamp itself supported by reliable sources. ww2censor (talk) 02:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, clearly that kind of detail would be nearly impossible to find for stamps. The sad irony of such barriers to usage is that in the U.S. at least, being that the U.S.P.S. is a profit making organization, they do whatever they can to display their stamp images. The images of commemoratives are plastered throughout every post office. They are used on their web pages and publications. They do whatever they can to get people to see their commemorative stamps, which they artistically create at great expense, and want people to buy them. The want those stamps on every envelope so that everyone in a home will also see it. They would probably pay WP to reproduce low res images throughout WP! These stamps act as a form of advertising, since competitive carriers like UPS and Fed Ex don't have such attractive stamps. Why doesn't someone call them? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think that is a distorted view because nowadays most post office, certainly the ones I visit, have few images of stamps on their wall and even fewer stock anything other than a few current self-stick stamps, mostly definitives and few commemorative. Besides which USPS does claim copyright of their stamps, so I very much doubt your theory that they would pay WP to host their images. ww2censor (talk) 05:51, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They obviously want a copyright - it's their stamps and they couldn't allow people to reproduce them. But they have a PR department to promote such stamps so people will know they exist and buy them. They issue press releases to get people to buy them. A low res non-free use in an article related to the stamp's image seems like something that would benefit them greatly and could do them no harm. I'd assume that the U.N. would feel the same way since their stamps are even more artistic and informative. BTW, the post offices around here usually have large posters of their new commemoratives on the walls. I think you should call them. Do you need the number?--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It make no sense to talk about a something and not show it. The image and prose complement each other. We are not serving the best interest of the reader of the article by deleting this image. Is that not the primary objective of Wikipedia? Marcd30319 (talk) 11:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it makes complete sense and is part of the specific point of WP:NFCC#8 that says it is possible to talk about something without having to display a non-free image. Are you incapable of talking an image without having to actually show the image? ww2censor (talk) 04:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick look at the illustrations on the stamp makes it obvious that words alone could never fully re-create the same image. The image will obviously increase significantly any readers understanding of the stamp's description. Isn't that the purpose of having a non-free image? It is used in context and is not decorative.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the point that it is obvious that words alone could never fully re-create the same image. No, you are wrong, the purpose of using a non-free image is to support the associated prose, but only if that prose is in the form of critical commentary about the stamp itself, but there is still no such prose for this stamp. ww2censor (talk) 04:59, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is used in connection with the article Raoul Wallenberg, specifically honors to his memory such as this U.S. Postal Service commemorative stamp. This what WP:NFCC#8 says: How Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.' The image in question illustrates one of the honors given to Wallenberg. How can one write critical commentary about the stamp itself? The article is about Raoul Wallenberg, not the stamp except that it pertains to noting the honors given Raoul Wallenberg's memory. How does critical commentary about the stamp itself significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, namely Raoul Wallenberg? Raoul Wallenberg is the topic, not the stamp. This entire discussion is a Non sequitur. Marcd30319 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The use does not significantly increase reader understanding as required by WP:NFCC#8 The text describing the issuance of the stamp is perfectly understandable without being illustrated by the image of the stamp. —teb728 t c 05:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Iron Sulfate structure.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Structure is sooo wrong! Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isothiocyanate.png[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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is Methylisothiocyanate, to show the group one should have an "R" at the end of the bond to the "N". Orphan file anyway. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:32, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Isocyanate.png[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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file. This is methyl isocyanate, needs an "R" Ronhjones ^(Talk) 21:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Issue- 11 Jean Grey. Phoenix.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file, photo of 3D artwork, may or may not be copyvio Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Issue-21-Captain-Britain.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 ⚡ 00:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan file, Photo of 3D artwork Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Issue-31-Angel-Blue-Angel-variant.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan File, Photo of 3D artwork Ronhjones ^(Talk) 22:21, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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