Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 19



August 19

 * 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:

Image:Figh2.jpg

 * Image:Figh2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Kenosis ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image is said to be in PD because it was "published in 1930 without explicit copyright notice", but no verifiable information is provided to backup this claim. Abu badali (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether a copyright claim has been made is totally irrelevant. It's probably still under copyright. Savidan 03:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * An explicit written claim of copyright attached to the image byline is necessary to satisfy US law for any images published prior to 1977. This image was taken in India by an American photographer, not renewed in the U.S. Copyright Office after 28 years as would have been required to maintain any retroactive copyright claim. It's PD-US at absolute minimum. ... Kenosis 04:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How so we know that this image was "published in 1930 without explicit copyright notice"? And how do we know that the copyright was ot renewed? Saying si doesn't make it truth. We need to be able to verify all these claims. --Abu badali (talk) 17:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if there is a copy with an explicit copyright notice somewhere in the world, which I doubt, I myself looked through the US Copyright Office records and could not find a renewal. So it's PD in the US unless you or someone can show me a copyright renewal. Photocopies of those records are online these days -- by all means please help yourself. ... Kenosis 19:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would love to be sure that this image is really PD. Are all the records from copyright office really online? Where can I find them? Thanks. --Abu badali (talk) 16:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a general description of how to search, and here is access to scanned copies of all Copyright renewal records from 1950-1977. A quick-seach method for copyright renewal records for books only 1923-1963 can be found here. ... Kenosis 17:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. This image is in the public domain in the US at an absolute minimum. I can't speak for the status in the rest of the world at the moment, but I'll get back to you in a a day or three with specifics. ... Kenosis 04:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep per Kenosis. Under US law this image in in the public domain. JoshuaZ 15:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Abu needs to look a little more closely into these matters before wasting eveyone's time. The image is PD, get over it.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep per above. Obviously PD, possible bad faith nom. ornis ( t ) 22:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep--Filll 22:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Insulting other editors is not helpful here. Control yourself. – Quadell (talk) (random)
 * Question: Why does anyone think this image was first published in the U.S. before 1977? Can anyone provide any evidence that this image was first published in the U.S., not India? – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer:I suppose this would make a good question on an examination for a law class in copyright, because it presents a couple of interesting scenarios. If one looks at the image source page, one will see that the picture was taken in New York in 1930.  It was taken by an American photographer, Martin Voss, whose date of death we do not know.  Tagore died in 1941, and bequeathed the picture, among many other things, to Rabindra Bhavan (also known as Bichitra, which had been in existence since the early 20th Century), in Shantiniketan, India. So we can reasonably presume that Tagore took a copy of the photo back to India, can we not? Heck, maybe call or write to the Rabindra Bhavan to see if they withheld publication until after 1977 -- frankly, I doubt it very much, though it seems like the current lack of concrete proof could conceivably constitute a new cause of action by our very diligent Wikipedia image-deletion community.  And, no evidence is necessary for publication in the US as opposed to India. If it was published in India prior to 1977 without compliance with US copyright formalities, it's PD in the US.  And, if it was published in the US too, there is no evidence of a renewal in the US to extend protection beyond 28 years, so it's PD in the US. ... Kenosis 20:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Most photos of Einstein were quickly published -- he posed for news photographs so often that when a woman on a bus didn't recognize him and asked what he did for a living, he said he was a photographer's model, and he was only half joking. It's a good bet that this photo was taken to be published. If it was first published in India after 1923, then it's only considered PD in the U.S. if it's considered PD in India -- the U.S. respect's India's copyrights, except for pre-1923 creations. Luckily, India only holds copyrights for photos for 60 years, so it would be PD (everywhere) if it was first published in 1930 in India. But if it was first published in the U.S. in 1930, it could well be still copyrighted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough in general, except for the last sentence. There must be a documented renewal in the copyright office records to justify a claim of copyright on anything first published between 1923 and 1963. Take care; I'll see'ya around elsewhere I imagine. ... Kenosis 15:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we keep this image as PD and add a notice saying "if you can prove the copyright for this image was renewed, tell us and we will remove it."? --Abu badali (talk) 03:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, if Abu badali or anyone else can find a copyright renewal for this image, having given Abu badali and everybody else knowledge of how to access online photocopies by year in alphabetical order for all US copyright renewals as requested by Abu badali above in this section, I'll promptly remove the template. I suggest looking under the name "Voss, Martin", for the years 1957, 1958 and 1959, which is when 1930 copyrights would have gotten filed for renewal. ... Kenosis 04:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on the uploader. You can't simply say something is PD until "anyone else can find a copyright renewal". You may not like it, but this is how our project works. --Abu badali (talk) 17:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * W.r.t. Abu badali's statement about "our project", see WP:OWN. The burden of proof has already been satisfied by the uploader.  The standard is not "beyond any conceivable doubt". Even accused murderers get convicted and executed on a lower standard than that ("beyond a reasonable doubt"). And, the burden has been satisfied beyond any reasonable doubt. Fact is, virtually no one renewed copyrights to individual photographs in the US within the applicable time period. ... Kenosis 17:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Because Wikipedia and this article would certainly be poorer without it. And god bless you, Kenosis.—DCGeist 07:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep PD image. I question the submission of this IfD -Nodekeeper 09:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The links Kenosis gave are fascinating, and very helpful (in general), but they aren't useful in this case. If this photo were really first published in 1930, then the copyright would have had to have been renewed some time in 1958. Was it? There's no way to tell. The links Kenosis gave only show copyright renewals for books (Class A renewals), not miscellaneous renewals such as photographs or pamphlets. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, that is completely erroneous, Quadell. I happen to be in Washington, DC frequently, and there are virtually no photographs renewed, period. This photo is most certainly not among the very, very few that were ever renewed. And, please do at least the very basic research, and take extra time to bone up on this stuff before arbitrarily overriding consensus based upon erroneous information. Even in the links I already gave above the presently available online records include books, periodicals and submissions to periodicals. And virtually no renewals for indivicual photographs are in the U.S. Copyright Office records -- in practice almost nobody went around in those days renewing copyright to individual photographs. Eventually, of course, the records of renewals for "art", etc., will be online.  But for now, with any sensible exercise of reasoned discourse, that ought to be adequate without making me photocopy those records for those years. ..;. Kenosis 16:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd really like to discuss this civilly with you. You obviously know a lot about this, and I appreciate your interest. But your accusations and incivil tone make this difficult. Now, let me try a question: suppose the image were first published in a book. We don't know if it was or not, correct? If it was, and we don't know the author or title of that book, then we really can't search for it. But the photograph would have been copyrighted, along with the book. Right? Assuming that the book had a copyright notice, and assuming that the copyright was renewed, wouldn't the photo still be under copyright? – Quadell (talk) (random) 00:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In my personal experience, the words "I'd really like to discuss this civilly with you" would typically signal a sense of a potentially impending fight of some kind. Now, based upon a reasonable range of interpretations of my statements to date, why would anyone presume such a thing? Any possible respondents should please feel free to quote me at whatever length desired... Kenosis 02:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, the "what if it were renewed, despite the total lack of evidence". Let's start by applying that standard to all of our user-created images - how can we be absolutely certain, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that they aren't actually copyright?  What about those tagged as being released into the public domain - how do we know these aren't lies?  And, of course, how can we be sure that the images attributed to US government employees aren't actually copyright?  After all, would you take someone at face value if they had lied to you about yellowcake uranium, and WMDs in Iraq, and bombing Cambodia?  Like with everything else related to copyright, we do our best.  Absolute certainty isn't possible.  After all, maybe I just copied those words out of a book, and this whole comment is a copyvio?  How can you tell?  Guettarda 01:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Bottom line here is that bureaucratic officiousness, even when intended as a service, is a canker spreading necrosis to many parts of the body of any institution, generally leading to the metamorphosis of the cerebrum into mush.
 * Additionally, if one is to state that a picture fails to meet the fair-use criteria, I think it should be safe to assume a substantive knowledge of copyright law on the part of that person. I've seen no such knowledge displayed by those who would delete these images.  Obviously, this is a problem.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Image kept. Evidence provided indicates image is in the public domain. -Nv8200p talk 19:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:18-08-07 2352 copy.jpg

 * Image:18-08-07 2352 copy.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Robertrussell1 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned Oli Filth 00:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Toddy.jpg

 * Image:Toddy.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Eaaaaat ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned Oli Filth 00:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:NDP Maple Leaf.png

 * Image:NDP Maple Leaf.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Nat.tang ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * obsoleted by Image:NDP maple leaf.svg —MC 00:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, needless replacement that doesn't do anything to enhance the areas where the images were replaced. GreenJoe 01:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per GreenJoe. nattang 13:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: See WP:IUP, WP:IUP and WP:USOP — it is a valid reason and apparently policy. —MC 21:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:1148877829550.jpg Image:A DMC-12 drifting in the game Gran Turismo 4.jpg

 * Image:1148877829550.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by 293.xx.xxx.xx ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Video game screenshot not necessary to readers' understanding in either of the non-video game articles in which it is used. Videmus Omnia Talk  01:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it does. You need to look beyond the box, because Drifitng also encompasses not just real life, but also video agames and other media.--293.xx.xxx.xx 05:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - image was renamed during the course of discussion. Videmus Omnia Talk  14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, no significant addition to the article where it is used; violates NFCC#8. —Angr 23:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mygreeneyes.JPG

 * Image:Mygreeneyes.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Vlady24april ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Videmus Omnia Talk  02:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:

Image:1972-blue-notes-know-me-by-now.ogg

 * Image:1972-blue-notes-know-me-by-now.ogg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by FuriousFreddy ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Also:
 * Image:1971-tempts-just-my-imagination.ogg
 * Image:1975-blue-notes-bad-luck.ogg
 * Image:1975-blue-notes-dont-leave-me.ogg
 * Audio clips with unnecessarily-high sampling rate/fidelity. Delete per WP:NFCCb. Videmus Omnia Talk  02:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Sound clips essential to article on important subject. Replace if and when possible, but do not simply delete.—DCGeist 08:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: These are 30-second clips, so the length doesn't seem to be a problem. I don't know what the resolution is, or what's normally considered acceptable, for oggs. Is there a guideline or precedent or something? – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Gah - I thought I had a reference for sampling rate but now I can't find it. Keep them for now, but leave the non-free reduce in place. It looks like Pekaje already fixed one of them. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Music samples says 64kbps. Don't delete, though, I will fix the problem myself. Videmus Omnia Talk  19:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sample rates reduced. Closing admin, please delete old revisions. Videmus Omnia Talk  23:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Old revisions deleted -Nv8200p talk 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Cd1.jpg

 * Image:Cd1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Devilitself ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Videmus Omnia Talk  02:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Commonsbleed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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: The result was Keep. However, someone should consider modifying and reuploading per Nadav's suggestion. JoshuaZ 20:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Liebermanbushkiss.gif

 * Image:Liebermanbushkiss.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by The lorax ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * I believe that POV-pushing in Senator Lieberman's article should be limited to free images and media. There is no need to use copyrighted television coverage here when it can just as easily be explained in the text that Bush kissed Lieberman. Moreover, the true notability of that incident is not so much in knowing the exact way that Bush kissed him but in knowing the way that it has been talked about and used by pundits and political opponents.- Savidan 03:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep - I think it is important because of this sentence: Lieberman has since denied the kiss took place. "I don't think he kissed me, he leaned over and gave me a hug and said 'thank you for being a patriotic American,'"SuperElephant 04:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia Talk  14:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It does significally increase understanding. There was controversy whether it was kiss or not, so it is good to see the exact way he kissed him.SuperElephant 17:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Disputed accounts can be conveyed textually without the overemphasis that results from having an (extremely attention grabbing) video. Savidan 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep — It is the only way to accurately convey what happened, no matter how good the accompanying text can be. Neither text, nor a still photo, fulfill the need to illustrate what happened.  The vid clip was the absolutely key image of that election, was widely used, and is relevant to let the reader decide for themselves about Lieberman's characterization of what happened.  I have read WP:NFCC as cited above and think it supports keeping the vid clip, not deleting it. -- Lisasmall | Talk 03:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I don't disagree that it is notable to to the article to cover the "kiss" and the "coverup", but the thing is, do we need to host it here? This is the first animated gif I've seen on the Wikipedia to be honest.  Its a little choppy too, so I'm wondering if a youtube link or something similar would work better and be of higher quality. Tarc
 * Keep Brilliant, highly informative image. This is what Wikipedia is all about.—DCGeist 08:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Normal sane real world fair-use law clearly allows use of such a short clip. BTW, All networks use the same video feed from congress. There is no other replacement for this clip. -Nodekeeper 09:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - if an image is really necessary here, could it be reduced to a single frame instead of an animated gif, per WP:NFCCb? Videmus Omnia Talk  16:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, of course not. It wouldn't serve the purpose it is intended to.SuperElephant 17:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - the video is annoying and repetitive, a single frame image is all that is needed.-- Southern Texas  19:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep The image use policy says to use animations sparingly, and this is non-free content, but I do feel it does add a lot to understanding the "kiss" and letting the reader judge the episode for himself. If this is kept, it should definitely be edited to keep only the last few frames (from the moment Bush reaches out to touch Lieberman's face). We don't need to see Bush walking up to him. It makes it much more choppy and wastes space and time. nadav (talk) 04:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keepthis is what wikipedia is all about --n1yaN t 20:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:DeathofHippolytus.JPG

 * Image:DeathofHippolytus.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Polylerus ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphan, better version on both commons and wikipedia.- Sebvdv 07:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Moms camera 9 072.jpg2.jpg

 * Image:Moms camera 9 072.jpg2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Guru 07 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphan and now value- Sebvdv 07:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mos-GUM-interrior.jpg

 * Image:Mos-GUM-interrior.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Nixer ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphan, same/simular image already in an article and on commons- Sebvdv 07:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:QHMB.JPG

 * Image:QHMB.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by JackOfHearts ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphan, no value- Sebvdv 07:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:

Image:Flag of Kasnia.png

 * Image:Flag of Kasnia.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Senix ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * As per concerns raised when subst:frn was added on August 15, 2005: The original uploader has placed a "Public Domain" tag - Senix - and stated "[he] made this image [himself]". The image is based on a visual element of a copyrighted work, specifically a flag seen in an episode of the Superman: The Animated Series television series. As such only the copyright holder of that material can release the show, in whole or in part, which includes the characters, dialogue, story, and the visual elements, to PD, not the creator of a derivative image. The tag used is inappropriate, and a fair use tag cannot be applied since the image is, for all intents, unpublished fan art.- J Greb 08:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason why the uploader chose PD-self is that while, yes the image came from Superman, he drew the flag image himself. Though the question is, which version of Superman did this come from? I am currently playing email tag with the uploader, so any pause on the deletion is appreciated. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, even if the uploader drew this version himself, it's a derivative work of a design created by the Superman artists. —Angr 23:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe the design of this flag contains enough unique creative content to be eligible for copyright. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that this probably is ineligible for copyright in the US. See Copyright on emblems. nadav (talk) 05:01, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Small problem there... the cite you've given is with regard to copies not originals. That's where a the problem comes in here, the originator of the copy is releasing it free and clear. While the copy is ineligible for copyright, the author of the copy does not have the right, either explicitly or implicitly, to release the rights of the original. - J Greb 06:33, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Quadell's point is that even the original doesn't meet the threshold of originality required to make it eligible for copyright. IANAL, but I think in the U.S. at least (unlike Germany, for example) that threshold is very low. —Angr/talk 07:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I had in mind the passage from the compendium of copyright Office practices (section 503.2a): "mere coloration cannot support a copyright even though it may enhance the aesthetic appeal or commercial value of a work...The same is true of a simple combination of a few standard symbols such as a circle, a star, and a triangle, with minor linear or spatial variations." But I'm not a lawyer, so I obviously can't say for sure. nadav (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is what was explained to me when I whacked an image of a symbol from the latest Harry Potter book; so if an image from a book a month old is considered PD, then this should be fine. There are many flags that look like this, nothing creative was done. Keep User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 08:53, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Image kept. Changed tag to PD-ineligible. -Nv8200p talk 12:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:800px-CPI-M-flag.PNG

 * Image:800px-CPI-M-flag.PNG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Soman ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * A vector version of this image is also available OsamaK 10:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:RandyMeeksPic.jpg

 * Image:RandyMeeksPic.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Kkbhe ( [ notify] | contribs).

Image kept'''. Nv8200p talk 12:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This "screenshot" is a photograph of a TV screen. A proper screenshot could easily be made. &mdash; AnemoneProjectors (?) 11:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - It's not a good picture, but shouldn't we wait until we get a better one before deleting this one? A not-so-very-good pic is better than none, I think, and it does at least identify the character. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I marked the current image for cleanup, reduction, and conversion per WP:IUP, and left reqscreenshot on the Randy Meeks page. The current rationale is pretty weak but the image use is valid, IMHO. Videmus Omnia Talk  16:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Widgets_example_radiobuttons.jpg

 * Image:Widgets_example_radiobuttons.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by StoatBringer ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unuesd and obsolete OsamaK 12:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Starszy_Chorazy_Sztabowy.jpg

 * Image:Starszy_Chorazy_Sztabowy.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Emax ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unuesd and obsolete OsamaK 12:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Starszy_Chorazy.jpg

 * Image:Starszy_Chorazy.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Emax ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unuesd and obsolete OsamaK 12:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Chorazy.jpg

 * Image:Chorazy.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Emax ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unuesd and obsolete OsamaK 12:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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:

Image:Tf2old_soldier.jpg

 * Image:Tf2old_soldier.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Tom Edwards ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unnecessary video game screenshot. The article contains no sourced commentary on the games style or theme that this image would be required to understand. Videmus Omnia Talk  14:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The image is a very famous one that has been commonly used to represent TF2 over the years, and furthermore is promotional material. Unless I misunderstand the phrase, there is sourced commentary on game's style and theme in the article; not a lot, but that largely because of the image's helpful presence. Text would struggle to achieve any of these purposes. --Tom Edwards 16:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The article has four (or maybe five) screenshots. There's no way all are necessary. Could someone who knows the game well let us know which one or two are most important for aiding in the understanding of the article? If not, we'll have to guess. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The others are all from the current version of the game. This is the only historic image. --Tom Edwards 08:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. No sourced commentary as to why the image or the artwork in the image is significant. -Nv8200p talk 02:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:KB US-Colemak.svg

 * Image:KB US-Colemak.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Michaelliberty ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unencyclopedic orphan. Was originally a part of the Colemak article which has been deleted (and subsequently salted) as NN. The image is no longer in use on any pages. — jammycakes (t)(c) 16:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Commonsbleed. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:KB US-Colemak-International.svg

 * Image:KB US-Colemak-International.svg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Michaelliberty ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unencyclopedic orphan. Was originally a part of the Colemak article which has been deleted (and subsequently salted) as NN. The image is no longer in use on any pages. — jammycakes (t)(c) 16:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rebel.X.edit.JPG

 * Image:Rebel.X.edit.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Bigwig055 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Released under PD-self, but looks like a school logo, and appears on school website — in short, copyvio. Nyttend 16:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know. It could be that the school had a contest or something for students to design the logo. It looks like it could well be a student's work. I don't see an e-mail address on the website, but there is a phone number -- would anyone be willing to call the school and ask where the logo came from? – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Predacons-s2.jpg

 * Image:Predacons-s2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Mathewignash ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Delete per WP:NFCC, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia Talk  16:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Illustrates the character mentioned in the article. Previous version didn't have proper licensing, but this one is correct. user_talk:mathewignash
 * Keep Group illustration of article subjects. Silhouette not ideal, but in absence of superior alternative, pretty easy call to keep here.—DCGeist 07:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are already other illustrations of the characters depicted in the articles. Videmus Omnia Talk  16:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Given that there are lots of images of all three characters on the article pages, I don't think this image adds any new info. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The silhouette makes this image almost useless for seeing what the characters look like. Any other screenshot would be more illustrative, and indeed the articles already contain better images for this purpose. nadav (talk) 05:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Cher_in_hell_on_wheels.JPG

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

The result was deleted by User:Quadell, and contested at Deletion review. Shalom Hello 22:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Cher_in_hell_on_wheels.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Collard ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Music video closeup. Delete per WP:NFCC, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia Talk  16:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The section talks about her roller skating. The picture essentially shows part of the top she wears, not exactly increasing the reader's understanding.  17Drew 16:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Image from pioneering music video, as described in detail in article.—DCGeist 07:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article editor has addressed fair use questions. Discussion of an editorial nature belong on the talk page. -Nodekeeper 09:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Colemak 1024x768.gif

 * Image:Colemak 1024x768.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Vilem l. ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unencyclopedic. Appears to be a desktop background in support of Colemak keyboard layout. — jammycakes (t)(c) 16:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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 was delete. The main argument for deletion is the violation of WP:NFCC, which states the image must facilitate understanding of its topic. The decision will therefore be based on that judgement. Those arguing for retention claim it does facilitate understanding of intelligent design, and therefore meets NFCC#8. The determination of whether or not the image should be kept therefore comes down to whether or not the image facilitates understanding of the article topic. This is - clearly - a subjective decision. The image is discussed within the article; is this sufficient? Do we need the image to tell the reader that Time discussed Intelligent Design? Does it add any value other than aesthetic?

Duae Quartunciae makes the point that WP:NFC states cover art for identification purposes is permitted, but omits the second half of that policy ("only in the context of critical commentary of that item"). No critical commentary of the the cover image (the "item") is present in the article, so this argument for keeping is unconvincing. I am not convinced by the arguments the image facilitates understanding of the topic more than the text already does, and there is no critical commentary of the image itself. Although the majority of participants are calling for the image to be kept, those calling for deletion have the far stronger argument based on Wikipedia policy. Therefore, delete. Neil  ム  09:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg

 * Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Kenosis ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * unnecessary non-free image of a non-notable magazine cover, used in an article that do not mentions the cover (nor even the magazine issue) Abu badali (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This low-resolution image is quite squarely within the four fair-use criteria as well as within the WP:NFCC. The rationale is given in detail on the image page and it fully meets all 10 NFCCs. That the article does not mention the cover or the issue is completely irrelevant, because the cover conveys to the reader a [very helpful] sense of the public discussion during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial, when the intelligent design controversy was coming to the fore in the American socio-political debate over public-school educational policy. ... Kenosis 17:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough of hese specious attempts to delete images Abu baba is offended by. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  18:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reason to keep the image rather than commenting on the nominator's motives. 17Drew 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you show me something at a policy level that states unequivocably that I must do so? Nonetheless, my reasoning is the same as Kenosis' reasoning -- need I type it all out?  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  09:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Cover images are "for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item" per WP:NFC, and the item (that issue of Time magazine) isn't even mentioned in the only article in which this image appears. Tevildo 19:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Time Magazine regularly grants free usage of these covers. Why don't we keep it and contact them if we need to?--Filll 19:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the image as is. The image is not free, so the decision to keep or delete must be based on WP:NFCC, not whether or not someone might contact them to see if they'll release it freely.
 * Keep It is relevant to the article and it serves as a proof for non-US readers that it is for real.SuperElephant 20:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Clear violation of Criterion No. 8 of our policy, and arguably a violation of No. 3(a) as well. See also Resolution:Licensing policy, where it says "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." ElinorD (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep Neither a violation of 3a or 8, since it's the only image we have that effectively illustrates a culture war that is foreign to a great many readers. ornis ( t ) 22:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * NOTICE: User Kenosis invited some editors to "weigh in" at this discussion. Please, everybody remember that this is not a vote. --Abu badali (talk) 16:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I made that note on the talk page of the article in which the image is presently included, after the nominator failed to do so on the heels of a brief edit war over the images in Intelligent design. And, even if I chose to notify people elsewhere, or even actively lobby for comments, I would have been entirely within my rights to do so. What I said on the article talk page was: "Perhaps one or more editors may want to weigh in at the "Images for Deletion" page." ... Kenosis 18:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I seriously doubt that anyone would doubt "that it is for real" without the image; the text does a pretty good job of establishing that it's not fictitious. "Giving the reader a sense" is essentially a pretty way of saying that it's a decorative image of an issue not even mentioned in the article text, much less discussed.  17Drew 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Remember that this "evolution controversy" is nearly unknown in the rest of the world. I once heard that someone wanted to teach creation, but i thought it's religious sect like many others, just little too bold. This picture ilustrates much better than any text that even mainstream media care about how dangerous their influence is.SuperElephant 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Anyone who reads the article and doesn't figure out that intelligent design is not an underground movement in the U.S. is unlikely to be able to figure it out from the picture. 17Drew 17:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Fully meets the fair-use criteria that of WP:NFCC (when it's not being stretched to absurb lengths). The rationale given on its page is sufficient accurate. Making the cover of Time serves to demonstrate the significance and notability of the debate. Odd nature 16:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NFCC. Omission of this image would not cause significant detriment to readers' understanding the topic discussed. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The NFC guideline gives a concrete example of an allowed case of a magazine cover (Vanity Fair cover of Demi Moore). The key is that the cover itself is the object of interest. In this case, the image is being used as additional supplementary information tightly integrated within a section of the Intelligent design article, on controversy. An image of a cover of Time conveys far more effectively than text the prominence of this controversy. It is the very fact that it is a Time front cover that is the information being provided by the image. There is no need to have additional text in the article beyond what is provided in the caption; indeed the whole point is that text would be quite unable to convey the pertinent information as effectively and immediately as the image itself. Additionally, the image provides information allowing rapid identification of the relevant article for someone browsing stacks in a library searching for the Time issue on this controversy. It is a clear cut case of fair use permitted under the guideline. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  06:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'd say Duae Quartunciae's rationale is extremely convincing, and pretty effectively trumps the other arguments. Invoking NFCC#8 without bothering to make a case for why this is applicable is a bogus argument - you can't invoke a rule that requires a subjective determination without bothering to make you case.  We're all aware that NFCC#8 exists, but I don't see it as applying here, and no one has attempted to show how it does.  Guettarda 12:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep As per above. Sometimes, magazine covers are themselves cultural events. This is surely one. Words alone cannot convey the impression or the impact of the cultural milestones.--Filll 13:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep – the cover illustration graphically conveys the central question to the section of the article, the relationship between God and primate evolution. As I recall, the Time magazine issue was already cited on that point, and the section now specifically discusses arguments put in the magazine article. The fact that the issue made the cover of Time magazine at that particular point in the history of ID is significant in itself. .. dave souza, talk 17:50, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - this isn't a vote, it's a discussion. It's useful to comments on whether this image fulfills our non-free content policy or not. Let's look at that carefully. NFCC #8 says "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. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." So, for instance, in an article about a person, a lack of a picture of that person would significantly detract from a reader's experience. But in the ID article, we could only use this magazine cover if a reasonable person might read the text of the section and think "I sort-of understand, but I just can't really understand the controversy without seeing the actual magazine cover. I read that the issue was discussed in Time, but without seeing the cover itself, complete with God reaching out to a monkey, I can't really grasp the importance or the details of the controversy." And that would be ridiculous. Of course having the image helps illustrate the article, no one disputes that. But it doesn't provide any encyclopedic information that isn't presented by the text that already exists in the article. That's why it doesn't fulfill NFCC #8, and why we can't use the image in the article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Responsive comment: I'm afraid this is wholly incorrect, this notion that "this is not a vote". In fact, it is, in part, a vote, in addition to a discussion with the goal of attempting to achieve consensus to the best possible extent. WP:ATA is explicit that a deletion procedure is "not just a vote". In practice, it is necessary for each user to make clear what that user's preference for the outcome is, ideally in bold letters, so that the closing admin doesn't need to carefully sift through the discussion in attempting to discern what each participant's own conclusion is.  Of course, it is generally expected that each user will provide a reason for that preference, set in the context of discussion about the involved issues. If a user says "keep per user X'", this is quite adequate as a statement that "I needn't copy and paste UserX's comments, because I agree with what UserX already said and I can think of nothing more to say about it" If there is explicit additional reasoning in support of a user's position, all the better.  But, we have few illusions about what "only-free-content" advocates will conclude.  As far as I care, once the 10 NFCCs are demonstrated to be met, a simple statement of "Delete per NFCC #8" will suffice to make those users' preferences quite clear.  Because that is what the above discussion has amounted to. ... Kenosis 18:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy. WP:ATA is an essay, not a policy, and in this case it's technically incorrect. Our policy at Consensus says "Wikipedia's decisions are not based on the number of people who showed up and voted a particular way on a particular day. It is based on a system of good reasons." and "Formal decision making based on vote counting is not how Wikipedia works. . . and simple vote-counting should never be the key part of the interpretation of a debate." – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This, from a predisposed admin, amounts to an advance justification to throw out the majority of stated preferences for the outcome and impose Quadell's preference in its place. Read WP:ATA again please. The words are "not just a vote". ... Kenosis 15:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And then read the top, where it says "This is an essay. It is not a policy or guideline; it merely reflects the opinions of some of its author(s)". I don't appreciate you maligning my motives here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:DGFA says "When in doubt, don't delete." It also only provides for dismissing comments when "administrators can disregard opinions and comments if they feel that there is strong evidence that they were not made in good faith." That is certainly not the case here. There not going to be any discounting comments to alter consensus or the lack thereof here. Odd nature 22:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Quadell, what is your definition of "encyclopedic information"? Let's try to bring substance, rather than pompous, unexplained peroration, steeped in subjectivity, to this conversation.  Now, definition please.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  22:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, its information that's important in an encyclopedia. Isn't it obvious what it means? If something is pretty but doesn't "inform" anyone of anything that an encyclopedia article should tell people, then it doesn't provide encyclopedic information. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Quadell's example is based upon extending the meaning of "significant" to be "essential". He proposes as a thought experiment a reader who thinks:
 * "I sort-of understand, but I just can't really understand the controversy without seeing the actual magazine cover.".
 * A better example based on the terms chosen for use in official policy would be as follows:
 * "Now that I see the actual magazine cover I have a significantly enhanced understanding of the matter."
 * Pertinent visual information is conventionally included in information resources, because it does enhance understanding. This is completely unremarkable as a general principle. Of course images significantly enhance understanding, if well chosen to their purpose. The hurdle for a non-free image is that there is a significant contribution to understanding which cannot be obtained with other freely licensed images or text. Don't, please, apply an idiosyncratic interpretation of "significance" that makes an impossible hurdle for any image. The end result of that would be a real degradation of the information available and a real impediment to the levels of understanding available with judicious use of images. It would be sacrificing quality for the principle of free-use, whereas the policy allows for a tension between these demands and the use of non-free images that do give a significant contribution. This is not the place for debating policy; I will be content of the closing administrators take due recognition of the policy as worded, and of its recognition of tensions between free use and high quality. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: I don't advocate expanding the definition of NFCC #8. I don't believe that a reasonable person would read the text of the article, and then see the magazine cover, and say "Now that I see the actual magazine cover I have a significantly enhanced understanding of the matter." You're misrepresenting my position, as you have in several deletion debates previously. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * People usually see pictures first.SuperElephant 15:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, not only does it not comply with NFCC#8 (as omitting it would not be detrimental to understanding the article), it doesn't even have a copyright tag. —Angr 23:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Quadell's analysis is 100% on point. As other experienced image people have repeated over and over, use of this this image does not pass the bar of inclusion. We don't need to show the reader visual evidence that ID was discussed in Time; we can just write that. If images are free, then the more's the merrier. But in this case, no dice. nadav (talk) 01:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This image significantly increased my understanding of the article. Omitting it would be detrimental to my understanding the article.  Pasado 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's specially odd that a user specialized on Inteligent Design and Evolution articles would have problems to understand that article without this magazine cover. --Abu badali (talk) 03:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, you have editted the article at least once before the magazine cover was added, as well as participated in talk page and FAC discussion about the article. How did you managed to do that without fully understanding the article's content? --Abu badali (talk) 03:16, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I take it you've run out of real arguments, since you're now resorting to attacking the credibility of your opponents. <b style="font-family:courier; color:#737CA1;">ornis</b> <b style="color:#C11B17; font-size:smaller;">( t )</b> 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree... this was deliberately disruptive. It is fundamental to wikipedia's goals that anyone can edit the article right now. You certainly don't need "full" understanding (a concept which is never mentioned in policy). There's nothing remotely surprising or unusual about being simultaneously a contributor, and someone who is increasing their understanding by reading what is present. Nor is it unusual to contribute to an article, and then have someone else contribute more stuff afterwards that further increases your understanding of the topic. It's common, and precisely what you should expect with a free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  00:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep The cover significantly increases the ability of a reader to understand that ID is cultural, social and even political issue of significance. It graphically illustrates both the general public understanding of the issue, and the importance of the debate. --Michael Johnson 03:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You are just repeating words from the policy instead of showing why it fulfills it. All I see is a magazine cover. Instead of talking about some sort of metaphysical, spiritual understanding, please tell us what facts the picture conveys that cannot be conveyed in text almost as well? nadav (talk) 04:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Answer to a question. I';m not Michael, but I'd like to answer this question. The guideline WP:NFC, in the section  Examples of acceptable use – images, explicitly recognizes identification as a valid basis for allowing a cover image. The plain intent of the guideline is that identification is an legitimate form of "significant increase in understanding" allowed under the policy. The utility of this identification is of considerable value for locating a particular magazine issue in many circumstances, such as a sorting through a physical stack of issues. The image provides this in a way that textual descriptions cannot replace. The second form of substantive information contributing to increased information is the iconography of the image, which I comment upon in a bit more detail in my own strong keep advice above. This form of increased understanding is implicitly recognized within the guideline by the mention of a Vanity Fair showing a naked and pregnant Demi Moore. It is certainly possible to describe the iconography; but it should be uncontroversial that this is inferior to understanding given by seeing the image directly. The third form of increased understanding relates to the forceful visual impact of the Time cover for driving home the public prominence of the Evolution Wars and their association with God and with schools. Humans tend to process and recall visual information with particular efficiency. However, this is a general pedagogical consideration for additional increased understanding that is not specifically listed within the guideline. Be that as it may, visual presentation invariably contributes to increased understanding as long as the image is pertinent, and the policy does recognize that inclusion of images can contribute to the quality of information and understanding available. This would be uncontroversial for free images; images often help increase understanding. The contribution is no less when the image is not free; all that changes is a need to check that there actually is a significant contribution to increased understanding. That has been done, in line with the forms of increased understanding provided for in the guideline. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  04:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is hardly comparable to the Demi Moore picture. That was a major event in her career with surrounding controversy (over the issue itself, not an issue about a controversy), which spawned many parodies and even a lawsuit.  This article, on the other hand, doesn't have any discussion of the image or issue.  "Forceful visual impact" is simply a nice way of saying decorative; there's no text in the article that is bolstered by the image, only that the image looks nice and emphasizes the section.  Your're right that this image would contribute no more were it free, but obviously we would use it if it were free since there are few restrictions on when to use free images.  17Drew 20:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The article does include critical commentary on the cover, because I added it there a few days ago. Previously the references in the text were there, but mostly as reference rather than commentary. I was advised that an important image like this should also have an associated critical commentary, so I provided it. My own view is that a well chosen image like this one is more than able to stand alone as significant contribution to understanding without needing additional commentary. But it there are formal procedural reasons for including some additional text, I am happy to comply with that. The article is improved as a result; I'm happy with the overall effect.
 * In my personal opinion, this image has a stronger basis for inclusion than the Demi Moore cover (I could be biased here, because of personal estimation of the importance of the topic itself). The Time cover, I would have thought, has more pertinent iconography and has more substantial importance to the article. This was a Time cover facing off God and a chimpanzee, highlighting the religious dimension of the dispute for all to see. It did this right when the court case was gearing up and defendants were preparing to make a case that it was just a science issue having nothing to do with religion. That defense was subsequently left in shredded ruins by the trial; and this cover anticipated that same conclusion, and brought to national prominence the dimension of the case that the ID movement wanted to hide. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What you added to the article was undue weight to one magazine of many about intelligent design. There have been tons of magazines that have done articles about intelligent design, and there's no reason that this one should have two paragraphs in an article about Intelligent design while other issues have none.  The Demi Moore cover is a much clearer and stronger case of fair use.  The iconography in this image should be irrelevant since the cover should be illustrating the issue, not the subject of controversy over intelligent design as a whole.  The Demi Moore image, however, has references that aren't the issue itself.  There are two articles from The New York Times discussing the cover, and there's an article in Camera Obscura which contains some discussion of the cover.  I'm sure a quick Google search would turn up even more about it.  But there's nothing to suggest that this issue of Time is notable; the idea that it is notable because the issue can be referenced to itself is silly.  17Drew 13:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The assessment of this image as fair-use, valid as to the four fair use criteria and all 10NFCCs does not hinge on the inclusion of related text about the Time issue or the Time cover. It is the cover that is the primary object of interest, because the cover drawing and the question posed on the cover coveys the point to the reader far better than could any amount of text. That recently added text will not, IMO, last long in the article (though I've been wrong before), nor would it affect anything other than one more particular argument of chronic image opponents. ... Kenosis 18:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Well-chosen image effectively giving readers an understanding of the public discussion surrounding the issues in question.—DCGeist 07:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep for the above reasons. Clearly image is relevant to the discussion at hand. -Nodekeeper 10:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a relevant image, TIME grants free use of it's covers and it's informative of the significance of the issue where it's used. FeloniousMonk 15:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Clear Delete: The image doesn't add anything other than decorative. The article mentions the image, but the main thing about the image, that of the question being asked on the cover, is restated in the article. This proves the image is replaceable, and not needed to further understanding of the article in the magazine. Please remember; we're a free content encyclopedia. Fair use images have to jump through major hoops to be included. This one fails, and rather bluntly at that. --Durin 19:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. The mention of the magazine cover in the article text is relatively very recent, and did not come until well after this procedure was underway. While I see that Durin, immediately above, has advocated delete, under no circumstances whatsoever should the outcome of this IfD hinge on whether it's mentioned in the article per se. It is a self-standing illustration of a public dimension of the "intelligent design" controversy. It speaks volumes to the reader by itself, even without a caption, and even without a mention of the issue or cover per se in the text..  ... Kenosis 15:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is nothing transformative regarding the display of the image. It's just displayed. The article mentions the cover, quotes it, and does nothing else with it. What is *really* relevant is the content of the article within the magazine, not the cover itself. The cover is irrelevant. It's not necessary to an understanding of the article within the magazine, and the salient quote on the cover is already noted in the text of the article. This clearly fails WP:NFCC #8. --Durin 03:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment to closing admin. The recent experience of administrative overrides of consensus leads me to post this comment. A review of this discussion, thus far, appears to indicate 15 participants in favor of keeping this image as NFC for its stated use. Specifically the rationale is for uses related to intelligent design, the creation-evolution controversy and any directly related topic forks.  Seven, perhaps eight, participants in this debate have advocated deletion, if I am counting the positions correctly.  The basis for those advocating deletion appears to be NFCC#8, which by its subjective nature (as an editorial assessment of whether it "substantially helps", etc.,) must be decided in a consensus process. Since, as of this comment, there are 15 keeps and 8 deletes, would it be fair to say there is no consensus to delete? ... Kenosis 19:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to refrain from closing this hot potato, but I just want to note here that consensus in wikipedia is not determined by vote counting. Borisblue 03:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't often close IfDs so I'm going to stay away from this particularly contentious one, but I see no reason to keep other than WP:ILIKEIT (would the equivalent at IfD be WP:ITLOOKSNICE?) Also, the claim that it only fails nonfree content criterion #8 is not correct (though it does indeed fail that one, as discussed above, the text that Time Magazine features it gets across that very simple point just as well as a graphic does), but also fails #1 (it is replaceable by free material, in this case text), and #3a (as text can convey the same point as the graphic, the use is not minimal). 3a explains minimal use pretty clearly&mdash;"one is used only if necessary." (emphasis added). It doesn't say if nice, or if helpful, or if beneficial. It has to be an absolute necessity to understanding of the topic. Seraphimblade Talk to me 04:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With respect, the claim of a need of absolute necessity to understanding is plainly wrong. The policy is quite clearly given in terms of "increase in understanding". The word "necessary" is used in policy in quite a different context, to do with the amount of content provided. That is, you give no more than is necessary for the particular contribution of that item. This has been thrashed out recently in the discussions at the guideline page, and has a strong level of consensus. The word "necessary" is in WP:NFCC for quantity of a particular item. The word in WP:NFCC is "significant" for the quality of contribution.


 * The question of whether text gives the same understanding or not might be debatable. I personally find it uncontroversial that in the case of iconography like this, the image does indeed give significant increased understanding; but I guess I have to accept that it is controversial as a general point for others. Primarily, I want to underline that the policy as worded makes no mention of absolute necessity, not even of necessity at all with respect to understanding. The term with respect to undertstanding is "significant increase". I think we have that well covered, myself. But I guess we'll see if closing admin agrees... &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  05:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, there would even be some discussion as to what absolute necessity is&mdash;the German Wikipedia gets by just fine with a total ban on all nonfree images, so obviously none are absolutely indispensable. On the other hand, there are some articles (I like to use Kim Phuc as an example) which would indeed be tremendously diminished by not using a nonfree image, and I'd say in a case like that we've got necessity&mdash;you just can't tell that story without showing that image, it couldn't be done. But this just doesn't seem one of those cases. "Time Magazine ran a cover story about the issue" seems to get the point across just fine, I don't see how one would get such a significant increase in understanding from actually seeing that cover. The fact that Time ran the story is crystal clear from the text already. Seraphimblade Talk to me 05:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. I accept that we disagree and am content to leave my actual case for significance as already given. You are absolutely correct about the German wikipedia. They do have a different policy to the English wikipedia. I guess my point can be summarized: we need to use the English policy, not the German one. Cheers &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  06:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment to closing admin. Make that 15 keeps to 9 deletes, maybe 10 deletes if you include Borisblue. ... Kenosis 06:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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:

Image:Trimedfilm_battleofchina.jpg

 * Image:Trimedfilm_battleofchina.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Rabota ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Interesting but Orphaned Original Research with possible copyright issues. Not compiled by a reliable source.  See also Media_copyright_questions.   But | seriously | folks   17:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC) [Revised 16:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC).  Somebody clarified my use of "OR", but not the way I intended.]
 * Delete - Copyright status provided by the image pertains to the film The Battle of China, which is in the public domain. However, the image is a composition of screen captures from The Battle of China and another film.  We do not know the copyright status of the other film, and morever, this is a derivative work, and the image could have been created only recently, with the creator still holding the copyright.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You have misunderstanding about the derivative work. In this case, the derivative work was carried out by US government. The credit of this work is being assured by the US government. All of the copyright problems may have been settled by US government. Don't you trust US government? So this reason and viewpoint should be changed. --Hare-Yukai 13:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not complaining about the US film being derived from the USSR film. He's saying the image is a derivative work of both films.  That concern may be negated by the inclusion in this discussion of the purported creator of the image. --  But | seriously | folks   16:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. This derivative work problem will be solved easily by adding the tag. --Hare-Yukai 05:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I make an assertion regarding the objective appraisal on this picture. On 19 of June in Tokyo, the Nanking Issue subcommittee that consisted of 100 Japanese governing party lawmakers hold the press conference and announced that no massacre happened in Nanking and denied the insist "unproven - Nanking Massacre" of Chinese Government. In this press conference, the problematic picture was passed out to press there. The appearance of this press conference can be seen on YouTube.
 * Delete per HQG. Also, this image reeks of OR, and violates WP:NOR and WP:V. nattang 18:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hong. Blueshirts 18:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep This picture is one scene of the video that I produced and uploaded to YouTube. I approve that this picture belongs to the public domian.
 * This picture was the one scene of the video that I produced in May of 2007, I found the scene resembles the one scene of "the Battle of China" when I watched "the Shangahi Document" in the early of this year. So, I drew the comparison between these two scenes,  as a result, these two scenes tuned to be the same one. "The Shaghai Document" was produced in 1928 of USSR and "the Battle of China" was produced in 1944 of the U.S..
 * I produced "The Fake of Nanking" in order to prove that this scene of "The Battle of China" was trimed away by someone and uploaded to YouTube. Before producing "The Fake of Nanking" I produced,  almost people that watched "The Battle of China" was Japanese soldiers' atoricity in 1938 in Nanking. So, as soon as "The Fake of Nanking" was uploaded to YouTube,  more than 300,000 people that had believed were shocked to know that this scene was not atoricity of Japanese soldiers.  "The Fake of Nanking" impacted both on the field of Japan and China relations and both countries' historical societies.
 * Japanese Diet members hold a press conference in the late of June and annonced regarding "The Fake of Nanking" that I uploaded to YouTube. This press conference were joined by UPI, AP, Reuters...etc. (from 5:20 to 6:03,  regarding "The Fake of Nanking")
 * This captured picture was carried in this book. You can find the word "THE FAKE OF NANKING" in the table of contents of this book.  rabota 22:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather not place too much confidence on a circle jerk session by a bunch of Japanese right wing revisionists. Plus the books from amazon are typical massacre denial books. Do you see people quoting "Did Six Million Really Die" when writing about articles regarding the holocaust? Blueshirts 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether I am right-wing or not. However, it is the fact that I don't involve in political activities. I just only like to study history.  It is certaion that  there is the controversy as to whether Nanking Massacre took place in the world. But the controversy stopped after "The Fake of Nanking" was uploaded in recent.  rabota 19:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The most important thing is...not whether Nanking Massacre took place or not....I have strong interest in how "The Battle of China" had been produced 63 years ago. rabota 20:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Hong Qi Gong has misunderstanding about the meaning of the derivative work. When it is based on his interpretation, the U.S. government becomes the meaning of not solving a copyright problem. --Hare-Yukai 13:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * 1) It's been 80 years since "A Shanghai Document" was released in 1928. It is common sense that we should think this film has already become public domain.  It turned out that he poster of this film has already become public domain.
 * 2) In addition, To quate for academic research puropose is permitted by the copyright law.
 * 3) If the copyright of this shooting scene belongs to a producer even now, why the U.S. that trimed the original film off 63 years ago should not be criticized?--rabota 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's wrong viewpoint. In the 1928, copyright of USSR was ineffective. --Hare-Yukai 15:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this image was being used to support an unverified, unsourced, unsupported, original research POV claim about Battle of China which has been removed. It stands to reason that this image does not serve any purpose on wikipedia, and given its potentially messy copyright status, should be deleted. -- Миборовский 18:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * CommentI don't understand what Миборовский is saying...it is obvious where both of these two films' souces are. The left side is from "The Battle of China" and the right side is from "A Shanghai Document". This picture clearly indicates what was trimed off at "The Battle of China".  I know well that Chinese Government is using this tirmed shooting scene as black propaganda for the puropose of implanting something hatred against Japan into people in the world even now.  You cannot deny it, right? rabota 19:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I CAN deny it because you have not shown an inkling of evidence to support your claim. Battle of China was made by the US government, not the Chinese government. There is no evidence to support that the "right side" is indeed from A Shanghai Document. There is no published, third-party, and reliable source which claim that said scene from Battle of China is from A Shanghai Document. We have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence and sources, which you have either completely ignored or feigned ignorance of the English language in order to evade. You also made this image yourself, and to promote a specific agenda. Therefore this picture fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, coincidentally the three most important policies on Wikipedia. -- Миборовский 01:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay...I ask you Миборовский, "have you ever watched A Shanghai Document?" I suppose you have never watched this film.  I did.  So, you cannot deny it at all. You must say so after waching "A Shanghai Document".  As you may not know,  Chinese Government re-edit "The Battle of China" in autumn of 1945 and released "China's angry roar" for pupose of proving Japanese atrocities in China at International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East.  More than 90% of this "China's angry roar" are the same one as "The Battle of China".  Of course, "China's angry roar" has the problematic shooting scene quoted from "The Battle of China".  Chinese Government is scattering this film to the world even now with disregarding the fact that this shooting scene was not by Japanese soldiers but by Chinese Kuomintang soldiers in 1927 of Shanghai. So, "The Fake of Nanking" I uploaded became hot topic for discussion on May of this year. As I said before, this problematic shooting scene has already been announced officially to foreign news agencies as you can see...this picture was carried on the book on July...please seach for "The Fake of Nanking" at google, you will find and compare with "The Rape of Nanking".  rabota 07:07, 21 August 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMbZ0N_Wdc

A Lawmaker made mention of "The Fake of Nanking" and explained about the problematic scene of "The Fake of Nanking". (from 5:20 to 6:03), The next day of this press conference, the following press reported...please check them.

Herald Tribune　"No massacre in Nanking,' Japanese lawmakers say"

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/19/asia/nanking.1-78430.php

BBC NEWS "Japan MPs play down 1937 killings"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6768847.stm

globeandmail.com "Nanjing massacre a lie, Japanese MPs say"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070619.wnanking0619/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070619.wnanking0619

Herald Sun "Japan revises massacre"

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21934827-663,00.html

Reuters AlertNet "Japan ruling MPs call Nanjing massacre fabrication"

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T214128.htm

rabota 15:08, 21 August 2007
 * Actually those links only goes to show that Japanese MPs have tried to play down the Nanjing Massacre. It doesn't counter the possibility that this image is complete WP:Original research.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * in addition, by saying that "no massacre happened in Nanking" you've pretty much destroyed your credibility. And why would anyone place any trust in a right wing circle jerk session? Blueshirts 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What it is bad to deny the Nanjing massacre? It won't be so. But, it shouldn't contending for whether to deny a part of the massacre here. The fact should be discussed that there is the two same movies. These movies are same. There is no important thing any further. The interpretation of this fact is not to matter here. You think that you want to decide the result of the interpretation first, then, you deny the fact which becomes foundation of the interpretation. This is not a proper attitude.  --Hare-Yukai 02:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't understand your logic at all. Why do you think so?  Why do you think I don't have credibility?  I told a lie?  I told the fact. Have you read linked URL? Have you watched linked YouTube?  It is true that 100 Japanese governing party lawmakers hold the press conference on 19th of June, right?  It is true that a Japanese lawmaker made mention of "The Fake of Nanking" that I uploaded to YouTube and explained how China or the U.S. framed Japanese soldiers up for atrocities, right?  It is true that 100 Japanese governing party lawmakers gave my work high marks, right?  Do you think 100 Japanese governing party lawmakers are not credible?  So many Japanese people support these 100 Japanese governing party lawmakers.  These 100 reliable persons called foreign press(AP, UPI, BBC...etc.)  into their press conference....What can you believe? Only Chinese Government?rabota 16:12, 21 August 2007
 * read what Hong wrote and then the circle jerk session comment. Blueshirts 21:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very simple fact that there are two movies A and B. A, B are equal each other. Then US government already solved the copyright issue of the movie B. It was Produced by the WAR DEPARTMENT SIGNAL CORPS ARMY SERVICE FORCES for the MORALE SERVICES DIVISION. Image:The Battle of China tytle1.jpg And the movie A was produced in USSR. USSR in 1928 doesn't do copyright assertion. Copyright (c) was not indicated there. Even if it exists, it isn't effective in the US and another countries. There is no fact that USSR insisted on the copyright. And movie A was a propaganda movie of the USSR. Where is a copyright issue? --Hare-Yukai 03:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to this, the Communism did not recognize individual possession. So noone could insist on the copyright. --Hare-Yukai 04:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete Image makes an OR claim. nadav (talk) 01:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OR claim was already solved. You should explain the reason why OR claim exists continuously. Is it the doubt of trust? --Hare-Yukai 02:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "The Fake of Nanking" has already been introduced to the public by the book published on July of 2007.  This book's title is 情報戦「慰婦・南京」の真実（The information warfare - The truth of "Comfort Women/Nanking"),  written by Kohyu Nishimura 西村幸祐. This book has already carried the photograph that Frank Capra trimmed film of "A Shanghai Document" and flamed Japanese soldiers up for atrocities.  I got approval from Kohyu Nishimura to upload to Wikipedia.  Please check...Image:Fake_of_nanking.jpg rabota 13:20, 23 August 2007  (UTC)
 * keep The shooting scene of "The Battle of China" tuned out to be fake by "The Fake of Nanking". I think that this YouTube Video has openned a Pandora's box of the controversy on Nanking Massacre. Therefore, this is an image file of revolutionary finding and extraordinarily well qualified to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashimoto (talk • contribs) 20:05, August 26, 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashimoto (talk • contribs) 20:05, August 26, 2007 Note User:Hashimoto just signed up for an account specifically for this afd process and is likely in violation of WP:SPA and WP:SOCK. Blueshirts 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blueshirts, It is probably a different person. Is there evidence? By the way, are the Hong Qi Gong and the Hong Qi Gong different persons?　--Hare-Yukai 06:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * come on, stop kidding yourself. A new user with the first edit being on this page? Either a sock or canvassed voter. Plus the checkuser on your friend rabota and musashitko came back as possible. Blueshirts 06:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * nadav, I presented new image file Image:Fake_of_nanking.jpg as an evidence that "THE FAKE OF NANKING" has already been published in reliable sources. If you doubt it, you can buy this book on internet and you can scrutinize contents of this book. You can buy here: http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/4775509373/kaoru-22/ rabota 14:18, 26 August 2007  (UTC)
 * The Fake of Nanking video itself has not been published anywhere but youtube. Yes, this book you cite does discuss the video, but that merely means that the book may perhaps be cited, not the video. Moreover, I question whether this book is a reliable source. The publisher, Okura Publishing seems to be a pulp publishing house that issues various popular magazines and illustrated books. Hardly an academic source. nadav (talk) 22:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * nadav, Your saying is a wild guess.  What is the point in guessing?  You have not experienced to read it.  You forget or disregard the important fact on purpose....the fact is that the Nanking Issue subcommittee that consisted of 100 Japanese governing party lawmakers hold the press conference and called foreign press(AP, UPI, BBC...etc.) into their press conference on 19th of June, 2007....and distributed the handout to them...this handout contained the problematic scene of "THE FAKE OF NANKING" and a lawmaker gave an explanation about "THE FAKE OF NANKING" discovered the deceit in "THE BATTLE OF CHINA".  Therefore, this image file has already been public in front of  foreign press(AP, UPI, BBC...etc.) however hard you assert "THE FAKE OF NANKING" is OR.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMbZ0N_Wdc rabota 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * yeah, so? It's like quoting something from the 2006 Iran Holocaust Conference and use it for the Holocaust article, really self-serving indeed. Blueshirts 02:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Those problems ware solved to adding tags. So these arguments should be close by adding those processes. --Hare-Yukai 17:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The author is a well known denier of the massacre and comfort women. Citing his work reeks of pov and unreliability. Blueshirts 03:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Such a thing doesn't influence the argument of OR. --Hare-Yukai 03:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe..."The attitude to seek for the truth is absolute right!" I believe..."History is not religion. History is Social science".  Don't be afraid of being reversed history in your brain by new findings. History is destined for undergoing changes by new findings. Please look back on Heinrich Schliemann who excavated the ruins of Troye.   rabota  18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. The image is original research and fails WP:V. I could find no nuetral reliable source to support what the image claims to display. The image is not in an article and was uploaded as part of a discussion about Image:The Buttle of the China2.jpg (also deleted) and has served its purpose. -Nv8200p talk 17:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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:

Image:The_Buttle_of_the_China2.jpg

 * Image:The_Buttle_of_the_China2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Hare-Yukai ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Interesting but Orphaned Original Research with possible copyright issues. Not compiled by a reliable source.  See also Media_copyright_questions.   But | seriously | folks   17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC) [Revised 16:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC).  Somebody clarified my use of "OR" but not the way I intended it.]
 * Delete - Copyright status provided by the image pertains to the film The Battle of China, which is in the public domain. However, the image is a composition of screen captures from The Battle of China and another film.  We do not know the copyright status of the other film, and morever, this is a derivative work, and the image could have been created only recently, with the creator still holding the copyright.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment You have misunderstanding about the derivative work. In this case, the derivative work was carried out by US government. The credit of this work is being assured by the US government. All of the copyright problems may have been settled by US government. Don't you trust US government? So this reason and viewpoint should be changed. --Hare-Yukai 13:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He's not complaining about the US film being derived from the USSR film. He's saying the image is a derivative work of both films.  That concern may be negated by the inclusion in this discussion of the purported creator of the image. --  But | seriously | folks   16:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand. This derivative work problem will be solved easily by adding the tag. --Hare-Yukai 05:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I make an assertion regarding the objective appraisal on this picture. On 19 of June in Tokyo, the Nanking Issue subcommittee that consisted of 100 Japanese governing party lawmakers hold the press conference and announced that no massacre happened in Nanking and denied the insist "unproven - Nanking Massacre" of Chinese Government. In this press conference, the problematic picture was passed out to press there. The appearance of this press conference can be seen on YouTube.
 * Delete per HQG. Also, this image reeks of OR, and violates WP:NOR and WP:V. nattang 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hong. Blueshirts 18:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * keep This picture is one scene of the video that I produced and uploaded to YouTube. I approve that this picture belongs to the public domian.
 * 1) This picture was the one scene of the video that I produced in May of 2007, I found the scene resembles the one scene of "the Battle of China" when I watched "the Shangahi Document" in the early of this year. So, I drew the comparison between these two scenes, as a result, these two scenes tuned to be the same one. "The Shaghai Document" was produced in 1928 of USSR and "the Battle of China" was produced in 1944 of the U.S.. I produced "The Fake of Nanking" in order to prove that this scene of "The Battle of China" was trimed away by someone and uploaded to YouTube. Before "The Fake of Nanking" I produced, almost people that watched "The Battle of China" was Japanese soldiers' atoricity in 1938 in Nanking. So, as soon as "The Fake of Nanking" was uploaded to YouTube, more than 300,000 people that had believed were shocked to know that this scene was not atoricity of Japanese soldiers. "The Fake of Nanking" impacted both on the field of Japan and China relations and both countries' historical societies. So, Please understand that this picture is the milestone in the history.
 * 2) Japanese Diet members hold a press conference in the late of June and annonced regarding "The Fake of Nanking" that I uploaded to YouTube. This press conference were joined by UPI, AP, Reuters...etc. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMbZ0N_Wdc (from 5:20 to 6:03, regarding "The Fake of Nanking")
 * 3) This captured picture was carried in this book. http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/4775509373/kaoru-22/ You can find the word "THE FAKE OF NANKING" in the table of contents of this book. http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/reader/4775509373/ref=sib_rdr_ex/249-1750199-0590720?ie=UTF8&p=S00D&j=0#reader-page rabota 04:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Hong Qi Gong has misunderstanding about the meaning of the derivative work. When it is based on his interpretation, the U.S. government becomes the meaning of not solving a copyright problem. --Hare-Yukai 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * 1) It's been 80 years since "A Shanghai Document" was released in 1928. It is common sense that we should think this film has already become public domain.  It turned out that he poster of this film has already become public domain.
 * 2) In addition, To quate for academic research puropose is permitted by the copyright law.
 * 3) If the copyright of this shooting scene belongs to a producer even now, why the U.S. that trimed the original film off 63 years ago should not be criticized?--rabota 14:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's wrong. In the 1928, copyright of USSR was ineffective. --Hare-Yukai 15:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this image was being used to support an unverified, unsourced, unsupported, original research POV claim about Battle of China which has been removed. It stands to reason that this image does not serve any purpose on wikipedia, and given its potentially messy copyright status, should be deleted. -- Миборовский 18:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't understand what Миборовский is saying...it is obvious where both of these two films' souces are. These two films are from "The Battle of China" and "A Shanghai Document". This picture clearly indicates what was trimed off at "The Battle of China". I know well that Chinese Government is using this tirmed shooting scene as black propaganda for the puropose of implanting something hatred against Japan into people in the world even now. You cannot deny it, right? rabota 19:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I CAN deny it because you have not shown an inkling of evidence to support your claim. Battle of China was made by the US government, not the Chinese government. There is no evidence to support that the "right side" is indeed from A Shanghai Document. There is no published, third-party, and reliable source which claim that said scene from Battle of China is from A Shanghai Document. We have repeatedly asked you to provide evidence and sources, which you have either completely ignored or feigned ignorance of the English language in order to evade. You also made this image yourself, and to promote a specific agenda. Therefore this picture fails WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, coincidentally the three most important policies on Wikipedia. -- Миборовский 01:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Okay...I ask you Миборовский, "have you ever watched A Shanghai Document?" I suppose you have never watched this film.  I did.  So, you cannot deny it at all. You must say so after waching "A Shanghai Document".  As you may not know,  Chinese Government re-edit "The Battle of China" in autumn of 1945 and released "China's angry roar" for pupose of proving Japanese atrocities in China at International_Military_Tribunal_for_the_Far_East.  More than 90% of this "China's angry roar" are the same one as "The Battle of China".  Of course, "China's angry roar" has the problematic shooting scene quoted from "The Battle of China".  Chinese Government is scattering this film to the world even now with disregarding the fact that this shooting scene was not by Japanese soldiers but by Chinese Kuomintang soldiers in 1927 of Shanghai. So, "The Fake of Nanking" I uploaded became hot topic for discussion on May of this year. As I said before, this problematic shooting scene has already been announced officially to foreign news agencies as you can see...this picture was carried on the book on July...please seach for "The Fake of Nanking" at google, you will find and compare with "The Rape of Nanking".  rabota 07:07, 21 August 2007

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMbZ0N_Wdc

A Lawmaker made mention of "The Fake of Nanking" and explained about the problematic scene of "The Fake of Nanking". (from 5:20 to 6:03), The next day of this press conference, the following press reported...please check them.

Herald Tribune　"No massacre in Nanking,' Japanese lawmakers say"

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/19/asia/nanking.1-78430.php

BBC NEWS "Japan MPs play down 1937 killings"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6768847.stm

globeandmail.com "Nanjing massacre a lie, Japanese MPs say"

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070619.wnanking0619/BNStory/International/?page=rss&id=RTGAM.20070619.wnanking0619

Herald Sun "Japan revises massacre"

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21934827-663,00.html

Reuters AlertNet "Japan ruling MPs call Nanjing massacre fabrication"

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/T214128.htm

rabota 15:08, 21 August 2007
 * Actually those links only goes to show that Japanese MPs have tried to play down the Nanjing Massacre. It doesn't counter the possibility that this image is complete WP:Original research.  Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 15:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * in addition, by saying that "no massacre happened in Nanking" you've pretty much destroyed your credibility. And why would anyone place any trust in a right wing circle jerk session? Blueshirts 15:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment What it is bad to deny the Nanjing massacre? It won't be so. But, it shouldn't contending for whether to deny a part of the massacre here. The fact should be discussed that there is the two same movies. These movies are same. There is no important thing any further. The interpretation of this fact is not to matter here. You think that you want to decide the result of the interpretation first, then, you deny the fact which becomes foundation of the interpretation. This is not a proper attitude. --Hare-Yukai 02:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't understand your logic at all. Why do you think so?  Why do you think I don't have credibility?  I told a lie?  I told the fact. Have you read linked URL? Have you watched linked YouTube?  It is true that 100 Japanese governing party lawmakers hold the press conference on 19th of June, right?  It is true that a Japanese lawmaker made mention of "The Fake of Nanking" that I uploaded to YouTube and explained how China or the U.S. framed Japanese soldiers up for atrocities, right?  It is true that 100 Japanese governing party lawmakers gave my work high marks, right?  Do you think 100 Japanese governing party lawmakers are not credible?  So many Japanese people support these 100 Japanese governing party lawmakers.  These 100 reliable persons called foreign press(AP, UPI, BBC...etc.)  into their press conference....What can you believe? Only Chinese Government?rabota 16:12, 21 August 2007
 * read what Hong wrote and then the circle jerk session comment. Blueshirts 21:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's very simple fact that there are two movies A and B. A, B are equal each other. Then US government already solved the copyright issue of the movie B. It was Produced by the WAR DEPARTMENT SIGNAL CORPS ARMY SERVICE FORCES for the MORALE SERVICES DIVISION. Image:The Battle of China tytle1.jpg And the movie A was produced in USSR. USSR in 1928 doesn't do copyright assertion. Copyright (c) was not indicated there. Even if it exists, it isn't effective in the US and another countries. There is no fact that USSR insisted on the copyright. And movie A was a propaganda movie of the USSR. Where is a copyright issue? --Hare-Yukai 03:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * In addition to this, the Communism did not recognize individual possession. So noone could insist on the copyright. --Hare-Yukai 04:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * But you have not shown that the theory you advance in your image has been published in reliable sources. Therefore, this is original research. A video of a meeting posted on youtube does not count as an independent, reliable source. nadav (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Did you see it? A Shanghai Document movie --Hare-Yukai 04:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And rabota say that I approve that this picture belongs to the public domain. --Hare-Yukai 04:23, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment "The Fake of Nanking" has already been introduced to the public by the book published on July of 2007.  This book's title is 情報戦「慰婦・南京」の真実（The information warfare - The truth of "Comfort Women/Nanking"),  written by Kohyu Nishimura 西村幸祐. This book has already carried the photograph that Frank Capra trimmed film of "A Shanghai Document" and flamed Japanese soldiers up for atrocities.  I got approval from Kohyu Nishimura to upload to Wikipedia.  Please check...Image:Fake_of_nanking.jpg rabota 13:20, 23 August 2007  (UTC)
 * keep The shooting scene of "The Battle of China" tuned out to be fake by "The Fake of Nanking". I think that this YouTube Video has openned a Pandora's box of the controversy on Nanking Massacre. Therefore, this is an image file of revolutionary finding and extraordinarily well qualified to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hashimoto (talk • contribs) 20:05, August 26, 2007 Note User:Hashimoto just signed up for an account specifically for this afd process and is likely in violation of WP:SPA and WP:SOCK. Blueshirts 03:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blueshirts,　It is probably a different person. Is there evidence?　By the way, are the Hong Qi Gong1 and the Hong Qi Gong2 different persons? --Hare-Yukai 06:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * come on, stop kidding yourself. A new user with the first edit being on this page? Either a sock or canvassed voter. Plus the checkuser on your friend rabota and musashitko came back as possible. Blueshirts 06:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Those problems ware solved to adding PD-Russia tags. So these arguments should be close by adding those processes. --Hare-Yukai 17:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * nadav, I presented new image file Image:Fake_of_nanking.jpg as an evidence that "THE FAKE OF NANKING" has already been published in reliable sources. If you doubt it, you can buy this book on internet and you can scrutinize contents of this book. You can buy here: http://www.amazon.co.jp/exec/obidos/ASIN/4775509373/kaoru-22/ rabota 14:18, 26 August 2007  (UTC)
 * Comment I believe..."The attitude to seek for the truth is absolute right!" I believe..."History is not religion. History is Social science".  Don't be afraid of being reversed history in your brain by new findings. History is destined for undergoing changes by new findings. Please look back on Heinrich Schliemann who excavated the ruins of Troye.   rabota  18:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Image deleted. The image is original research and fails WP:V. I could find no neutral reliable source to support what the image claims to display. This contentious image was removed from Battle of China, is only used on talk pages and has served its purpose. -Nv8200p talk 17:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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:

Image:MusicalTheater7.jpg

 * Image:MusicalTheater7.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by SFTVLGUY2 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Non-free poster being used to decorate the Musical theatre article. Delete per WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep: This is an iconic image of one of the longest-running and successful musicals of all times.  It is needed to illustrate the Musical theatre article.  -- Ssilvers 03:12, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: It appears fairly new editor Videmus Omnia has little knowledge of musical theatre, since he has tagged other images related to the subject for deletion. He doesn't seem to understand their importance to the topic. ConoscoTutto 18:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: Free images are generally not available to illustrate modern musical theatre articles, since these properties and their promotional materials are commercial works that are under copyright (after 1923). Therefore, "fair use" images are the only images generally available in this area.  -- Ssilvers 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The issue is whether removal of the image would cause significant detriment to reader understanding (WP:NFCC, not whether or not the image can be replaced (WP:NFCC). Videmus Omnia Talk  16:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The section isn't even about Les Mis, it's about the 80's and 90's. This image certainly doesn't pass NFCC#8 in the Musical theatre article. – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't meet NFCC#8 even in Les Misérables (musical), let alone in Musical theatre. Its omission from these articles would not be detrimental to understanding them. —Angr 23:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * KeepAn interesting image, whose value to an understanding of this topic is abundantly clear.—DCGeist 07:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * At the least, it must be removed from Musical theatre (along with a number of other non-free images), since it is there just for the sake of having an image, and doesn't significantly increasing the reader's understanding of musicals. I can see it being kept in Les Misérables (musical) for the purpose of visual identification, however, especially if Image:LesMis@Broadhurst.jpg is deleted for being unfree. nadav (talk) 06:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Image kept. Removed image from Musical theatre and left at Les Misérables (musical). -Nv8200p talk 13:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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:

Image:Globevalve.jpg

 * Image:Globevalve.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Jfreyre ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned Videmus Omnia Talk  17:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This image is no longer orphaned.  It is used in the articles Valve and Globe valve.  H Padleckas 03:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:MHWGOphoto10.jpg

 * Image:MHWGOphoto10.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Max24 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Music video closeup, delete per WP:NFCC, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the screen from Dion's biggest hit song "My Heart Will Go On." It's also one of the biggest hits worldwide ever. Why can't we let this picture illustrate the article? Max24 20:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep An excellent choice of illustration, per Max24.—DCGeist 07:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:Myheartwillgoon.jpg

 * Image:Myheartwillgoon.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Collard ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Decorative image in Celine Dion article, which does not contain any critical commentary about this video that a non-free image is required to understand. Videmus Omnia Talk  17:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleted. Image has been deleted already by the original uploader. See the logs. No further action required. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  01:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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:

Image:Bjlata1.jpg

 * The deletion review for this image may be found here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Badagnani (talk • contribs) 01:55, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Image:Bjlata1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Susanlesch ( [ notify] | contribs).

Also Image:Bjlata3.jpg. (This image is now orphaned and not at issue)
 * Replaceable non-free images of a musician performing in concert. Videmus Omnia Talk  18:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment from major contributor Per rationale provided, these two images depict a non-repeatable historically significant appearance of a famous individual; showing Bradley Joseph as a featured instrumentalist during the recorded version of Yanni Live at the Acropolis, recorded in 1993.  My question is how can this be replaceable?  Also, there is extensive commentary about the concert in question directly adjacent to the images.  I would like to be shown which, of the 10 criteria per WP:FU, do these images violate.  ♫ Cricket02 19:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The criterion would be WP:NFCC - a reader can understand perfectly well that he played at this event without non-free images to show that. Videmus Omnia Talk  21:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not what he looked like then. I worked very hard on this article to bring it up to FA standards, and of course I would like to be compliant with all guidelines.  So I thank you for pointing out any FU criterion that I may not have completely understood.  But I do believe at least one of these screenshots should be kept within the article to depict this nonrepeatable event.  Would the removal of one be a fair compromise?  ♫ Cricket02 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I answered my own question per WP:NFC 3a, minimal use. Therefore, I removed Image:bjlata3.jpg from the article, and propose to keep Image:bjlata1.jpg intact within the article, as depiction of a historically significant nonrepeatable event that took place in the life of this composer, and this event being discussed extensively within the article and adjacent to the image.  ♫ Cricket02 23:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment from uploader Excellent solution. I agree the appearance of the artist (who simply can't go back in time) and the event are historic and need to be pictured. There is no way to go back for a reshoot--half a billion people in a third of the world's countries know this video first hand. -Susanlesch 23:35, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry - I really appreciate the attempt at a compromise, but I still don't see how the remaining image complies with WP:NFCC. It's not like he's doing anything historic in the photo, he's standing by his keyboard. Why is it necessary for the reader to see what he looked like back then, in order to understand what the article is saying about the concert? I don't get it. Videmus Omnia Talk  23:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would argue that the event is historic, and by extension all band members and orchestra participation is historic as well. ♫ Cricket02 00:34, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not arguing that the event was not historic, but that the image is not historic. There's a difference. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. I too wasn't convinced that this was needed, and the pic was of such poor quality, I thought it wouldn't improve the article. But then I looked at the article, and he looks totally different now! It is difficult to say in words how different he looks, but I think it would be enough to put something in the article (if a source can be found) saying that he had long hair and no goatee/moustache, (the changing looks of celebrities is definitely encyclopedic - think Andre Agassi and his change from long hair to shaven head - if we can't get a free pic of Agassi as he used to look, we should be able to justify non-free use of one). Getting back to Bradley Joseph, I can't find anything online about his hairstyle, but if there is something in a print biography, then some commentary could justify the image. Hmm. If this argument works, there could be a flood of pics of "long-haired 60s musicians" back onto Wikipedia! Seriously, though, "what people looked like during their career" (though only if a secondary source chooses to dwell on the changing appearance) is a difficult thing to put into words. A picture does it so much better. Carcharoth 00:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Agassi example would be that a picture is needed for a reader to make sense of: "As a young up-and-coming player, Agassi embraced a rebel image. He grew his hair to rocker length, sported an earring, and wore colorful shirts that pushed tennis' still-strict sartorial boundaries. He boasted of a cheeseburger diet and endorsed the Canon "Rebel" camera. "Image is everything" was the ad's line, and it became Agassi's as well." - that would be justification enough, IMO, for a non-free rationale for a pic of Agassi like this one. See here for an example of a news site comparing the two looks. Carcharoth 00:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The Agassi thing is a good example because there is sourced commentary about his appearance change. I don't see anything similar in this case. Videmus Omnia Talk  00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Replying to above. Hi, Videmus Omnia. Would it help if we thought in this context about other copyrighted media? Would you propose album covers, sound samples, and movie stills for deletion, too? Because the reader can imagine history? (For most of history, imagination is all we have.) Thanks for your thoughts. -Susanlesch 00:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Any of the above examples would qualify for deletion if they failed any of the non-free content criteria, including #8, which is the one under discussion here. As a sidebar - it seems that we've obtained one free image of him (the one in the infobox); would it be possible to obtain one of him from the '90s? Videmus Omnia Talk  00:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have a source that specifically discusses his appearance then. But I do have a concert program from that 1993/1994 tour with his picture in it.  Anything I can do with that?  ♫ Cricket02


 * Besides, everything has been done by the book with regards to rationale and trying to do everything right to justify fair use including extensive sourced commentary of his participation in this historic concert. Not any concert photo would do.  This one event is what is being discussed.  Period. It is not being used for decorative purposes nor to specifically show what he looked like for that matter.  It is used to show his participation.   I counted 1,000 screen shot images in the A's alone in the Category:Screenshots of films.   Why is this one, which is probably one of the most compliant screen shot out there, being picked on?
 * I'm not intending to pick on you, I just happened to run across these images. My sole intention here is to keep the encyclopedia free. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, why is an image needed to show his participation? The text you've written (which is great) does the job just fine. Videmus Omnia Talk  01:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Because it enhances the discussion. Featured article criteria #3 states, It has images and other media where they are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images or media must meet the criteria for the inclusion of non-free content and be labeled accordingly. This image complies completely.  Other than sound files, images were kept to a minimum.  I've already removed the two album covers, which leaves this one measely free-use image.  And on another note, regarding FAs, unless you've contributed to one, you have no idea the time and effort editors put forth to bring them up.  That said, and while I appreciate the work you are trying to do, it would be the more considerate thing to do to discuss reasons why you want to tag an FA, and give contributors an opportunity to resolve issues, before tagging one with no explanation. ♫ Cricket02
 * I'm sorry, but enhancement is not enough - it must be necessary - i.e. "omission would be detrimental to...understanding", per WP:NFCC. I do appreciate the work that goes into featured articles, honestly. Videmus Omnia Talk  03:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, the artist is playing with the Royal Philharmonic Concert Orchestra at the Acropolis in Greece in a concert video that is so famous this conversation stands out as peculiar. -Susanlesch 03:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No offense, but I am not arguing that the concert was not historic. I am arguing that a non-free image is not necessary to a reader's understanding that this artist participated in the concert. Videmus Omnia Talk  04:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * With that reasoning, then no film screenshot would qualify for fair use, even when accompanied by sourced critical commentary, including the Agassi example above, because their ommission would not be detrimental to understanding. So...why are film screenshots not banned, why allow them at all.  ♫ Cricket02 11:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Many film screenshots are noncompliant and will undoubtedly be eventually deleted. However, many are justifiable under non-free use because they portray fictional characters (such as Palpatine) for which no free equivalent can be created, and the uploaders have made a case that the reader cannot identify the subject of the article without a screenshot. Videmus Omnia Talk  14:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that we can have one non-free image to illustrate the subject of the article, if no free image is available and it is not possible to take one (eg. living person). Here, a free image is available to illustrate who this person is (and even if there wasn't one, he is alive so non-free use for that 'topic image' is not possible). The criteria for other non-free images within an article are stricter, in that after the initial one for the whole article, the others have to be justified to provide understanding. And yes, that can be very difficult. Many of the current film screenshots would fail that criterion. The idea is "possibly use one non free image for a film, but use a range of screenshots from the film throughout the article" - that is known as excessive use of non-free images. Carcharoth 11:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no hard-and-fast rule on the number of images...whether an article contains one non-free image or twenty, each image, both individually and taken as part of the set, must be needed for reader comprehension of the article. Videmus Omnia Talk  14:24, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. In my opinion, the image is useless because you can't tell from looking at it that he is at the historic event in question.  You can't see Yanni and you can't really see any of the venue.  All you can see is that he's playing his keys, which could be depicted by any image of him doing so.  Perhaps a better capture could be obtained that shows a wider view including Yanni and the venue.  I would be satisfied with that, although there are many who construe NFCC#8 more strictly than I do.  --  But | seriously | folks   16:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per my reasoning above.  Fair use is justified.  ♫ Cricket02 02:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Keep per rationale that was given on the image page. -Susanlesch 05:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - this image does not show any encyclopedic information that words alone couldn't convey. Some have argued that the image shows how different he looked then, but the difference between his looks then and now is not the subject of the article (and is not really even mentioned.) – Quadell (talk) (random) 18:11, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your're right, that is not the subject and is not why the image is used. It is used to depict a non-repeatable historically significant appearance that is not replaceable with free content.  It includes sourced critical commentary, and my argument is that it is, indeed, encyclopedic.  ♫ Cricket02 19:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe that the image does not provide any encyclopedic information beyond what the following phrase would provide: "Joseph was a featured instrumentalist at a historic concert in Greece, and this performance was documented in the film, Yanni Live at the Acropolis."


 * Delete, it's not being used "for identification and critical commentary on the film and its contents" as its tag requires. —Angr 23:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment and question. Hi. I have thought about this, and tried to see the other points of view. I would change my vote to delete if that made sense. One comment sounded interesting -- what if the screenshot changed to show the Acropolis or Yanni. But then they become the subject of the image. I wonder if use of this image probably increases the value of the original video (not decreases :-). A long time ago on Wikipedia I learned to devote my time to uploading 100% free images to the commons so forgive me if I am missing a fine point. The way this conversation is going, it looks like there are two acceptable uses of non-free content in the Non-free content guideline, Billy Ripken and Demi Moore.


 * Quoting from "Examples of acceptable use"
 * "Film and television screen shots: For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television."


 * Quoting from "Examples of unacceptable use"
 * "6. An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate an article (or article section) on the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article."
 * "7. An image of a magazine cover, used only to illustrate the Wikipedia article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if that cover itself is notable enough to be a topic within the article, then "fair use" may apply; see the Demi Moore article."


 * Quoting from Bradley Joseph


 * "When asked by Wheeler what role he had in the band, Joseph replied that he covered a lot of the keyboard parts that Yanni could not for lack of hands in the shows. He did have to adjust some parts that did not work well in a live situation and worked extensively on programming sounds for all keyboardists. He also helped layer with the orchestra to "really create a thick sound"."


 * What is this article about if it isn't about the subject's work in the video? May I ask why you allow any screenshots of any people working in any films and videos? Thanks for any suggestions. -Susanlesch 18:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see the connection between the quotes you bring forward and what you say about screenshots. I look at this photo, and all I see is a person playing the keyboard. It doesn't teach me anything about Bradley Joseph that can't be expressed simply in words. Sure, the context surrounding the event is notable, but the picture itself conveys none of that. nadav (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Cricket02 has explained clearly and thoroughly the value of this image to the well-written article Wikipedia article in which it appears.—DCGeist 07:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This is an historical image from a Featured Article. Article editor has addressed fair use concerns. Deleting this image would be a destructive edit. I suggest that other editors look at article before voicing in. -Nodekeeper 10:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete I am in favour of interpreting WP:NFCC generously, but I can't stretch it enough to cover this example. The requirement is that the image gives a "significant increase in understanding". The image here does not do that, because there are no visual cues linking it to the Yanni concert in question. I would consider an image that contributed to showing what performance this actually was, but this image gives no clue to that. This understanding comes from the text alone; and the image adds nothing further. It neither gives the more rapid assimilation of the information often associated with visual presentations, nor any any subtle visual cues that deepen the understanding of this involvement. The orphan image Image:Bjlata3.jpg gives some additional information (to me at least!) of the complexity of his keyboards used in the involvement; but the nominated image gives nothing. The question of changed appearance is not discussed in the article at all, and so I don't think that is pertinent. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  01:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. Many people offered spirited defenses of this image, but no one was able to explain what encyclopedic information this image conveys that could not be conveyed by text alone. As such, there is no way I can see to keep this image, given NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:P6060282.JPG

 * Image:P6060282.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by L33t455 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unencyclopedic. Was only used with an article that was deleted as NN. — jammycakes (t)(c) 18:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:The bead game.JPG

 * Image:The bead game.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by L33t455 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unencyclopedic, only associated with an article that was deleted as NN. — jammycakes (t)(c) 18:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a cute picture, but definitely unencyclopedic. Should be deleted. nadav (talk) 01:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as an orphan. There are also issues with privacy. The same example was uploaded as Image:P6060282.JPG but with the girl's face blanked out. (See delete nomination immediately above this one.) This also should be deleted as an orphan. The delete discussion for the associated article can be found here: Articles for deletion/The bead game. I confess I now want to read the deleted article, looked like fun. :-) &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  00:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:300px-La_Tourne.jpg

 * Image:300px-La_Tourne.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Ksnow ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned, Obsolete by Commons image Image:La Tourne.jpg Nilfanion (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
 * 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:

Image:007FRWLvg3.jpg

 * Image:007FRWLvg3.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by K1Bond007 ( [ notify] | contribs).

- Not deleted. Some people seem to believe in good faith that this second screenshot conveys encyclopedic information that the first one does not, and that can't be portrayed in words. That's plausible.
 * Unnecessary video game screenshot. The article already has another screenshot to show the appearance of the the game. Delete per WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia Talk  21:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't see why this should be deleted. While it may not be specifically stated in the article the screenshot is significant in that it shows both James Bond and the Bond girl digitally recreated - it is displayed in the "Cast" section. It could be used for that purpose. Just because an article has 1 screenshot does not mean it can't have another. K1Bond007 00:17, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per NFCC#8. Omitting this image will not be detrimental to understanding the article. —Angr 23:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Per rational, intelligent case made by K1Bond007.—DCGeist 07:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Article editor has addressed fair use questions. Editorial decisions belong on the talk page. -Nodekeeper 09:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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.

Image:Zolder.gif

 * Image:Zolder.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by WikiPino ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned. No indication of what the heck the image actually is, either, so there's no chance to use it. fuzzy510 23:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment It's an outline of a Belgian racetrack (Zolder), but a similar yet better image, Image:Circuit zolder.png, already exists. Calgary 03:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sounds like we can delete it, then. nadav (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's no urgency; it is a free use image. The image was replaced with a better one in this edit on April 7. Tag the orphan, wait a few days, and delete. &mdash;Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont)  00:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)