This non-free screenshot, used in 2 articles, does not increase the reader's understanding of either subject in a way that words alone cannot, thus failing
WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {
chat}17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - Strongly disagree. Pic demonstrates Irvin's and, more generally, the '87 Hurricanes, flamboyance in a way that words alone cannot.-
PassionoftheDamon16:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)reply
No evidence to support the claim that this image was created by NASA. Abu badali(
talk) 18:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC) Withdraw. Evidence was found. Image is really from NASA (thus, PD). Good work! --Abu badali(
talk)13:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: Without a ticket in ORTS it's extremely difficult to be sure that they understand that it's being released under the GFDL. Per you comments - it would appear to have been released by permission. If you asked them if you could put it on a T-Shirt and sell the T-shirt - do you think they would have said yes ?
Megapixie13:10, 22 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately that's what GFDL implies (admittedly you'd have to print the entire text of the license on the back of the t-shirt). They may have thought you meant just on wikipedia - however GFDL means that anyone could use the image anywhere for any purpose - including commercially.
Megapixie13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Make sure the reply is sent to "permissions-en AT wikimedia DOT org", and then ask some user with OTRS access (like
User:Jkelly) to add the OTRS ticket number to the image description page. Thanks for the cooperation. --Abu badali(
talk)14:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - not being used in a fair use context per
WP:NFCC #1 - living person - we could take a picture that would serve the same effect. No fair use rationale provided.
Keep. The woman in the picture was fired from a union job (with a for-cause termination clause) for THAT PICTURE. Then she wrote a book about it. Then we wrote about her book. Image is irreplaceable because of her job firing and the notoriety surrounding it. -
N21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. It doesn't say anywhere in the article that she was fired for this exact picture. You would have a good argument for keeping the image if that were the case. However, it says, "Delta Air Lines objected to photographs and commentary on her blog." Which photographs? Don't know, but it sounds like more than one. howcheng {
chat}06:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC)reply
There were other photos but they were very similar in nature, just mild risque posing in an airplane. The author chose this photo as an iconic representation of this and chose this as the cover of her book. Any alternative to this photo would still be non-free. -
N19:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep We have no article on the book specifically, only this article on the author. However, this is I think okay for fair use, as the image is used to illustrate an article discussing the book in question.—
Gaffταλκ18:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Object to deletion I object to the deletion of this image. The subject was fired for blogging and for a few photos on her blog. The photo on the book cover is indeed iconic of those few blog photos. After she was fired she wrote the book based on her blog (the title of the book is the title of her blog). In short, the photo is the ideal image to illustrate the subject - "subject" being person, blog, and photos. To restore the image, would it merely be a matter of adding an appropriate caption to the image to give its relevance to the article? Can't we err on the side of constructiveness? The case that the image is legally unacceptable has not been made by the above discussion. The deletion is strange indeed. I note that the article in question has a history of intense spam and vandalism...I am suspicious.
Bdushaw17:38, 14 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Please, do not remove the ifd tag. This is not how this process works. Also, consider reading
WP:COPYREQ. Asking permission to use an image on Wikipedia is not the same as asking it to be released under the GFDL. --Abu badali(
talk)13:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: As before - without an ORTS tickets it's difficult to be sure that they understand what they are releasing (i.e. commercial rights).
Megapixie13:38, 22 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Again, please do not remove the ifd tag. The discussion is still going on and others may be interested in reading it. It seems you asked for a Wikipedia-only permission, and not gfdl licensing, what's not acceptable. --Abu badali(
talk)13:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I grant permission to copy, distribute and/or modify the images entitled "Invasion-3481.jpg" and "Invasion-3486.jpg" under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.
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.
Deleted. Like Abu badali says, there is no evidence to suggest this is really a promotional image. You want a picture of Sylar before he was a bad guy? Get a screenshot. howcheng {
chat}16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Duplicitive purpose non-free media: Used to illustrate fictional character, when other non-free media is present performing the same function. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
21:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. No other image illustrates that specific incarnation of the character, of how he was before he became Sylar. --
Silvestris23:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Agree - the image is important for clearly illustrating the change in the character through the course of the series, as his look changes along with his personality. The older look is referenced in a later episode when the character dresses in a similar fashion when visiting his mother. --Ckatzchatspy00:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keeep. We should have an image from when he was Gabriel Gray, as we saw the beginning of the "Sylar" persona in the episode "Six Months Ago." --
Brad Rousse02:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Should we also have a picture of him walking down that hallway that one time when he was casting that shadow? Or a picture of him from when he was using each of his different powers? Surely we need a picture of him from when he was in his mother's house, that was an important time for him. Wait ... no. Using a non-free image to depict the character is reasonable. Using images to make depictions of important and indescribable aspects of the character is reasonable. If the character significantly changed his appearance over the course of character development then that character depiction would be reasonable. If a single moment of the character's existence became so very notable as to be widely parodied and referenced, using an image of that would be reasonable. But "Gabriel Gray" is the same character and actor as "Sylar", the character only appears slightly different. Lastly, as the character only appeared like this ... once(?), then it is not well representative of the majority of the character's existence. Further use of more copyrighted material does not contribute significantly to the article. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
03:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't appreciate your sarcasm.
If you watched the show you'd understand more, but that image represents how he was before becoming Sylar. It's more than just another picture of the character posing. --
Silvestris17:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
But what exactly is the image contributing to the article that cannot be otherwise explained? It's far more pertinent to tell me 'how and why the character changed' than it is to show me 'this is how the character looked before he changed'. Yes, this is a significant aspect of the character's story, but the image just shows me how he looks a little cleaned-up. Whereas the article tells me what the character has done and how the character has changed. The image does not provide anything more to the article than there is without it. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
00:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - If it was an article about a real person, this image would be kept to show the contrast between the two times in said person's life.
Maxhully22:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
What does the picture provide the article that is essential encyclopedic information that cannot be otherwise explained? — pd_THOR|=/\= |
23:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The image is of the same actor, portraying the same character, but with a little less gel and a little more shaving. There's nothing overly encyclopedic about this particular image that's highlighted in either the IDP or the article. Reading the particular episode referenced in the caption, while
Sylar seems to have gone through some psychological change there's no evidence of any significant physical change or manifestation that this image could conceivably be illustrating. It's another non-free image used to depict the character--and the article only needs one. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
01:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - This image portrays Sylar at a different point in his character development. It is important to show this image for several reasons. It shows that Sylar is aware of his new image, and how his old image has a different effect on people (he gels his hair to visit his mom). This image represents a different point in Sylar's life. If anything, this is the image of Gabriell Gray, not Sylar. I know they are the same person/actor ect but it is a deliberate choice on the part of the directors and the character.
67.168.201.6002:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - As someone who had just recently started watching the show and wanted to catch up, I must say that when I first read this article, I found the image highly useful. It shows the character's original appearance before he became a psycho villain, and is helpful in illustrating the origins and development of the character.
Joylock17:50, 25 May 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.