August 21
-
Image:MalcolmTamara.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Timeshift9 (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:MalcFras97.JPG (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Timeshift9 (
notify |
contribs).
- Delete. The article already has a likeness of Malcolm Fraser at a similar age, and there is no discussion of this image in the article.
Kevin (
talk)
09:41, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete Criteria claims this is a historical photo, yet there is no discussion of the photo on the article. Other similar photographs already exist on the article and this currently serves no purpose but decoration.
Shell
babelfish
10:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Friendsalovestory.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Simo206 (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Oligarchs.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
172 (
notify |
contribs).
- This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing men shanking hands, does not really help us in understanding the text about the important event it shows.
Damiens.rf
13:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep - I have boldly removed this image from 3 articles which did not have fair-use criteria on the description page. I believe a case could be made for inclusion on
Boris Yeltsin since the section it appears in is dedicated to describing these men and their influence. I believe the picture, including the recognition from Yelstin and the official surroundings convey an understanding of the position these men came to hold in a way that the article alone could not. However, I would strongly suggest that someone with better knowledge of this particular meeting and its significance update the fair-use rationale to better explain its use.
Shell
babelfish
10:40, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete This image does not add to my understanding in the slightest. I simply do not see what Shell says there is to see in this image... Fails NFCC8.
Calliopejen1 (
talk)
21:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Dubai Millennium.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Blofeld of SPECTRE (
notify |
contribs).
- I'm a bit confused. What reason are you offering for deletion (from policy)? The horse in the picture is used to illustrate an article about said horse....
Fritzpoll (
talk)
14:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Associated press will be glad to allow you to use this picture to illustrate an article about said horse, as long as you agree to pay a small fee. What's "fair" about using it freely? --
Damiens.rf
14:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- In fairness, Damien, where in your nomination does it say that's why you nominated it? I was asking a genuine question, since my mind-reading powers are acting up today
Fritzpoll (
talk)
14:48, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- "non-notable pictures form news agencies to illustrate articles about the image subject ". I.e., our use is not transformative. It's competitive. -
Damiens.rf
15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Where on earth is there a statement by this image stating that we must "pay" for its use??? "Uploading non-notable pictures????" An image which identifies a dead horse during its life and racing career which is discussed in the article is non notable?? It is without a doubt perfectly appropriate and generally acceptable on here.
The Bald One
White cat
14:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- A "Notable picture of a horse" is not the same as a "Picture of a notable horse". --
Damiens.rf
15:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- And you think this image is not a "notable picture" of the horse? What is then? One standing up on his hind legs and flashing a large wide grin at the photpgrapher?
The Bald One
White cat
15:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, as far as I can tell, this picture is not notable. A notable picture would have be commented about by reliable sources. Winning awards also helps the case. --
Damiens.rf
15:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Glrockwell.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
GeorgeC (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Canavan holding Sam - 2003.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Macca7174 (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Canavan 2003 All Star - Sean Kelly.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Macca7174 (
notify |
contribs).
- This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing men shanking hands, does not really help us in understanding the text about the important event it shows.
Damiens.rf
13:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete - no critical commentary about the photograph or any historical significance in the article. Unlikely that a simple photo of someone receiving the award is significantly different than text describing the event.
Shell
babelfish
10:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Soe Win.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Blofeld of SPECTRE (
notify |
contribs).
- Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "deceased individuals", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination, or the workings of
WP:NFCC.
Damiens.rf
13:56, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep He is dead, per NFCC 1"Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" it cannot be replaced since he is no longer alive to have a picture taken. To understand the life story (biography) of a user, a single image of the person is certainly permissible.
MBisanz
talk
14:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete.
WP:NFC#Unacceptable use #6.
howcheng {
chat}
18:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Despite the nominator's contention to the contrary, this plainly passes our fair use policy's criteria, as showed by the detailed justification. IFD is not a place to advance a minority interpretation of fair use policy.
Nyttend (
talk)
02:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Meets
WP:NFCC. See also
WT:NFC#Press agency photos.
Ty
01:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep The detailed rationale says it all. --I'm an
Editor
of
the
wiki
citation needed
21:02, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I disagree. About
WP:NFCC#2, that is being challenged on this ifd, it simply uses a boilerplate empty no-explaniation: "the image does not in any way limit the ability of the copyright owners to market or sell their product.". --
Damiens.rf
21:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
Guess what: There was a
free image of this man on Commons since October 2007. --
Damiens.rf
21:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Book cover - Straight from the heart.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Vimalkalyan (
notify |
contribs).
- Do we need to show a copyrighted book cover for a book that deserves no more than 1 line of text in the article ("He released his most recent autobiography, titled Straight from the Heart in 2004") ?
Damiens.rf
13:59, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Kapil awarded Wisden Indian cricketer of century.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Vimalkalyan (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:78733.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Ssmb123 (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Muttawakil bbc.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Max rspct (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Garth Joseph.JPG (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Nick81aku (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Mo brennan dbe.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Beaconboy123 (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:VladimirRomanov.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Deacon of Pndapetzim (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Herty Lewites.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
LaNicoya (
notify |
contribs).
- Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "deceased individuals", you probably haven't understood the reasoning behind this nomination, or the workings of
WP:NFCC.
Damiens.rf
14:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep He is dead, per NFCC 1"Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" it cannot be replaced since he is no longer alive to have a picture taken. To understand the life story (biography) of a user, a single image of the person is certainly permissible.
The Bald One
White cat
15:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete.
WP:NFC#Unacceptable use #6.
howcheng {
chat}
18:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Despite nom's contention's to the contrary, this plainly passes our fair use criteria. IFD isn't a place to debate the merits or lack thereof of this policy.
Nyttend (
talk)
02:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Meets
WP:NFCC. See also
WT:NFC#Press agency photos.
Ty
01:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Stefan Terlezki.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Blofeld of SPECTRE (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Spry.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Mrwikipedia (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Vicarcivilpart.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
WJBscribe (
notify |
contribs).
- Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). It can't be that hard to flash a gay marriage in the United Kingdom.
Damiens.rf
14:11, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Sturrockplayoff.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
TomScott2610 (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Turkish Airlines Flight 1476 Plane.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Ugur Basak (
notify |
contribs).
- This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing an airplane's nose, does not really help us in understanding the text in the article.
Damiens.rf
14:15, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy keep Uploader is making a
WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Is there any way to replace a picture of this specific airplane at that specific time?
Nyttend (
talk)
01:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Meets
WP:NFCC. A picture of the actual event is very helpful for a reader to enter imaginatively into the reality described by words, which a picture is worth a thousand of. See also
WT:NFC#Press agency photos.
Ty
01:59, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Hong Kong handover.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Astrotrain (
notify |
contribs).
- Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: If you plan to argue about "irreplaceable images" or "historic events", you probably haven't understood
the reasoning behind this nomination. Read it again carefully. Also, image
is hardly necessary in all of the 7 articles it's currently being used in.
Damiens.rf
14:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Speedy keep Uploader is making a
WP:POINT nomination, as s/he is acknowledging with the "important notice" that this passes the fair use criteria, which it unabashedly does. WP:IFD isn't a place to challenge the rightness of our fair use policy. Anyway, if it doesn't belong on some of the articles, remove it from the four articles that don't have rationales.
Nyttend (
talk)
01:26, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Meets
WP:NFCC. As fu rationale says, "it is a unique historical event." An encyclopedia without an image of it is deficient. See also
WT:NFC#Press agency photos.
Ty
02:01, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Oldhamriots1.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Jhamez84 (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Riverdance over.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Mjroots (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Riverdance side.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Mjroots (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Chillenden windmill blown down.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Mjroots (
notify |
contribs).
Keep, image is of low resolution and small in size, there is no free alternative that can be used and it would be impossible to recreate the exact image even if the mill were to collapse again. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mjroots (
talk •
contribs)
- I believe I have adequately covered why it is OK to use the image in the fair use rationale given when I originally uploaded the image.
Mjroots (
talk)
11:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
Question Why has the image been deleted when there is a consensus to keep it?
Mjroots (
talk)
09:11, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- See
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 August 24.
Carcharoth (
talk)
15:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Logo_sctv_1.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Arief_S. (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Logo_sctv_2.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Arief_S. (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Gowcar.jpeg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Isabela84 (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Dermotbb.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Paddy More (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Miller and Monroe.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
The Halo (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Stockline plastics factory glasgow.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Fabiform (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Balcony disaster.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Blood Red Sandman (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Josiascunningham 150.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Counter-revolutionary (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Craiginches prison.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
CHacker (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Chilean blob.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Mgiganteus1 (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:ScotlandvEstonia.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Jmorrison230582 (
notify |
contribs).
- Keep. This is a highly unusual picture because there is no opposing team.
See the article for a fuller explanation of why that situation happened. The image cannot be replaced by a free alternative because the "game" (such as it was) will never happen again.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
17:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The event was surely unusual, but this picture doesn't really helps one to understand the situation. I'm not arguing for it to be replaced by another picture. I'm arguing for no no-picture to be used at all, since we can fully understand the text without them. --
Damiens.rf
17:46, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- The picture in itself is unique, and illustrates clearly how daft the situation was.
Jmorrison230582 (
talk)
19:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Then find us sources that discuss the image itself, not the event depicted in the image.
howcheng {
chat}
02:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Jack and Rose of 1997 film Titanic.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Flyer22 (
notify |
contribs).
- All images of films are copyrighted; that is why we have the fair-use policy. There is nothing objectionable to using this image in the
Supercouple article. How does it not help us understand the article? That section is discussing film supercouples. It mentions supercouple Jack and Rose, who happen to be a part of the highest-grossing film ever. The image displays these characters, who are being discussed/addressed within the article, which is no different than the many other copyrighted images of fictional characters accompanying content being discussed in regular, good or featured articles on Wikipedia. If this image were just for show, I would see your point. But it is not just for show, and thus I do not see your point. Furthermore, it is the only image within that section, and is the only image in that section for a reason, given this fictional couple's impact.
Flyer22 (
talk)
16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- This image of fictional characters is no different the showing the happy image of
Bianca and Maggie in the Gay and lesbian section of the Supercouple article, who are also being addressed/discussed. The use of these images are in complete correspondence with Wikipedia's image policy.
Flyer22 (
talk)
18:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- I also added more to this image's caption, which further relates directly to the text. And must state that this couple is not exactly "happy" at this moment in the film (they were happy right before that moment, sure).
Flyer22 (
talk)
21:43, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie with first born, Shiloh.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Flyer22 (
notify |
contribs).
- All images of magazines are copyrighted; that is why we have the fair-use policy. There is nothing objectionable to using this image in the
Supercouple article. How does it not help us understand the article? That section is discussing celebrity supercouples. It mentions the couple's child Shiloh, and how that child was featured on the cover of
Hello! magazine. The image displays the child and that fact, who is being discussed/addressed within the article along with her parents. Featuring an image in this way is no different than the many other copyrighted magazine images that accompany content being discussed in regular, good or featured articles on Wikipedia. If this image were just for show, I would see your point. But it is not just for show, and thus I do not see your point.
Flyer22 (
talk)
16:44, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete. See
More Demi Moore for a valid use of a magazine cover.
howcheng {
chat}
17:58, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
Keep. I do not see how the use of that image is any different than the use of a magazine cover in this case, and I can also point out a few examples of my own. Showing images where the content being discussed can be easily conveyed by just words is when fair-use policy is not applicable. In this case, there is no way that a reader can easily guess what the cover Shiloh appeared on looked/looks like. The image is therefore providing the reader with the knowledge of the content (notable content) that took place at that time that cannot be attained by simply using the imagination. Not to mention, that section mentions nothing of Jolie and Pitt appearing on the cover with the child, though that can be arranged. The use of this image is in complete correspondence with Wikipedia's image policy.
Flyer22 (
talk)
18:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Firstly, please don't preface each comment with "keep"; it creates the illusion that there is more support than actually exists. Secondly,
More Demi Moore is an article about about the magazine cover itself: This Vanity Fair cover in and of itself became infamous and led to a number of parodies, including the film poster for
Naked Gun 33⅓ which then led to a lawsuit
Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. Is this Hello cover anywhere near equivalent? If it is, then you are free to add more information to the
Supercouple article but you have to talk about this specific magazine cover and that commentary must be cited to reliable sources.
howcheng {
chat}
18:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Firstly, I was not trying to give the allusion of anything. I did not feel that I had properly voted. Secondly, are you kidding me?
People paid more than $4.1 million for the North American rights, while British magazine Hello! obtained the international rights for roughly $3.5 million; the total rights sale earned up to $10 million worldwide, and became the most expensive celebrity image of all time. That is in this article and is discussed in this article. This image is extremely notable. I would even say more notable than that Demi Moore image you cited, since it became the most expensive celebrity image of all time (though it is not anymore). Pitt and Jolie giving the money received for publicly publishing the image to charity is also mentioned in the article. It almost makes no sense not to have an image in that section about this super image that is discussed in that section. Sure, the Pitt and Jolie articles do not feature it, but that would be overkill, anyway, and it is completely justifiable that this image is included within this article.
Flyer22 (
talk)
18:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Okay, I see the part about this in the
Angelina Jolie article has been updated; now the most expensive celebrity image is something else (which is why I tweaked my above comment), but is still about Pitt and Jolie. I will now have to tweak that part of the Supercouple article. But all in all, this image is still notable and is still discussed in this article.
Flyer22 (
talk)
18:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:1994Chinookcrash02.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
John (
notify |
contribs).
- Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable, and yes it probably shows an "historic event". What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency.
Damiens.rf
16:09, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Delete:
WP:NFC#Unacceptable use images #6.
howcheng {
chat}
17:57, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep: the bit Howcheng cites is intended as an example of what isn't appropriate in general. As there's no way of creating new pictures of this event, it's irreplaceable, and fulfills the fair use criteria.
Nyttend (
talk)
01:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- News photos are generally not re-creatable because news events only happen once. Once an airplane crashes, it can't crash again, so duh, no free replacement will be forthcoming. However, that does not give us license to violate the BBC's copyright. There are four factors for determining fair use under U.S. law, one of them being the purpose of the work -- to meet this, you can use the work in a
transformative manner, or you can use it for educational or non-profit purposes. The latter two are irrelevant here because they are incompatible with the Foundation's goals (and regardless, they would probably be rendered moot because Wikipedia is one of the top ten sites on the Internet, meaning our "small" infringement reaches a wide audience). We are not using this in a transformative manner, so there's no way we come even close to this criterion, and there's no way this would qualify as fair use, even if our NFCC weren't intentionally more restrictive than what the law might allow.
howcheng {
chat}
02:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. I understand the nominator's rationale, but I strongly disagree with it. As Nyttend says, there is no way a free image could ever be prepared for this historical event. As the uploader, I stand by my original judgment that this photo qualifies as fair use. --
John (
talk)
03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep Per above, a free image is not possible and rmeoving the image would be removing encyclopedic information which the image provides.
The Bald One
White cat
08:34, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Look at it this way: If Britannica wanted to use this image, do you think they could get away with not paying for it it and claiming fair use? No way in hell would that be possible! The BBC would rightfully demand payment. So why is OK for us to do so? Fair use can be claimed when the photo itself is news (as opposed to the event depicted in the photo). For a British frame of reference, see
Profumo Affair where the woman's photo played a role in the scandal (although for my money, that article still needs expansion on the story of the photo). If you're American,
Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is the prime example, where we have a
statue,
book, and
film just about that photo. What's so special about this airplane crash photo? It doesn't have to have the same influence as the two I cited but there has to be something. We cannot just violate copyright because it makes our article look better.
howcheng {
chat}
16:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Yes, imagine the hypothetical situation of one defending this use of this image before a court based on the provided rationale: "Sir, I haven't violated BBC's copyright on this picture! My use falls under the fair use provision of U.S. Law because (1) This BBC picture is exactly what I needed, (2) I have a personal policy of never paying for licensing images and (3) I couldn't produce an alternative picture myself. See, Sir?" --
Damiens.rf
16:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Meets
WP:NFCC. See also
WT:NFC#Press agency photos.
Ty
02:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. Free image is clearly not possible, clearly falls within fair use rationale.
Justin
talk
23:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Kermit_roosevelt_20s.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
SimonATL (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Lloyd Richards.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Emerson7 (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Lew Anderson.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Pegasus (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:17 nuxhall 190 2.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Meckstroth.jm (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Rostropovich at the Wall.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Y (
notify |
contribs).
- This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing a musician performing, does not really help us in understanding the text about the important event it shows.
Damiens.rf
18:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep It's used on his article to illustrate an event that the
BBC says was reported worldwide: I don't see how any image could illustrate this better.
Nyttend (
talk)
01:03, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. I find it absolutely stupefying to read that a picture of an event does not help us to understand the text. Texts and images complement each other and are each able to communicate aspects that the other medium cannot. If that were not the case, there would be no need for pictures, anywhere, ever. We would just have texts. Meets
WP:NFCC. See also
WT:NFC#Press agency photos.
Ty
02:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Bo190.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:Jean Mattéoli.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Blofeld of SPECTRE (
notify |
contribs).
- Image copied from a news source, not used for commentary about the image itself (because it's not notable by itself). Important Notice: Yes, the image is probably irreplaceable because it shows a deceased person. What's being called into discussion here is our right to freely duplicate a work by a news agency.
Damiens.rf
18:32, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep He is dead, per NFCC 1"Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?" it cannot be replaced since he is no longer alive to have a picture taken. To understand the life story (biography) of a user, a single image of the person is certainly permissible.
The Bald One
White cat
08:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- Keep. That's an advocate's pov, not a judge's decision. If the Foundation felt that were the case, it would issue a statement to that effect. Meanwhile, the image meets
WP:NFCC. See also
WT:NFC#Press agency photos.
Ty
02:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Litani1978.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
TheFEARgod (
notify |
contribs).
- This copyrighted picture from a news agency, showing Israeli tanks in Southern Lebanon, does not really help us in understanding the text about the important event it shows.
Damiens.rf
18:35, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- okay, delete --
TheFEARgod (
Ч)
18:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:Footballers of year - Stephen O'Neill, Aaron Kernan.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Macca7174 (
notify |
contribs).
- How does them being happy contribute to the deletion policy? They have won the most prestigious individual honours in their sport.--
Macca7174
talk
15:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
- ...And they are holding those statuettes to prove it.--
Macca7174
talk
15:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
reply
-
Image:WashingtonThirdCongressDistrict.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Jonel (
notify |
contribs).
-
Image:WashingtonSixthCongressDistrict.jpg (
delete |
talk |
history |
logs) - uploaded by
Jonel (
notify |
contribs).