Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 8

< July 7	July 9 >

July 8[edit]

File:IFWiki.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:08, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, used in a now deleted PROD, no foreseeable use. FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:39, 8 July 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:Disi water conveyance project pipes.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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:51, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of some pipes that will be used to build a pipeline being used under a claim of fair use. For one, I doubt that it's irreplaceable - there are plenty of construction workers there, any of whom could snap a picture with a cell phone ... you can see in the picture that they are carried on trucks ... presumably these trucks drive down public roads ... and on top of that, the article says construction is hampered by protesters shooting at construction equipment, so it doesn't sound like security is too tight for someone else to shoot a photo. And surely the pipes exist somewhere on the planet other than the construction site. And even if they were completely irreplaceable, there's no reason to believe that this image satisfies WP:NFCC#8 - that lack of use of this image would damage a user's ability to understand a topic. B (talk) 03:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No longer replaceable to me (the construction is now over), but fails NFCC#8. The image is not necessary to understanding the project; there does not seem to be anything unusual or unique about the construction shown in this picture. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:00, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the only purpose is to show what the pipes look like, unless this same pipe exists nowhere else on the planet, it's still replaceable. --B (talk) 12:40, 8 July 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:Y-combinator-logo.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. Gif version migrated to commons, where a vector version could be created.

Obsoleted by File:Y-combinator-logo.gif. While gif is strictly speaking a lossy format (IIRC), it clearly shows less artifacts than this file. Not eligible for F8 due to different file formats. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:20, 8 July 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:Caylee anthony.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. There's a lot of kind of junky, non-guideline or policy-based arguments on both sides, but what it boils down to is a concern that the image doesn't meet our non-free content policies vs. the image is useful in illustrating the article. Many assertions were made that removing the image would be detrimental to reader's understanding, for example: "part of the reason [people cared] about the murder trial" was the photo; that her health as evidenced in the photo was an important part of the trial; or that she was a white girl and this was the reason for the coverage; but no secondary and reliable sources have been brought forth to support these assertions. The onus is on the defenders of non-free content to prove why it should remain, and no one in the discussion below did so. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of Caylee Anthony used only decoratively in two articles - Timeline of Casey Anthony case and Casey Anthony trial. In both cases, it fails WP:NFCC#8 - the absence of this photo would not inhibit a user's understanding of the topic. B (talk) 14:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - why would you delete the photo of a victim where it is central to the topic? If you describe a crime you should show who the victim was. It's not decorative. chris †ianrocker90 18:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have removed the image from the Timeline article. It's also been added to Caylee's Law. chris †ianrocker90 18:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really???? How does it help your understanding of Caylee's Law to see her picture? What information about the law is it that you get from the picture that isn't adequately conveyed by telling you the law was named for her? --B (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't help the understanding of the law itself, but it shows which person caused the bill to be introduced. chris †ianrocker90 21:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Please read WP:NFCC#8. "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." For example, no discussion of the Kent State shootings or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima could possibly be complete without those iconic photos. On the other hand, you can have a meaningful and complete discussion about the murder trial or about Caylee's law without having any clue what she looks like. --B (talk) 00:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Part of the reason the nation got so emotionally invested to make this trial notable is images like this one. chris †ianrocker90 02:13, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        But the article doesn't mention any such thing. If it is, in fact, true that images of Caylee contributed to the public interest in the trial AND you have reliable sources attesting to that fact, then you could potentially add that information to the article about the trial. If such a thing were in the article, then the image would significantly increase the user's understanding of the topic. But without that, the image doesn't show us anything relevant. --B (talk) 02:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes it does, it shows who the victim of the crime was. If a free alternative was probable we would be here as I wouldn't have uploaded it, but one is not possible with Caylee being dead. That leaves us with a fair use image as the only alternative to show who the victim of the crime was, similarly to Murder of Jessica Lunsford. chris †ianrocker90 04:25, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You're arguing NFCC#1 (replaceability). I don't question that the the image is not replaceable. In order for a non-free image to be used, it must meet all of the criteria, not just some of them. It meets #1 - it doesn't meet #8. --B (talk) 05:17, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Criteria number 8 is subjective. You say is doesn't add anything to the article and I say it does. chris †ianrocker90 08:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It may be subjective, but that's not the same as being purely aesthetic. The subjective view that the image meets NFCC#8 must have at least some basis in reality. You should be able to explain how your understanding of Caylee's Law or the mother's trial is enhanced by seeing a photo of the girl. --B (talk) 13:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- (<---)How many times do I have to say it before you acknowledge it? It shows who the victim of the crime was so people have a better understanding of that. And who's inspired the law so people don't go "Who the hell is Caylee Anthony?!" Sure these things can be describe, but a picture is worth a thousand words. All the article does is say what happened to Caylee to make her notable, it doesn't describe what she looked like. chris †ianrocker90 18:45, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "used only decoratively" then every picture on Wikipedia the internet and in books are only for "decoration". Who was murdered? This person File:Caylee anthony.jpg. Who is the legislation named after? This person;File:Caylee anthony.jpg.
This is not a valid argument: For example, no discussion of the Kent State shootings or Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima could possibly be complete without those iconic photos. On the other hand, you can have a meaningful and complete discussion about the murder trial or about Caylee's law without having any clue what she looks like.
You can describe Kent State and the Flag raising on Mt. Suribachi without the pictures. Mala Zimetbaum can be described without the picture. Death by China (book) can be described without the picture, Wounded Knee incident can be described without the picture etc. etc etc. This seems like it may be a case of AR-I or possibly AR-II 7mike5000 (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Terrell Peterson is a more relevant example. The kid was murdered, his murder can be described without the picture. People in general prefer having a face to go along with the name it's human nature. 7mike5000 (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the image at Wounded Knee incident should be deleted as well - the picture adds absolutely nothing to that article. If the picture were critical to the topic in some way (ie, it won a pulitzer or it galvanized public support behind the Indians), it would be appropriate, but as it is, it does not meet NFCC#8. As for Kent State and raising the flag, sure, you can describe those topics pictures, but those pictures are so iconic - so important to the study of the topic - that without the presence of the pictures, the article is necessarily incomplete. As for the book article, copyrighted images of books (or corporate logos and the like) are used to identify the subject. The policy specifically allows "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." (See WP:NFCI.) Terrell Peterson is a different issue completely - the article is actually ABOUT HIM, not about the trial of his murderer or a law that resulted from his death. If we had an article on Caylee Anthony (which we do not, nor would we, obviously), then an image could be arguably appropriate there. --B (talk) 03:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Image of the subject enhances readers' understanding of the topic in the same way that an image of James Dean, Matthew Shepard and other deceased people enhances the readers' understanding of the subject. The same goes for the Murder of Adam Walsh. This is hardly any different. Originally, the article Casey Anthony trial was titled Death of Caylee Anthony, which is why the image was at the top of the article. Not that long ago, it was changed to its current title, and as such we moved it lower (to a relevant section). I don't feel that it's any less valid to use now. No matter the article focusing on the trial, the article is also largely about the death/murder of Caylee Anthony. And I hate to argue fictional characters in a discussion about real people, but it's no different than using fair-use images in articles about fictional characters. Knowing what the fictional character looks like enhances the readers' understanding. Likewise, knowing what real-life people look/looked like enhances readers' understanding. The Caylee's Law article is pretty much about her anyway. That said, I could agree to the image only being used in one of the articles, preferably the one focusing on the trial. I'm not seeing what it was doing in the Timeline of Casey Anthony case. Flyer22 (talk) 20:10, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm getting sick and tired of wiki editor's and their ticky tack deletion requests. We really need to get a vB forum so we can all weigh in and possibly change these rules. This image is of the victim and of importance to the article. Wow, just unreal how picky editors are. Very frustrating. KING OF WIKIPEDIA - GRIM LITTLEZ (talk) 20:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (obviously). Since nobody seems vaguely interested in or informed of the actual rules or policies governing this sort of thing - The relevant standard here is that the image "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (NFCC #8) - this means, roughly speaking, that person X viewing version A (without the image) must go away with a considerably lowered understanding of the subject (The trial of Casey Anthony) than person Y (who gets to see the image). This is the standard we hold ourselves to before we appropriate someone elses property. In this case the only contribution the image makes is in showing what the victim looked like - information which is of limited and tangential value in a discussion of the trial of Casey Anthony. It isn't any more helpful to the reader's understanding of the story (not any other benefit you may be inclined to judge the image against) than a NFC picture of the courthouse, or the jury or the lawyers - i.e. it helps 'paint a picture' but it doesn't improve understanding.

If you can find RS discussing the impact of the girl's 'cuteness' on the public imagination, or you can write about the impact of that paticular image or you can create a decent Caylee Anthony article then by all means, bring it back. Bob House 884 (talk) 20:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am "interested in [and] informed of the actual rules [and] policies governing this sort of thing". I'm not some new editor who doesn't understand policy or guidelines, and have been here since 2007. I just don't entirely agree with some of the "remove image" interpretations being discussed here. While what you stated about the impact this image has had is a good idea, suggesting that an article titled Caylee Anthony be created is not a good idea (at least not right now). I don't feel that such an article could be that distinct from the trial about her death. Maybe in a few years, when a lot of books are written about the impact her death had on American culture, it can be. Flyer22 (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that wasn't directed at you - You do raise some good points - but perhaps you can see where I'm coming from. Whether or not to ever create an article about her isn't something I feel well informed enough about to comment on (wrong country), I was hoping to illustrate the sort of article on which the image would be appropriate (i.e. the picture would contribute to understanding of the exact person the article was referring to). Bob House 884 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Bob. And, yes, I do understand where you are coming from. I'm used to these arguments, so I know the rationale behind them. Flyer22 (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The reason to why the photo is up for deletion seems vague at best. I dont see any reason to delete it,--BabbaQ (talk) 21:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is that the image is purported to fail WP:NFCC#8 - it is being argued that the image fails to contribute to the readers understanding sufficiently. Failing this or any other NFCC is reason for deletion of a non-free (copyrighted) image. Perhaps you should familiarise yourself with the criteria before dismissing them as 'vague'. Bob House 884 (talk) 21:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per my comments in the article Talk page, there's every logical reason to keep the Caylee picture on this article. I'm actually annoyed and befuddled that people want to delete it. For like no real reason at all. It's weird how some people think it's wrong to have a picture of Caylee on here. Because of maybe being in "bad taste" because she's dead, and how sad and bad and exploitative, or maybe gruesome, or cold, or whatever. That's emotionalism, not logical or encyclopedic argumentation. The news media and reliable sources have shown Caylee's photo galore. And it would be incomplete and silly to not reflect that aspect, of this crazy and involved case. A shot of Caylee is warranted since she was the victim and the one killed, and is very important for the article too. To know what she looked like and who the victim actually was. There's NO valid Wikipedia reason to remove the Caylee image, but every WP reason to keep it. In an article dealing with this very matter. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, read the nomination. The reason is that this image is not free (it is copyrighted, presumably by People) and must satisfy the Non-free content criteria - not that it is in 'bad taste' or anything of the sort (we don't censor) Bob House 884 (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it, and I noticed that you didn't explicitly say "bad taste", but some others in the article talk page did...and even if you didn't, I can see THROUGH the "not free" argument, and read between the lines that what is underlying this stuff is that you just don't like that picture floating around on Wikipedia, in any article. Otherwise why raise such a fuss? There are plenty of "copyrighted" images validly on WP, with good criteria and rationale. I'm not stupid. I think that what's really driving this is that some people just don't like this picture on here is for similar reasons that the editor "Nightshift" stated on the article talk, which can be seen right here. I don't know totally for sure what all your motivations are, but it becomes apparent that the complaint about fair use and "non-free" etc becomes used as the FRONT excuse not to have it, instead of the real main over-arching reason. Again, since many such images exist on WP with valid rationale. Meaning what really is the rationale to not have this Caylee image? "Adds no value"? Yeah, uh, no. It adds plenty of value and meaning. People want to know who the victim was and what she looked like. Plus it would behoove Wikipedia to reflect what RS show and inform the public of. The Caylee picture obviously "added value" to their newspaper articles and TV news reports, to help understand what she looked like before her death. Did she look bruised? Did she look too skinny? Mal-nourished? Happy? Sad? Sick? See the point. There's good enough reason to keep this image on WP and on the Casey trial article. peace out. Hashem sfarim (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In concurrence with the many editors above. Also, numerous other Wiki-articles on murdered people include photos of victims. Boneyard90 (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The anal few can go to hell. NewYork1956 (talk) 06:41, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - To my knowledge, Florida is a public domain state and a fair use rationale should not be required to keep this image from deletion. Move it to commons and decide on the associated article talk pages whether or not the image detracts or supplements. I think it is beneficial for inclusion. My76Strat ^talk 07:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, no. Creative works of the GOVERNMENT of Florida are public domain. Family photos are not. --B (talk) 12:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It seems that once this photo was included in the public record, its release was initiated under Florida law. I would like to know if that is a correct assumption? My76Strat ^talk 15:15, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. There have been a number of court cases that held that copyright survives something being entered into the public records. [[1], for instance, was about a locality that refused to allow someone to copy a document under public records laws because the copyright was owned by a third party. The court ruled they could copy it and use it under a claim of fair use (but it was still copyrighted). --B (talk) 19:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Thank you for that insightful discourse. What you have shown, makes sense, and does therefor require a fair use rational. I think the burdens have been met to license it as irreplaceable while being of tremendous historic value. So I affirm, Keep as my suggestion. Best regards - My76Strat ^talk 22:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Irreplaceable in what ?way was as regards wikipedia fair use guidelines - why do we need to use a non free picture of a child? Is there something in the picture that is needed to explain anything additional to our readers - no there is not - its a a purely emotional Keep its a picture of a poor child that died , but there is nothing extra about that picture under wikipedia fair use that warrants it's use - not at all not a single thing within fair use. Off2riorob (talk) 22:08, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        It's the picture of a victim of a crime which is normally crucial to show when talking about said crime. chris †ianrocker90 23:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        No its not at all - under non free use guidelines unless there is some specific issue that is discussed in the article text that the picture aids the reader understand, you do not need a picture of the victim to help readers understand the crime at all. Off2riorob (talk) 10:45, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination's rationale ("the absence of this photo would not inhibit a user's understanding of the topic") goes against common sense and accepted practice on Wikipedia. By that logic, we should delete the picture of Barack Obama since it really doesn't matter what he looks like. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo of Barack Obama is free content. Wikipedia has different policies for free content (images that are in the public domain or licensed under the GFDL, an acceptable Creative Commons license, etc) versus images that are used under a claim of fair use. Images used under a claim of fair use are held to a much more restrictive standard. See WP:FAIR for the rules. Our policy is intentionally much more restrictive than US law. Just about everyone commenting here either disagrees with the policy or woefully misunderstands it. --B (talk) 14:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - (edit conflict)Also, as Hashem sfarim points out, the image does aid in the understanding of the topic. The image demonstrates Caylee's health prior to her death. This is important because the alleged killer has been accused of being a poor mother and more concerned with partying than raising a daughter, the prosecution's motive for the alleged crime. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - (1) I don't know how you can possibly tell she is healthy just from looking at the picture. (2) Even if that's the case, the article text doesn't mention it. If this photo were used in the trial to demonstrate Caylee's health AND there's a reliable source discussing it, then you could add something about it to the text of the article and then the image would be a legitimate example of fair use. (3) Even if all of this is the case, there's still no reason for using it in Caylee's Law, so even if you presume everyone arguing keep is correct and that somehow, a photo that is not commented on in text is appropriate for use in an article about a trial, there's still no reason to keep it in the article about the law. --B (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Regarding point #2, the image is being used in two articles. If the second article doesn't include a sufficient explanation, just fix it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Huh? NEITHER article mentions the photo. Nor is it my job to fix it in either case. Nor is there any conceivable reason whatsoever it should be included in the article about the law. --B (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Nor is it mine. But let me sum up your position as I see it: You just want to complain about something without actually trying to fix it. Are you aware that we are not supposed to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        You're the one arguing to keep the image. I don't think it complies with WP:NFCC#8. You should perhaps consider reading the policy you linked - nominating an obviously non-compliant image for deletion is neither disruptive nor pointy. Arguing to keep it because you don't like the image use policy is disruptive. --B (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I did read WP:NFCC#8 and your concern has already been addressed.[2] Please see WP:ICANTHEARYOU. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 15:30, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        As interesting as all of that is, it would be acceptable if the image were the subject of sourced commentary. But it isn't. --B (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note for closing admin: even if you decide that somehow, a non-transformative photo is an appropriate fair use in Casey Anthony trial, please note that it was added to Caylee's Law after this IFD began and, as persuasive as the arguments like "The anal few can go to hell" are for retaining it in the article about the trial, no meaningful argument whatsoever (assuming you can call the arguments for retaining it in the trial meaningful) has been made for retaining it in the article about the law. So if you do make the incorrect decision to retain it for the trial, you should still remove it from the article about the law. --B (talk) 14:32, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - - - So, you're saying that the image would be acceptable if it were the subject of sourced commentary? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If the image itself (not merely the person or object that the image depicts) is the subject of sourced commentary, and that sourced commentary is relevant to the article, then the image is usually acceptable to use under our fair use rules. (This is, of course, subject to the normal limitations, such as it being an encyclopedic topic and the source being of the reliable variety, not just someone's blog.) --B (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the absence of this photo would so very very clearly not inhibit a user's understanding of the topic at all - as per the nominator. Off2riorob (talk) 17:48, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not necessary to understanding the article, increases victimization of the little girl, and probably isn't humane for the family either (which isn't a reason under the guidelines, but should have some small weight). If the photo were properly licensed, I might entertain some of the other thoughts, but without that it seems pretty cut-and-dried. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The photo license is fine and can be improved. It's clearly worth keeping despite and administrivial errors. Buffs (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm, the image is unlicensed. That's kinda the whole point. And I have no idea what an "administrivial error" is, but we do have rules here. That a number of users disagree with our fair use rules isn't a reason to ignore them. Wikipedia is about more than just creating an encyclopedia - it's about encouraging the creation of free content. To that end, we use as little under a claim of fair use as possible. --B (talk) 03:18, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Umm, currently about 6 news agencies claim copyright on the photo (AP, Reuters, CNN, FoxNews, MSNBC, and People). What the heck do you mean it is unlicensed? The source seems pretty clear that they claim ownership. If they are in error, then that is an error on their part, not ours. They are certainly a reputable source for purposes of an image showing the girl (one that has been plastered all over the news).
  
  It annoys me to no end when people like you decide that their interpretation of NFCC is the only one and that they are 100% correct and are never wrong. They don't even care what consensus is. Damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead! While we're on the subject, I might as well point out that your interpretation and insinuations regarding my comments are not welcome. I disagree that there are any components of NFCC that aren't met. Your contention that I "disagree with our fair use rules" is preposterous. I disagree with you, not your sacred rules. Buffs (talk) 06:01, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Regardless of who else might have a license to use the photo, Wikipedia does not. It would be like your son driving your car and claiming to have a license because you have a driver's license. Our use of the image - just like most images that we are using under our non-free content policy - is unlicensed. That's the whole point of fair use - it gives you the legal right to use an image without the permission (or, "license") of the copyright holder. --B (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
note - a two year old girl died. You do not need a picture of her to understand that. There is no non free use rationale that supports this picture in either of the articles it is currently in at all. Off2riorob (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you do to understand what she looked like. If this were a free image we wouldn't be here. But unfortunately there is no free alternative. We don't have a choice if we are to show to the readers what she looks like. chris †ianrocker90 19:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To show what she looked like is not imo a wikipedia non free fair use rationale. What part of the content in the article is specifically discussing her appearance? Off2riorob (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I guess it is time that I jump in on this discussion since it keeps popping up on my watchlist. Anyways, this image patently fails WP:NFCC#8, in Caylee's Law especially, but also (just to a lesser extent) in Death of Caylee Anthony. Seeing the victim does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would [not] be detrimental to that understanding". Unless there is something unusual or specifically important about the child's appearance, the image's use (especially in articles which aren't really biographies).
I invite any of the editors here to write a fair use rationale for each use of the images which specifically addresses each point of WP:NFCC. Additionally, has anybody contacted Orange County Sheriff's Office (the source given for the image at people.com) to request permission to release the image under a free license, rather than using it as a non-free image? The copyright holder may be willing to release the image under a Wikipedia-compatible license, in which case the whole argument for deletion would be moot. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:46, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, to the closing admin: Have fun. Whatever you do, you'll probably get complaints. :-/ –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 14:49, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ha ha! True that. --B (talk) 00:36, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that it would be madness to delete the image. No one will take any harm in having a photo of Caylee, so that is just simple BS.--BabbaQ (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been changed back to the Death of Caylee Anthony title, as shown above by Drilnoth. And B said, "If we had an article on Caylee Anthony (which we do not, nor would we, obviously), then an image could be arguably appropriate there." Well, considering the articles Matthew Shepard and the Murder of Adam Walsh have pictures of the victims, then maybe the Caylee image is appropriate as well? As I stated before, these individuals are deceased, and other Wikipedia articles about deceased people have fair-use images used to identify them, such as James Dean. Images of deceased people are the only kind of fair-use images that are accepted when it comes to images of real-life people on Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Coming back to state really quick that it doesn't seem as though the James Dean article is using a fair-use image anymore. It's from Wikimedia Commons. I still feel that my point is clear, though. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Was the article renamed just for the sake of gaming the system on an evaluation of what non-free content is reasonable to use? If so, that sounds like rather bad reasoning. (2) Is it critical to your understanding of her death that you see a photo of her from some point in time when she wasn't dead? --B (talk) 00:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do you continue to throw around that talking point after it has been continually refuted? I think a person above has the answer. chris †ianrocker90 00:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nonsense - your comment is close to a personal attack in itself - No one in this thread has refuted or addressed the clear problems with the non-free use rationale of this picture, A user following guidelines is not disruptive at all no matter how much you don't like it. Off2riorob (talk) 01:07, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, it is not a personal attack of any sort, he's asked several times what impact this picture has on the article in regards WP:NFCC#8 and people have responded repeatedly in regards to his question yet he keeps questioning the same people with the same question. As for disruptive, it may not be, but it certainly feels like he's ignoring them. So essentially what I'm saying is the second half of Buffs comments above. It was in no way a personal attack. chris †ianrocker90 01:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - To User:B: NO, the article's name change had nothing to do with the photo (as far as I know). Because the article was called the Casey Anthony TRIAL, many editors were trying to keep the article's content restricted only to the events and evidence that concerned the trial. With the name changed to DEATH of Caylee Anthony, other related aspects can be included, such as the possible upcoming civil trial, media coverage, etc. It is more inclusive of related information, and more in-line with other related Wikipedia articles, such as the Murder of Adam Walsh. Boneyard90 (talk) 01:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say "many users," but, yes, Boneyard90 pretty much has it right. If you check the talk page, you'll see that which title should be the main title has been debated extensively. Some feel that either title is limiting to some degree; others, such as myself, feel that neither title is limiting because the events are intricately/substantially linked, even while preferring one title over the other. I mean, in this case, I certainly don't see how one topic can be covered without the other. The possible upcoming civil trial, media coverage, all significantly relate to the Casey Anthony trial, for example. But, yeah. Flyer22 (talk) 01:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - The only reasons (aside from personal attacks and complete misunderstandings of policy or the purpose of this discussion) that I've heard for keeping the image are (1) other similar articles have them and (2) so you can see that she was healthy. Of those, I consider #2 to have no merit whatsoever until such time as there is a reliable source discussing the relevance of this photo (or even photos in general) in swaying public opinion. Were such a reliable source to be added to the article, then it is certainly more than worthy of consideration. Regarding #1, I know that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is frowned upon as a reason on Wikipedia, though honestly, I think that's a ridiculous limitation of what should be a very meaningful talking point. I think it's definitely worth considering what standard practice has been for other articles. But I don't think precedent is sacred, particularly if that precedent itself violates policy. For example, Murder of Adam Walsh is most often cited. Well, that image has been in use since 2005. 2005? Our image use policy is nothing whatsoever like what it was in 2005. Now, that said, an argument can at least be made (though the article doesn't make it) that this photo is relevant to the story - it was the photo distributed to the media for the missing person's search. But while that argument can at least be made with a straight face, the photo in the Caylee Anthony article is not central to the story. --B (talk) 02:25, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Did you look for any reliable sources which discuss this or any other image of Caylee? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:44, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - See WP:FAIR#Enforcement - "Note that 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—see burden of proof." --B (talk) 03:42, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        A valid rationale has already been provided. Case closed. In any case, you didn't answer my question. How much time did you spend looking for a source? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Which rationale is that? Rationales have been provided, but I have yet to see a valid one. –Drilnoth (T/C) 11:05, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Criteria number 8. All we need to do is to find a source discussing an image of Caylee (whether it's this one or another, it doesn't really matter) and add it to the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Is there already such a source in the article? If not, one needs to be added for that to be a valid rationale. –Drilnoth (T/C) 11:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question Are we sure it's not free? The photo was released by the Orange County Sheriff's Office.[3] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was released by the sheriff's office (or another government agency), then it's a public domain image. And this would make sense, it would be standard procedure to release a photo of the child while she was considered "missing". Boneyard90 (talk) 13:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the state of Florida ~~owned the copyright to that image~~ created the image, then it would be public domain. But that's highly unlikely to be the case ... what reason would they have had to take a photo of her while she was alive? --B (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Public domain" means there is no copyright. Boneyard90 (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Fine, poor word choice on my part. But the point stands. The state obviously got the photo from the family ... it wasn't in the business of taking photos of Caylee while she was alive and, as far as I know, they don't have a time machine. --B (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Right, so the family released the photo to the sheriff, with full knowledge and consent that it would enter public domain, and it would be used in multiple media outlets, from neighborhood flyers to CNN news to Google and, yes, to Wikipedia. I suppose the family could ask for the photo back from the sheriff, and ask all media outlets to withdraw the image from use, but they would have held a very public press conference (we would have heard about it), and still, it would be like trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. As for your last point, I'm sorry, I just don't know what a time machine has to do with anything. Boneyard90 (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        If they had a time machine, they'd be using it to solve mysteries, not to worry over fair-use photos. See, this is where you run into the typical deletionist mentality. They're always looking for an angle to satisfy their need to delete stuff. You can't have a fair-use photo of a living person because theoretically some wikipedia papparazzi could snap one. Once they're dead, you still can't have a fair-use photo because it's "decorative". When it's pointed out that it illustrates the subject, they'll claim it's "not needed" - Translation: they don't need it themselves, therefore the reading public doesn't either, because wikipedia editors know what the public needs better than the public knows. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        You all have fallen into the classic copyright trap. Just because something has been released for public distribution does not mean that the image has been released into the public domain. They are very different concepts. Additionally, the thing you're thinking about for public domain with government-released works in the United States only applies to original works of the United States Federal Government. Absent a state law to the contrary, it is not the case that original works of state and local governments are public domain. States and localities are allowed to claim copyright on their works. And in any case, this is not an original work of any government agency, but appears to be a family photo. Thus this photo belongs to the family, and more than likely is also the copyright holder to the photo. And permission to reprint a photo also does not transfer it to the public domain. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Just as a point of information, most works of the government of the state of Florida (which this is NOT) are public domain. See Copyright status of work by the Florida government. --B (talk) 03:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Puts a face to the victim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#8. It is unnecessary to have that particular non-free photo, or any non-free image for that matter, of Caylee Anthony in order to understand (A) the article about the laws that are being proposed as a result of her death, or (B) the article about her death. If it were a free image, there would be no issues with using the photo, but since it's non-free, no can do, I'm afraid. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone needs to get into more depth in the article about why this particular case caught the media's attention. The image of the cute little kid has a great deal to do with that factor. Which you would already realize, if you weren't wearing your deletionist blinders and/or had any actual clue about this case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#8. Lets see, Its not free content, and I don't need the picture to understand the article. Seems like an easy one. Sregor Ylloj (talk) 22:13, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Banned users don't get a vote or to contribute to discussions. Buffs (talk) 03:51, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You're wrong. The picture is vital to understanding why this particular missing-child case got wide coverage, as opposed to the many that don't. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:16, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Missing white woman syndrome? --B (talk) 22:58, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or missing white little girl, in this case. Without that factor and the illustration, the average reader who was unaware of this case would naturally ask, "What's special about this case?" The picture helps a great deal in answering that question. So the picture passes NFC 8 with flying colors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:03, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - If there were one or more reliable sources discussing the photo, then that would be correct. But, with all due respect to Justice Douglas, I'm not thrilled about the idea that there are "penumbras" in our articles that are so important they demand a fair use picture, yet not important enough to discuss in actual text. --B (talk) 23:14, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Take away the picture, and the reason for the widespread media coverage is left a mystery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:24, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see why a picture helps with that. Murder happens. Kids disappear. Cute kids disappear. See the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. Surely, not every disappeared kid that could be considered "cute" gets national media attention. So I don't see from the picture the reason for it. Now, if there are one or more reliable sources that say something like "cute photos of Caylee released by the police stirred up national interest in the story" then that should be added to the article, rather than leaving the reader to discern it through tea leaves and penumbras. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So this has been discussed at length, will any more discussion help? Is it time to get an admin in here and tally up the Keep's and Delete's? Although, he may need to comb through and cull out editors who may have "voted" twice, or find those who commented but didn't put the bold-font vote at the beginning of the sentence. Boneyard90 (talk) 12:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- IFDs are typically closed after seven days. (Obviously, with a contentious one like this, it is always possible that it may sit around for a few more waiting for an admin who wants to be brave and tackle it, or for uninvolved admins to discuss the closure before making it.) It should also be noted that deletion discussions regarding fair use are most certainly NOT resolved by counting !votes. (Well, other deletion discussions shouldn't be either, for that matter.) The question here isn't how many people like the image, it's whether a convincing argument was made that it fully meets our non-free content policy. --B (talk) 14:44, 14 July 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:Joe Flizzow solo album President cover medium.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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly an album cover, being used to illustrate Flizzow himself. Replaceable fair use, but not tagged as non-free so no speedy. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:21, 8 July 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:Map of USA Jefferson.svg[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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Redundant to the more encyclopedic and accurate File:Map of USA JF.png. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:31, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep illustrates a different version of Jefferson form the alternate image mentioned. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:09, 10 July 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:Europcarlogoteam.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. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Company/team logo Eeekster (talk) 17:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Change to a non-free logo copyright tag and add a standard {{logo fur}}, but keep. Logo appears to be faithfully taken from the team website this subpage. Jheald (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Let me get this straight, your reason for deletion is that it is a logo? That isn't a valid reason for deletion. Buffs (talk) 02:45, 11 July 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:Marcus00.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC violation. No rationale given for use. Purely illustrative image in BLP. Previously kept in a poorly argued discussion from 2007 that's not consistent with current NFCC standards. Supposedly demonstrated contrast between the young porn performer and his later sttatus as a convicted murderer (not a valid NFCC use, of course), but the "contrasting" nonfree images have already been removed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of argument is "purely illustrative" image? Aren't images supposed to be "illustrative"? A picture is worth a thousand words, so the saying goes. This image was intended to show that this man's porn career was "successful" before his downfall due to murder charges. This image was already kept once and shouldn't be up again.Ryoung122 03:00, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:NFCC#8 to answer your question. Images are only used under a claim of fair use when they would substantially increase a user's understanding of the topic and excluding the image would be detrimental to that understanding. Is not seeing this individual on the cover of a magazine detrimental to your understanding of him? --B (talk) 03:22, 11 July 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:Wp-naughty-bit.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 as F9 by B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Brazilian Waxing.jpg. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTCENSORED 65.93.15.213 (talk) 05:08, 10 July 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:Yoyogames.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: withdrawn by nominator –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:48, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably a non-free logo (not GFDL as stated), and if non-free I can't think of any FUR which would be valid for its current use. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:19, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly {{PD-Textlogo}} and {{trademarked}}. Buffs (talk) 02:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel like it might be too complicated to be automatically PD, what with the multiple different gradients, text shadow, border styling, etc. Of course, I'd be happy to be wrong; I'm just not sure of where the line between PD and non-free is crossed, and this is certainly bordering it IMO. The question is, on which side? –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with buffs here, so in answer to Drilnoth, I don't think it meets the threshold for originality. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Really? Okay. I'm still not to sure, but I'll let the closing admin decide. –Drilnoth (T/C) 15:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The copyright office says that calligraphy is not copyrightable. Wikipedia + Commons labor under the idea that if it's nothing but letters, it's public domain, even if those letters are stylized. Under that rule, this seems to qualify. I'm highly skeptical and if I had my druthers, we would have a CYA way to treat trademarks where we wouldn't label it "public domain", but would be more liberal with its usage than with a copyrightable logo (eg, allow it to be used in galleries or otherwise decoratively). --B (talk) 15:18, 14 July 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:R.E.M. - Out of Time special.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely the contents of the special edition can be described with text, or a free image could be created by someone who owns the special edition. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free image? I think that this picture is a free image as it's a picture of the contents of the special edition album and scans and pictures of album covers are fair-use. It's entirely possible that I'm missing something here. Also, the text of the article has been amended to address the differences in packaging. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has no source. Due to the low resolution and lack of metadata, I'd be inclined to assume it was copied from a website somewhere. Oftentimes, companies will release images like this to promote special editions of products. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 13:17, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - given the resolution as said by Dril, prolly a rip from some web site. The other consideration is that it's not a free image, as the subject of the image is copyrighted content. In general, package details are adequately described in prose and in this case I don't find the FUR compelling. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 14:00, 11 July 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:DOTM-Chicago.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free movie screenshot. Apparently random scene, used in an plot summary section. No explanation of why this particular scene needs to be visually illustrated. Not the object of analytical discussion, except for the mere statement that a certain event happens as part of the plot. – There might well be some analytical commentary to give here, about the production techniques, special effects, visual esthetics etc. seen in this frame, but that would be for a different section, and of course it would have to be sourced; currently there is no content in the article to support this image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:46, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not concerned about section placement so much as if there is actually the content to support use of the frame. Currently, there's no such info on production in Chicago and what is reflected in the chosen shot to warrant inclusion per WP:NFCC. As such, vote for delete. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 13:44, 14 July 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.