Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 July 24



Image:Buses.JPG

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


 * This chart is simply a duplicate of the other chart listed below for deletion except it is missing access icons. Author probably forgot to add them so he uploaded again instead of overwriting his old picture. Is not used in any article. Xtreme racer 18:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:WPG Buses.JPG

 * Image:WPG Buses.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Cblore ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * The picture was used as a chart for the fleet of buses of Winnipeg Transit but now has been replaced with a proper chart written in wiki language. Now image is not used anywhere. Xtreme racer 18:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:PrabhupadaManor.jpg

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


 * There are already free images of this person (Image:Swami Prabhupada.jpg) and the general concept of the celebration depicted can be illustrated with a free alternative. Abu badali (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: This image specifically places Swami Prabhupada at Bhaktivedanta Manor, in England, in the 1970's, and illustrates the dress, and activity of the members of the movement. A painting or 'created' image would not be an equal equivalent. Gouranga(UK) 11:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't need an image of that specific person in that specific date in that specific location to be understood. The image may be convenient, but hardly necessary. --Abu badali (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This does not satisfy official policy which says "Non-free content is used only if . . . its omission would be detrimental to that understanding [understanding the article's subject]." No attempt is made on the image page to justify why an image of this event is necessary to an understanding of this article's subject. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Prabhupada_14.jpg

 * Image:Prabhupada_14.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by GourangaUK ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unnecessary non-free image of a religious (or something like it, no offense intended) celebration. It doesn't seems to convey anything that can't be conveyed by free material. Abu badali (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - This image illustrates members of ISKCON celebrating a Ratha-Yatra festival in the 1970's - an historic time for the movement. A created image, again would not be an equivalent. This photograph historically illustrates the atmoshphere and character of the occasion. Gouranga(UK) 11:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dispute - this image is not being use to discuss "an historic time for the movement". --Abu badali (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete No rationale is given for why it is necessary in the article it is used in. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Prabhupada75.jpg

 * Image:Prabhupada75.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by GourangaUK ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unnecessary non-notable nofree image of a religious leader adressing some people, used to illustrate the information that he adresses this people. It doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 00:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - Images convey far more (and different) information than text can. This photograph illustrates the dress and the format as in the early history of the movement. It is not a commercial image, and gives a much clearer image than a purely textual description. Gouranga(UK) 12:05, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dispute - The article does not discusses "the dress and the format as in the early history of the movement". Being non-commercial doesn't extempts the image from our non-free content policy. --Abu badali (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep This one appears to be sufficiently tied to the specific article and the article's text to justify fair use. An alternative picture may be impossible since it is historical and the subject is dead. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How does this image helps on the understanding of the specific article and the article's text? --Abu badali (talk) 21:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Image is not necessary to understanding the article, violating WP:NFCC #8.  howcheng  {chat} 00:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mysweetlordconcert.gif

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

Keep I disagree. The image is almost iconic of George Harrison. Harrison performing My Sweet Lord at the Covert for Bangladesh is significant - I thought I was helping improve the article by adding it. I guess Abu just doesn't appreciate my efforts ♦ Dr. Blofeld ♦  "Expecting you?" Contribs 07:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * non-free image (claimed to be a screenshot) of a musician performing a song, used to illustrate the information that he once performed this song. It doens't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 00:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly does add something to the article, but with the text added underneath and no definite source, I'm not sure where it falls exactly in term of copyright? Gouranga(UK) 11:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree it adds to the article. But by our policy on non-free content, we don'tuse non-free images whenever they add something to some article. To are used solely when it's hard discuss the article's subject without including the image. I'm afraid this is not the case here. --Abu badali (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete There is absolutely no fair use rationale on the image page, and I don't see how it's removal would be detrimental to the article. -- Basar (talk · contribs) 06:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sid Campbell.gif

 * Image:Sid Campbell.gif ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by User talk:Dragun3 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Image orphaned from article deleted after afd debate. It is also a vanity image - the same reason the article was deleted (Articles_for_deletion/Sid_campbell). — Peter Rehse 01:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete orphan and no likely use else where --Nate1481(t/c) 09:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mistulalogo.gif

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


 * Mistulalogo.gif obsoleted by Mistulalogo.png — -- SilentAria talk 01:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:forost1.jpg

 * Image:Forost1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Silentaria ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * forost1.jpg obsoleted by forost1.png — -- SilentAria talk 01:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:forost2.jpg

 * Image:Forost2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Silentaria ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * forost2.jpg obsoleted by forost2.png — -- SilentAria talk 01:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Deepak dev.jpg

 * Image:Deepak dev.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Arun S. Sekher ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Non free image of a living person — ∆ 01:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, but next time you can tag it with {{subst:rfu}} (or {{subst:rfu2}} for images uploaded in the last year) rather than bringing it here. —Angr 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flame of recca 1.jpg

 * Image:Flame of recca 1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Silentaria ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Flame of recca 1.jpg obsoleted by Flame of recca 1.png — -- SilentAria talk 02:07, 24 July 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. 

Image:Student japes.jpg

 * Image:Student japes.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Yeanold Viskersenn ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * UE, used on the Students page to illustrate a student "prank", however does not clearly show that a student prank is in progress. — Scott 110 04:46, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Although I'm involved in the debate (and therefore am biased), the image clearly shows a student involved in a 'jape' or a prank, which we have proved using an argument that Scott ignores. It has been clearly shown that it does show a prank as defined by the very dictionary that he has used himself in a citation. There's an edit war of sorts going on here, and I don't think Scott's idea of moving it onto this page is following in the spirit of dispute resolution. I think we should keep the debate to the article talk page until it's settled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkerTyphoon (talk • contribs)
 * Comment No, you haven't proved anything. The fact that you are taking a definition and attempting to apply it to the picture does not "prove" an argument at all. Your interpretation is loose, at best.Scott 110 05:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As the creator of this image, I will refrain from giving my opinion on the matter - but feel I must point out that this image (which already features in several other articles) is part of an ongoing debate over at Talk:student, and I believe the deletion request may be unduly influenced by User:Scott_110's involvement in this debate. Yeanold Viskersenn 17:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - This request to delete the image is complete off base and should be ignored. There is a debate going on regarding the removal of the image from the Student article, but that does not justify requesting the total removal of the image itself which is being used without objection in other articles.  By the way, I do not particularly like the image myself (POV) but that should have no bearing on the removal of the image from Wikipedia.  User:Scott_110 is total off base with this request. Dbiel (Talk) 00:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - If you think the image does not belong in the article, then seek consensus for its removal and if you get that, remove the image. It might then be deleted anyway as an orphan. Otherwise, this is a free image which does not depict anything offensive and does not otherwise breach Wikipedia image requirements. Euryalus 03:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept. These are editorial decisions best left to the respective articles' talk pages.  howcheng  {chat} 00:20, 31 July 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:JasonWalk.jpg

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


 * Fair use publicity shot of a living person that can be replaced with a free use image. Ejfetters 07:52, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Lifehouse1.jpg

 * Image:Lifehouse1.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Jumping cheese ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fair use publicity shot of a band, with all members living, that can be replaced with a free use image. Ejfetters 07:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Yamin.jpg

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


 * User claims to have created image themselves, but image is of copyrighted album covers. Also, these copyrighted images, being fair use, can be replaced with a free use image of the singer. Ejfetters 08:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Ace of Base.jpg

 * Image:Ace of Base.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Harout72 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fair use publicity photo, replaceable with a fair use image of the band, that is still together. Ejfetters 08:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:IHO.pdf

 * Image:IHO.pdf ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Sreejiagriman ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * PDFs are anti-collaborative. This one is probably a copyvio and OR and deserves the same fate as Chikungunya and dengue in Kerala. — RHaworth 10:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The article needs a re-write, too! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HawkerTyphoon (talk • contribs)


 * 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. 

Image:JustinGuarini concert screencap3.jpg

 * Image:JustinGuarini concert screencap3.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Bkstone ( [ notify] | contribs).

This screencap is from a self made video of a live Justin Guarini performance of "Get Here" at Sewell, NJ on September 30, 2006. It is not from a television show. My video is available for anyone to view and download at www.essentialjustin.com. I release this screencap of a self made video under the GFDL license. 71.225.238.98 14:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Springfeverish@essentialjustin.com.


 * Image source is claimed to be from fan made video of clips of television performances, which would mean it is fair use from its original source, which is not clear, and is claimed to be created by the user. Image is being used on a living person's page, which can be replaced with a free use image of the person. 74.204.40.46 15:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete'. Image is claimed to be a screencap from a public domain fan-made video. But the video is not specified, and there's no reason to believe it's public domain (it seems like the common misconception that everything you put on the internet is PD) --Abu badali (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Editor says it's a screencap of a self-made video. I contacted with the e-mail address provided and got a confirmation that this image is released under the GFDL license. Without evidence of the contrary I think we can assume good faith on this one. Garion96 (talk) 08:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kept.  howcheng  {chat} 00:18, 31 July 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:Kirk001.jpg

 * Image:Kirk001.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Blue387 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Unsourced image tagged as promotional. Have been tagged as no-source (and no-rationale) before but the tags was removed by indef-blocked vandalism-only account Ben King. Maybe a speedy candidate. Abu badali (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, we already have sourced material to illustrate this copyrighted character: Image:JamesTKirk.jpg --Abu badali (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:LisaLoeb2.jpg

 * Image:LisaLoeb2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by LisaLoebOnline ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Publicity photo of living musician, replaceable with free use image of said musician. Ejfetters 16:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:EnterpriseCast.jpg

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


 * Unsourced image said to be known to have come from a press kit or similar source. It is more likely from the official website (that, in this case, is not a source for promotional material). We need verifiable source information to backup the claim that this material is intended to be reused by the media. In any case, screenshots could be used to illustrate these fictional characters. Abu badali (talk) 16:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:DuncanSheik 01 2006.jpg

 * Image:DuncanSheik 01 2006.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by ArkansasTraveler ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Fair use copyrighted publicity image of a living person with no fair use rationale, and replaceable with free use image. Ejfetters 16:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Simpleplanpicture.JPG

 * Image:Simpleplanpicture.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Ian Lee ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Another fair use publicity image of a living band, still formed, and replaceable with a free use image. User states no free image could be found, but numerous musician pages, including numerous band pages, have free use images. Ejfetters 16:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep - This image is a prime example of fair use. There is no reason to delete this image. — Ian Lee  (Talk) 21:41, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Textbook case of WP:NFCC #1 violation. Next time, please use {{subst:rfu}}.  howcheng  {chat} 21:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Image should be deleted because a FREE USE image can be obtained of this band, they're all living, and the band is still together. 74.204.40.46 09:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong keep Per Ian Lee.  It is a publicity shot, used on a CD single shot.  As for obtaining a free use shot, if you read the article, they haven't toured in over a year.--Wehwalt 21:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, not only is it replaceable with a free image, it's not being used in compliance with its tag: it's not being used "to provide critical commentary on the film, event, etc. in question or of the poster itself". —Angr 23:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Phosphoric_acid.jpg

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


 * Orphaned Abu badali (talk) 16:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete already on Commons. -Nard 22:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:BryceSoderberg.jpg

 * Image:BryceSoderberg.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Nnf05 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Publicity image of a living musician, replaceable with free use image. Ejfetters 16:53, 24 July 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:Einstein_TIME_Person_of_the_Century.jpg

 * Image:Einstein_TIME_Person_of_the_Century.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Mb1000 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * "Albert Einstein was named Time's Person of the Century" is easily understood without seeing the cover, thus violating WP:NFCC #8.  howcheng  {chat} 17:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - we don't need to show a magazine's cover every time a magazine's issue is mentioned. --Abu badali (talk) 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The picture does not take up much space, and it does represent a familiar image (for me, at least) not seen elsewhere. Ben Hocking (talk 18:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, consider addressing the concerns regarding our policy. This is not only an editorial decision. --Abu badali (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Considering the notability of this image and the fair use rationale listed on the image page, I do not believe it violates WP:NFCC. Chupper 00:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you point some reliable source discussing "the notability of this image"? We could then incorporate that discussion in the article, to try to justify the image use. But as it's used now, it violates our policy. --Abu badali (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Here are four, along with the reference of the actual story from Time:
 * Golden, F. (2000, January 3). Person of the Century: Albert Einstein. TIME. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://www.time.com/time/time100/poc/magazine/albert_einstein5a.html
 * Krauthammer, C. (1999, December 31). Person of the Century. The Washington Post. pp. OP/ED A.31
 * Isaacson, W. (1999, December 27). Who mattered and why. CNN. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/12/27/century.html
 * Gagen, T. (1999, December 29). TIME'S CHOICE. Boston Globe.
 * O'Sullivan, J. (1999, December 28). Relatively speaking, Churchill is the Man. Chicago Sun-Times. pp. 43.
 * And another thought - you state that the article must justify the image use and sources must discuss the notability of the image. While I've done this above for the sake of simplicity, I still must ask why you feel the image itself must be notable?  The copyright template itself states the image can be uploaded, as long as a sufficient fair use rationale and source are included, "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question".  If someone is discussed as a person of the year, they are the subject of a publication of the magazine.  The way I read it, this does not violate WP:NFCC.  In other words, these images can be used on an individual's article if they were classified as a person of the year and therefore don't need to assert a "case by case" notability check. Chupper 01:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the wrong item at WP:NFCC. Item 8 does say if it can be stated in words, the image shouldn't be used.  This case may be a special circumstance because the person of the century was a sort of "heated debate", but in general these covers should not be used in articles. Chupper 01:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * These sources are not discussing "the notability of this image". They are discussing the magazine issue. --Abu badali (talk) 13:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I was the editor of Time Magazine when we ran this cover. I admit that I have an emotional interest, but I would respectfully argue that it is worth keeping. The photograph is by Philippe Halsman, one of the greatest American 20th century portrait photographers, whom Einstein helped escape the Nazis. I personally think it is the most famous and best portrait of Einstein. His widow gave us special permission to use it on our Person of the Century issue, and she kept it out of circulation for the year leading up to that issue at our request. I have read the 10-point Wikipedia guidelines, and I can attest that it is fair to use this. Time has always allowed, as a matter of policy, its magazine covers to be reproduced in the context of an article about the issue. In addition, we always negotiate -- and in this case did negotiate -- the right from the artist or photographer (in this case Halsman's estate) that the cover may be reproduced, as long as it is in the context of a magazine cover (in orther words, you could not automatically reproduce Halsman's image, but you could reproduce the Time cover using the image). In my opinion, both the photograph and the Time cover showing him as Person of the Century meet the "notability of this image" criteria. -- Walter Isaacson
 * Isaacson, W. (1999, December 27). Who mattered and why. CNN. Retrieved July 24, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/time/1999/12/27/century.html
 * We can't rely on just on your opinion, sir. Have this image (I mean, the cover image, not just the photograph) been notable enough to be commented about somewhere? If so, we can incorporate the discussion in some article and then use the image. It has nothing to do with mine or your opinion about the image, nor about the "magazine issue" notability. --Abu badali (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Note related comments here. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The provision in WP:NFCC #8 being cited to support deletion of this image was made on May 30, 2007 by Howcheng after posting the suggestion on the talk page a week earlier under the heading "Clarifying criterion 8".  While there was no negative comment during the week between posting the suggestion and changing the policy, there was only one supporter (Abu badali) and one other comment.  See here.  I believe that permitting a fair use image only when the picture cannot be described in words is not a clarification of existing policy on fair use but essentially a complete evisceration of fair use.  It goes way beyond what is "significant." I can understand why, as the only two proponents of the change, those two editors are currently the only ones urging deletion of this image.  Their view of fair use is very narrow and they are certainly entitled to that view, but I strongly disagree. The wording has undergone continued changes and has received more attention, but it still seems far too restrictive when applied to images like this. Beyond that, I will leave the discussion to the policy's talk page. -- DS1953 talk  20:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to dispute the policy, you should to that at its talk page, and not at individual IFDs. But first, understand that your interpretation of the policy (and of its application) is incorrect.
 * It's wrong to state that the policy only permits "a fair use image only when the picture cannot be described in words". Please, understand our policy. It says (in #8) that a non-free image can only be used when the encyclopedic information it adds can not be adequately be conveyed with text. This image is only being used to show that Time Magazine considered Albert Einstein the man of the century, and (as I have just shown in this very sentence), this is an information that can be adequately conveyed with text.
 * As examples of magazine covers used in contexts where they convey more encyclopedic information that could be done with words alone, see the Time and Newsweek's O.J. Simpson covers used to illustrate a discussion about photo editing on these covers. These same images wouldn't fulfill criteria #8 if used to illustrate the information that O.J. Simpson was arrested.
 * A second examples is the cover of Life magazine covering the Martyrs' Day, when used to illustrate the encyclopedic information that a monument was built after that cover. Such encyclopedic information would be incomplete without the real picture (just as it's incomplete right now without a picture of the monument itself). But again, this image would not fulfill WP:NFCC is used to illustrate the events at the Martyrs' Day. --Abu badali (talk) 21:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * First, I limited my statements about the policy to what I felt was the minimum necessary to make my point about this particular image. I did not intend to debate policy here but your comments on my comments prompt me to respond.
 * Second, I was intentionally paraphrasing the policy's "can not be adequately be conveyed with text" to "cannot be described in words" to clarify what I see as both the intent and the application of the policy. You say my interpretation is "incorrect".  You have your own idea of what it says, I have mine.
 * Third, your examples do nothing to clarify my apparent "confusion". I agree that the covers in question are properly included in the articles but I do not see why someone cannot - to use your words and those of #8 - adequately convey the information in text. Of course that depends on interpretation of "adequate". The article in which the image of the OJ Simpson covers is used describes both those images and other examples in the text of the article and there is no apparent need to include images of the other examples in the article.  Arguably, the description of the editing in the text is "adequate" although the images, without question, further the reader's understanding. I think you are drawing a very fine line, if indeed there is a line at all.
 * -- DS1953 talk 23:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I must object to your characterization of my actions. The current version of criterion 8 was implemented on July 22, after significant discussion on the talk page on the exact wording, so to imply that this is a one-man "crusade" (not your words) is a misunderstanding at best.  howcheng  {chat} 00:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. In my nearly 3 years editing here, this is perhaps only the second or third time I have suggested invoking WP:IAR, if for no better reason than to short-circuit a policy discussion that will be mostly unproductive. I honestly don't think anyone can say the encyclopedia is not improved by the inclusion of this image. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * luckily enough, nobody said that. But do you believe this image is necessary for the reader's understanding of the text? --Abu badali (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it conveys a sense of moment that cannot otherwise be expressed in words, yes. But I realize that may not be enough for some people; thus IAR. TCC (talk) (contribs) 22:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep iconic image, and Time's accolade was an unusual variation on the person of the year theme. So much so that seeing it enlightened me. -Nard 01:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this specific issue of TIME magazine is discussed in the article TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century and surely also qualifies as fair use in Albert Einstein. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:35, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The image is used twice.  In TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century it illustrates and identifies the subject of the article.  In Albert Einstein it's used to illustrate a very important event, to note that as declared by Time Einstein is an icon, cultural hero, and one of the greats of our time.  Showing it in pictures adds tremendously to the gravity of these two articles.  Time Magazine is never going to complain to anyone about any such use, so attempts to tie this to the question of free content are misplaced.  Wikidemo 03:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This magazine issue may be important to Time, but are you sure it's this relevant to a Nobel laureate? It surely deserves mention, but you put it like it was one of the highest point of his career. --Abu badali (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, yes. Einstein is famous, and beloved, and influential, not only for his contributions to physics, but also his humanism, kindness, and wisdom.  He had a hand not only in theoretical physics, but science as an institution, education, world events, religion, and philosophy.  He stood up on matters of persecution, racism, rationalism, and censorship.  He is the quintessential, perhaps the defining, kindly mad scientist.  For the people of the world (in this case, as I said, that subset that has anything to do with Time Magazine) to decide that he is the greatest man of the past 100 years is indeed a historic event.Wikidemo 23:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, free images (with expired copyright) of Einstein are already available. That makes the image not only replaceable by a free image, but indeed already replaced. Under those circumstances, the image must be deleted. (The point that Time Magazine honored Einstein as the "Person of the Century" can certainly be conveyed with text&mdash;hey, I just did!) Seraphimblade Talk to me 03:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - needed to illustrate TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century. The use in other articles should be debated on the talk page of the image, but a section in Einstein's honours section seems reasonable. Carcharoth 04:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, we can say it with text and be just as informative. I was expecting to support keep, but thinking more about it, it's just as informative to say he was on the cover as it is to show him on the cover. (just not as pretty) -- Ned Scott 08:41, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is absolutely not possible to replace this with text and still provide the same level of understanding to the reader--what Person of the Year covers they look like is an essential part of the article, something text cannot adequately replace.  Their visual impact is significant; the use of the iconic photograph lends a visceral weight to the cover that no amount of text could ever completely convey.  Such a replacement would, without question, be detrimental to a reader's understanding of the subject.  Having more than one cover on the article would be redundant; but having one provides the reader with an essential and non-replaceable snapshot of what Person of the Year covers are all about. --Aquillion 22:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Sure, one can say in text that "TIME chose Einstein as the person of the century". But as the saying goes, a picture says more than 1000 words, and just showing this picture answers some questions that the phrase I quoted didn't. First, the obvious one: what picture did TIME choose to depict Einstein? How was it laid out on the cover? How did TIME look when this issue was published? This can be considered a historic issue of the magazine, so even the shape, font, color, etc. can be of interest in the context of the history of the magazine or of magazines in general. --Itub 14:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To address both Aquillion and Itub, none of these things that you're talking about are discussed in the article itself such that the image is required for the reader to understand it, which is the key requirement of WP:NFCC #8. So if you want the image kept, answer these questions in the article, citing reliable sources of course: Why is it important which picture TIME chose to depict Einstein? Why do we care about the layout -- is it significant in some manner? In what way are the shape, font, color, etc. important to the history of the magazine or magazines in general? If you have article text that discusses this, then the reader will need to see the image in order to understand what the article is talking about.  howcheng  {chat} 17:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's your interpretation of NFCC #8; but attempts by you to re-write NFCC #8 to say that have never been successful. Jheald 17:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. The current version of criterion 8 was agreed upon with strong consensus on the language by a number of parties, including yourself (or at least, you offered no objections to the wording). The agreed-to interpretation is and has always been, articles must require the non-free content in order to understood, otherwise it is not to be used.  howcheng  {chat} 18:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What NFCC #8 says is that Non-free content must significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. It doesn't say that the article must tell the reader that the non-free content is significantly increasing their understanding. Nor that the article must be incomprehensible without it.  Jheald 19:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a selective quotation. Don't forget the rest: The omission of that non-free content must be detrimental to that understanding. So yes, that does in fact mean the article must require the inclusion of the non-free content in order to be comprehensible. Furthermore, your forgot the entire second sentence, which says that if words can adequately communicate the idea, then the non-free content cannot be used.  howcheng  {chat} 20:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The "omission" sentence doesn't mean that at all. It means that omitting the content would be detrimental to the understanding the reader would have had, if the content had been included. Jheald 20:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * OK now we are quibbling about what "that" means in a manner that's very reminiscent of Bill Clinton's meaning of "is". When in doubt, go with the spirit of the policy, which has always been and continues to be, "Don't use non-free content unless absolutely necessary." Additionally, you still haven't demonstrated why the sentence "TIME chose Einstein as the Person of the Century" isn't sufficient.  howcheng  {chat} 20:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That's clearly your take on the spirit of policy. Another take is that NFCC #1 to 10 are intentionally tough enough as they are, additional zealotry is uncalled for, and actually harmful. Jheald 20:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We've already hijacked the deletion discussion enough. Let's continue this over at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content.  howcheng  {chat} 20:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I agree with the argument by "Mr. Isaacson," if that's really who wrote in, and JHeald, that Howcheng's interpretation of WP:NFCC #8 would seem to eliminate most if not all images on Wikipedia.  Keep in mind, those arguing that "the image can be replaced by text" would seem to be under a further obligation: since all images can be replaced by text, I think they need to show that their text is equal or better than the image, for encyclopedic purposes.  I mean, if you're really going to say that the text "Albert Einstein was named Time's Person of the Century" is a better way to communicate the idea that Time Magazine named Einstein PotC than showing the actual magazine cover, you're wrong.  There's any number of additional visual clues - information - contained in the picture that could never be in the text.  (Why a black and white photo?  Did Time magazine change their logo for this issue?  How does this "PotC" cover relate to previous "Person of the Year" covers?  What typefaces did the select, and what does that say about prevail design ideas of the time -- etc. ,etc. etc.  That's why a picture is worth a thousand words.  And this picture should stay.   Jenolen    speak it!  18:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Dispute - All of this "information contained in the picture that could never be in the text" is of no encyclopedic value. Do you know of any publication that discussed about "why did Time choose a black cover for this issue"? Or some paper about the Time's logo on this specific issue? Maybe an article about the typefaces used? This (non-)information is not discussed by our article and probably had never been discussed before. Unless you're suggesting we engage in a bit of original research in our article... --Abu badali (talk) 18:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Rebuttal: First of all, the goal is the elimination of unnecessary non-free images, not all images, for which we apparently have the backing of Jimbo. Yes, all images could theoretically be replaced by text, but not all images could be replaced by text that contains the same encyclopedic information. You seem to be under the impression that TIME's choice of a b/w photo and its selection of typeface and whatnot are encyclopedic in some way. Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. doesn't nearly make as much sense without the movie poster and magazine cover for the reader to compare side by side. On the other hand, TIME Magazine's 100 most influential people of the 20th century makes just as much sense if you have the magazine cover or not. Ergo, its use is superfluous.  howcheng  {chat} 19:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strange syllogism. A is true.  B is not A.  Therefore B is false.   Jheald 19:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That was not intended to be a syllogism and your reductio ad absurdium argument is far too simplistic.  howcheng  {chat} 20:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment As I said in my earlier post (and yes, Walter Isaacson is my real name), having a picture of the Time cover in the midst of the sections called "Honors" and "Einstein in Popular Culture" is clearly permitted under any conceivable interpretation of "fair use.” However, I appreciate the WP distinction between what is permissible under "fair use" and what is permissible under WP’s ten criteria for "non-free" content. More specifically, the question is whether the image meets criteria #8, "significance." The problem is that this criteria, as spelled out in the guidelines, is subjective; someone who interprets criteria #8 strictly could eliminate almost every non-free picture in Wikipedia, while someone else who interprets the criteria more liberally could defend almost every such picture. I would argue that actually seeing the most iconic photo of Einstein (Halsman’s 1947 sad-eyed and halo-headed portrait) in the iconic red border of a Time cover proclaiming him Person of the Century conveys the iconic status of “Einstein in popular culture” in a more significant way than a text description, which is why people like to use photos for their impact. (I notice in a Google image search that more than 25,000 other websites use that Einstein Time cover image.) But I realize that reasonable people may disagree. Which leads me to the policy question: Why enforce an interpretation of criteria #8 that is far more restrictive than fair use standards require? Who benefits from that? In pondering that question, I went to the rationale that was used for the ten criteria: "These criteria are based on the four fair-use factors, the goal of creating a free encyclopedia, and the need to minimize legal exposure." Therefore, I can see why the desire is to go somewhat beyond the “fair use” standards, but I cannot understand the need to enforce criteria #8 in a way that is far more restrictive than necessary for meeting those goals. Tossing out pictures that are clearly permitted under fair use and cost nothing and can be picked up free by WP readers for similar uses would seem, to me, to diminish the richness of Wikipedia. As a person who has worked on magazines, books, and websites, we put in pictures because they enhance understanding and the emotional significance of the text. Shouldn’t the philosophical devotion to “free content,” which I appreciate, be accompanied by a devotion to having pages that are as rich as possible in impact? If so, the delicate balance might argue for a less rigid interpretation of the phrases in criteria #8. – Walter Isaacson
 * Note to participants: Mr. Isaacson currently is Chairman and CEO of the Aspen Institute.  The IP address of origin for the above comment is in the Aspen, CO area, and the Aspen Institute has a campus in this location. Thus the above submission, based on its origin it appears extremely plausible that it does in fact come from Mr. Isaacson.  (Mr. Isaacson, if you care to avoid divulging your IP location, simply obtaining a recognizable WP username would readily accomplish this purpose. Thank you sincerely for the input on this matter.) ... Kenosis 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Mr Isaacson, thank you for your thoughtful comment. In response to your question, "Why enforce an interpretation of criteria #8 that is far more restrictive than fair use standards require," the answer is right there in the portion you quoted: "the goal of creating a free encyclopedia". While we cannot eliminate non-free content, every single non-free item that is included drives us further away from this goal. So the standard that has been largely agreed upon at the Foundation level (in contrast to most of our other policies, this has been more or less dictated from the top down, which is why you find so much disagreement) is that non-free content is only used where necessary. The debate comes down to how much is necessary and the central problem is both goals (free content and encyclopedia) are equally important and they don't always go together, so where do you tip the scales? People like myself believe that free content is slightly more important. Why? This sort of thing has never been done before, this commitment to having all of this content freely available to anyone for any purpose, so important in fact that if we don't absolutely need a non-free item, we shouldn't be using it. I hope that helps you understand our position.  howcheng  {chat} 04:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Image kept. The image on the magazine cover is famous if not iconic, however, the way the magazine cover image was used in the articles did not add significantly to the articles. I created a new article - Person of the Century, which discusses the particular issue of TIME and the image on the cover. I feel this better meets the WP:NFCC criteria. If you don't agree then re-list the image on IFD or deletion review and we'll have another go at it. -Nv8200p talk 04:38, 3 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:TIME_Person_of_the_Year_2006.jpg

 * Image:TIME_Person_of_the_Year_2006.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Mb1000 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Non-free magazine cover that is not necessary to understanding the article text, violating WP:NFCC #8.  howcheng  {chat} 17:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Considering its use at Person of the Year and the fair use rationale listed on the image page, I do not believe it violates WP:NFCC. Chupper 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - Considering its use at Person of the Year and the lack of explanation on the fair use rationale listed on the image page, I believe it is not necessary to understanding the article text. --Abu badali (talk) 21:32, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, we can say it with text and be just as informative. -- Ned Scott 22:22, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that it probably does help to illustrate the meaning of the article. The rationale is watertight, and so I see no reason to delete.  Think of it this way: A short synopsis can describe a book - a book is written using words; a short description can never truly do justice to an image, because an image is not textual!  Therefore, a graphical representation is needed to allow the mind to fully appreciate and understand the text in the article. Martinp23 02:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If this were a free image, we wouldn't be arguing this point. But because this is non-free, its usage must conform to the non-free content criteria, point 8 of which clearly states that if the point that the image is trying to make can be adequately explained in text, then the image cannot be used. And before you try to turn that around on me, no, text cannot always adequately replace images. Non-free content is only used where necessary, not where it's just useful.  howcheng  {chat} 02:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hitler_walking_out_of_Brown_House_after_1930_elections.jpg

 * Image:Hitler_walking_out_of_Brown_House_after_1930_elections.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Mav ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Non-free image of Hitler that is not necessary to understanding of the text. There are plenty of other free Hitler images anyway.  howcheng  {chat} 18:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree. There are plenty of images without it. We don't use fair use just because it would improve the article a little bit. Delete. ElinorD (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * "Plenty of images?" I'm not so sure. Let's take a look at some of the images in the Adolf Hitler article:


 * Image:Baby-hitler.jpg - No source information, nothing but an empty claim that it is "PD because of age"
 * Image:Svena5.jpg - Very shady looking PD-US claim
 * Image:Hitler-triumph.JPG - No claim of PD
 * Image:Jugend um hitler.jpg - No claim of PD
 * Image:Hitler Mannerheim Ryti.jpg - PD-template which is being proposed for deletion
 * Image:Hitler Mannerheim.png - Same here. What's with Mannerheim anyway?
 * Image:Hitler and Mussolini June 1940.jpg - Dubious explanation why this is PD.

There may be some free images of Hitler (mostly only PD-US) but I sure don't see many of them. Haukur 19:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Check commons:Category:Adolf Hitler. Anyway, we just need 1 image of him to throw out all other images that don't add more noteworthy information than showing what he looked like. --Abu badali (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I have, some of the images I'm talking about above are commons images. To add a random example Image:Adolf Hitler greets Neville Chamberlain.jpg doesn't even have a copyright tag. Haukur 19:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Then those need to be dealt with on Commons. Anyway, I just replaced Image:Svena5.jpg with Image:Adolf Hitler cph 3a48970.jpg from the Library of Congress. I also uploaded Image:Hitler and Mussolini June 1940.jpg and Image:Hitler with other German soldiers.jpg today, both of which come from NARA (see source link for at least PD-US verification). Even if it's PD-US only, that's still better than using non-free images.  howcheng  {chat} 19:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment We can keep it if it is a Heinrich Hoffman image since it is likely free of copyright Bleh999 02:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I take issue with this: "we just need 1 image of him to throw out all other images that don't add more noteworthy information than showing what he looked like" - I recognise your qualifier "noteworth information", but I fear you don't recognise the range that simple qualifier can cover. Who judges the amount of "noteworthy information" a picture adds? In many cases, a range of three of four pictures throughout an article will show what a person looked like in different jobs, at different stages of their life, as a child, as an adult, at key moments in their careers. One single picture cannot do this. The "we only need one free picture and then we can chuck the rest out" attitude is so short-sighted as to be myopic. Please do not over-simplify complex fair-use issues. I know you (Abu) do good work on non-free images, but please don't go too far. Carcharoth 04:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hitler-triumph.JPG

 * Image:Hitler-triumph.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Mikiolo ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Non-free film screenshot showing Hitler in Triumph of the Will with no commentary on the scene being depicted. Not necessary to understanding the text.  howcheng  {chat} 18:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The internet Archive claims the movie to be in Public domain . Is that accurate? --Abu badali (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the URAA restored the copyright on the film.  howcheng   {chat} 19:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dammit! These.... copyright... Nazi! --Abu badali (talk) 23:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Tanya Death.png

 * Image:Tanya Death.png ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Anemnon ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned, unencyclopedic image from an absent uploader depicting gratuitous violence perpetrated by a man against a woman. —Angr 19:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete inadequate source data and unencyclopedic. -Nard 04:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Probably a copyright violation as his other uploads are VLC screenshots marked PD self Bleh999 06:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Adolf Hitler cph 3a48970.jpg

 * Image:Adolf Hitler cph 3a48970.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Howcheng ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * This image is marked Date unknown, author unknown. But if you click "Check for an online group record (may link to related items)" it turns out this image is from circa 1935 and was made by Heinrich Hoffmann (1885-1957), therefore it will not be PD in Germany until pma 70 years (or January 1, 2028). Even if it were PD in the USA, the URAA most likely restored the copyright, and even if that were not so, "Well, this is legal under US law, so let's do it" is not a very compelling argument." — -Nard 20:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Having just read Mr. Hoffman's article, it turns out a 1995 court decision ruled his photos are PD in the US. I have no idea what the effect of URAA in 1996 is on this decision, but I imagine some of the legal eagles here could help out. -Nard 20:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason to doubt the Library of Congress page when it says, "No known restrictions on publication." There are a number of other photos that are being used here as public domain in the US only -- this is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, just to note that it's already been established that PD-US is good enough for English Wikipedia. This image would not be allowed on Commons precisely because it's not PD in its home country.  howcheng  {chat} 21:08, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * That may be true but it doesn't hurt to solicit opinions on the effects of URAA. It should also be noted the Hoffmann case didn't actually rule the photos were in the public domain, instead what it ruled was that the U.S. government didn't owe any liability for taking them under under the doctrine of sovereign immunity. What that means in layman's terms is you can't sue the government for certain acts (in this case a wartime seizure). The judge in the case already had ruled as a factual matter the taking was worth $8 million. In other words, this is a case of "we're violating this copyright because we can." -Nard 22:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * See User:Pharos/NARA for a letter from the NARA stating specifically that the Hoffmann records are in fact PD.  howcheng  {chat} 23:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Withdrawing nomination. A treaty between the United States and Germany waives all claims on behalf of German citizens for stolen artwork post WWII.. I am now seeking consensus for using this image on Commons. -Nard 01:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good find N, according to those links there is no good reason for claiming Hoffmans items are copyrighted in Germany Bleh999 01:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Friends - Chick and Duck.jpg

 * Image:Friends - Chick and Duck.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Stubacca ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Non-free screenshot being used only for illustration. All chicks and ducks look alike anyway. — Brad 21:11, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep low res screenshot being used to illustrate fictional characters who are the subject of extensive commentary. Seems straightforward.  The rationale's a bit weak, I'll rewrite if people complain. Wily D  15:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete watermarking serves to advertise third party website, we should make a new screenshot without it. -Nard 16:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, and agree with Nard. Stu  ’Bout ye!  13:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)