Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 July 9



File:Weilin Zou.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 of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Weilin Zou.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Vixinu ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Unencyclopedic unused image. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 9 July 2010 (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.

File:Hitler and Franco.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 of the discussion was: Delete - Simply on the basis that the PD licence is so clearly incorrect. Without provenance it cannot be ascertained when the copyright will or did expire. I am not making an assessment as to whether consensus is that the image passes NFCC#8 or not. Hows about someone finds out the source information for one of the many images of the two on that visit at least ? Is the image under Spanish or German copyright ? There are often good records of the period that could solve all the issues - Peripitus (Talk) 11:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Hitler and Franco.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Wahkeenah ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * Delete: fails WP:NFCC as it add nothing to the prose or the reader's understanding of either article for which there are WP:FURGs. Also see WP:MCQ. ww2censor (talk) 13:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the rationale here. The claim on the image is that it's public domain, in which case NFCC doesn't apply. - Wikidemon (talk) 14:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Pictures say a lot more than words do. This is just another example of certain users' fanatical obsession with deleting stuff. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:41, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Baseball Bugs-kneejerk nom.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 09:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Not sure what the problem is, meets criteria. Soxwon (talk) 00:47, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be some question as to the copyright status (public domain or fair use) but it easily falls into fair use usage so I don't see a problem even if there is an outstanding copyright. It illustrates the historical topics it is used with in a legitimate way. It is not decorative or gratuitous. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:40, 12 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete its in PD... but is it worth keeping since its been cropped so much? if we had the full original image I'd say a keep but this is just too chopped up to really be useful... Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Can't win with you deletionists. If it's a good size, you'll claim it's a copyright violation. If it's too small, you'll say it's not useful. Either way, you get to delete it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment there is still on evidence the image is PD even though one editor added the NARA-image template but then replaced it with the PD-US-1996 after this nomination, but provided absolutely no evidence either of these copyright tags are correct. Unless it is proven to be PD, then the fair-use claim must be complied with. I did not nominate it because it is too small or too big, nor because of a fanatical obsession to delete stuff (I do also upload images), only because it does not meet the criteria because it clearly fails WP:NFCC as it add nothing to the prose or the reader's understanding of either article. The status needs to be a matter of fact, otherwise we err on the side of caution even if an image is highly desirable for a particular article. ww2censor (talk) 04:15, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, pictures say a lot more than words do. Besides which, without that illustration it's possible a reader wouldn't actually believe that Franco, a U.S. ally in general, would be giving the Nazi salute with Hitler. The picture removes any doubt. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry but that's rubbish. Any reader can disbelieve the prose as easily he can be about the image. We are an encyclopaedia that uses free content where possible and the prose can be supplemented by appropriate free images and non-free images under strict criteria. The question is whether the use of a non-free image is contextually significant to the reader's understanding of these articles not whether the image proves anything. We just disagree on the use of non-free images like this one. ww2censor (talk) 04:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep ww2censor, I didn't know about this debate until after viewing the article, and only found out about it because I was looking so intently at the picture that I noticed the tag for deletion.  I strongly disagree that this picture adds nothing to the readers understanding of the article on Franco.  This is a very significant image, and as an impartial observer, I can tell you it enhanced my appreciation of the article.  Others commenting here are right, seeing Franco saluting with Hitler does more than reading about it.  If Wikipedia was a professionally published journal or something along those lines, I would agree with you that people could disregard a picture as easily as a written description.  But wikipedia (while I love it) can be edited by anyone to suit their purposes.  Not everything you read here is entirely true, and most people recognize this.  That means a picture here is far more important than elsewhere.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.218.37 (talk) 15:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Except it's not non-free, and Bugs is right, you are grasping.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as failing NFCC#8, unless evidence is actually provided that "US copyright formalities were not complied with" and "it was in the public domain in its home country on January 1, 1996". That tag was added a convenient one day after the MCQ thread linked above after the image was fair use for donkeys years, at present there is zero evidence the image is PD - adding a tag does not make it so. If that evidence is provided, then keep obviously. The image clearly fails NFCC#8 in that the image does not help the reader to understand any article it is in, and neither would its omission be detrimental to the readers understanding, it's a decorative image. 2 lines of K  303  12:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * What is the official line between illustration and decoration? I certainly see it as illustration. Besides, I am not sure that many people would regard a picture of those two scumbags as a desirable form of decoration. ;-) --DanielRigal (talk) 13:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)


 * KeepIt is a very usful picture especially for the two pages it already on like Spain in WWII. Becuse since it was taken in WWII it should be kept to be used for the Spain in WWII page becuse it makes sense. It is a rare picture of those two together especially since Franco was an ally. Spongie555 (talk) 03:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is useful but that does not prove it is a public domain image nor that it complies with NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 22:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This picture has a clear historical purpose and I would challenge anyone to find a free use equivalent (£10 for the first person to get both subjects to appear in a free-use image). This adds to the users understanding of the Francisco Franco page and should be kept.Mtaylor848 (talk) 08:09, 20 July 2010 (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.

File:Mauj Jamshedpuri.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 of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by AnomieBOT ⚡  03:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * File:Mauj Jamshedpuri.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) – uploaded by Akash anand59 ( [ notify] | contribs | uploads).


 * uploaded as own work, but appears to belong to rediff.com. Hairhorn (talk) 17:51, 9 July 2010 (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.