Image:Shut the Fuck Up.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Unknown124 ( | contribs).

• Unencyclopedic — NickBall 06:18, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: UE Atom 06:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted by User:WikiLeon ... the image has now been WP:SALTed as a redlink using WP:PT. --BigDT 19:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Viewphoto8.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Yank124 ( | contribs).

• Orphan, unenyclopedic, apparently vanity. — RJASE1 06:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:VANITY Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Adwaita.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Pradiptaray ( | contribs).

• Press photo; see Wikipedia:Fair use counterexample #8.- — Rebelguys2 ^talk 07:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• You mean counterexample 5, not 8. Adwaita is dead (doesnt qualify for 8), however this is not an "iconic" photo, and it is a press release (maybe 5). Not sure how "iconic" would be defined though. There seems to be no pictures of Adwaita on the web outside of press releases. Let me look. ray 07:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, excuse me, #5. Thanks. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 16:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, this looks like a press photo from the BBC. That is significantly different from a press release or promotional photo. There's no evidence here that it's a photo freely provided (not to say that it's under a free license; it'd still be fair use) by an organization or individual to promote an item, but rather a photo by a press agency in a news story. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 16:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, news agency photo (violates FU criterion 2 per counterexample 5). —Angr 06:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Macdreezy.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Rblimas ( | contribs).

• OB/OR: Fair use image which has been applied to Mac Dre, when a free version Image:Mac Dre mural cropped.PNG is available at Wikimedia Commons. UE/CV: The image itself looks like a photomanipulated memorial dedication to the subject, other than a CD cover. There is also no rationale that this qualifies as fair use, although the OB reason overrides the rationale. — w^{L<speak·check·chill>} 09:24, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:ArmForExMedal.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Xerocs ( | contribs).

• OR, OB by Image:AFEMRib.png

Image:Funnyfacehepburn.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Gunkyboy ( | contribs).

• image is being used under the fair use doctrine, but is redundant as since it was uploaded two similar public domain images have been added and used in the same article. The fair use rationale would be quite strong for this image but for the availability of the free images. Was tagged as "fair use disputed" however the reviewing admin felt that a fair use claim was justified and told me to bring it here. The two public domain images are Image:Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday trailer.jpg and Image:Audrey Hepburn screentest in Roman Holiday trailer.jpg. They are not identical but closely resemble the image I am contesting; they convey very similar information as that claimed by this image's fair use rationale, and I don't believe the use of this image adds anything additional to its article and is now serving a purely decorative role. — Rossrs 12:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep. Note I was the admin who accepted the fair use claim and refused to speedily delete this image, as it is in use, and an acceptable fair use assertion was in place. A similar image is not freely available; neither of the images Rossrs suggests are of a similar standard, nor are they of Hepburn in the same movie. Proto::► 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)(Funny Face).[reply]

It's not surprising that the unfree image is of a higher standard than the free images, but it doesn't justify the retention of the unfree image. Unfree images should be used sparingly and only when necessary - in a situation such as this, where 2 good quality free images vs. 1 excellent quality unfree image, there should be no contest. The fair use rationale is acceptable on face value, but is superseded by the inclusion of the free images, and the fact that the unfree image is from a different film, is irrelevant. Funny Face is mentioned, but not discussed in the article and the image caption makes no mention. Why do we need an unfree image to illustrate something that is not even discussed? The only point in the article that the image and fair use rationale genuinely addresses, is a general description of Hepburn's appearance at the time, but this is substantially similar to her appearance in the free images. The major difference between the images, aside from their free/unfree status is that Hepburn is wearing a different dress. Her general appearance, including her face, hair, posture, expression and the camera angle is pretty much the same. When you say that there is no similar free image, I truly don't understand just how much more similar the images would need to be. The important thing is not so much what the image is, but how the image is being used. There is nothing essential or compelling about the way this image is being used despite the claims being made in the fair use rationale. Rossrs 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the free images are from the same time period and convey all the same essential information as this one. —Angr 06:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I think if an administrator says the image is fine to keep, there is no reason to argue, except to waste time. I would expect that most visitors to the article prefer the article with the picture than without it. 70.231.225.145 03:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator does not necessarily have a stronger understanding of Wikipedia's fair use policies than a non-administrator and they are not automatically correct just by virtue of being an administrator. I've been contributing to Wikipedia longer than this administrator, and it's quite OK that I hold a different opinion to him. There is no disrespect from me to him, or from him to me, and no time is being wasted. And this is a discussion, not an argument. Whether people "prefer" the image has zero relevance as any decision should be based on Wikipedia's written policies. Rossrs 07:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not fair use. Rights of Copyright holder supersede lack of free image inconvenience. Atom 09:36, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I believe I am as against copyright paranoia as the next guy, but the rationale in the assertion of free use for this image has been superceded by the inclusion of free images that perform the same function for the article ("to identify the subject"). If the article discussed her appearance in that photo, or that film, or discussed her hair, make-up or wardrobe in some critical fashion, then it would be fair use, but just as identifying the subject, the free images are good enough, and so fair use does not apply, and it is therefore a violation of copyright, and so must be deleted. Jerry lavoie 23:48, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Maybe if wikipedia gets sued by Paramount, it should be deleted. But otherwise, pardon my language, who gives a shit? But, I am but a simple IP address, so it's your call. 67.161.26.190 13:11, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think that after Wikipedia gets sued, it's kinda too late? The question is not whether or not we'll get sued (we probably won't) but whether or not this meets the criteria of our written policies and guidelines, which an unregistered IP is free to read. Rossrs 13:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Image deleted per consensus of established users. --Coredesat 15:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:800px-Sonata Helmond2006.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Daynnew ( | contribs).

• Pretty much just vandalism without any possible counter-argument.
• Speedy delete as an attack - tagged as such.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:''Conflict_Onan''_by_Anton_Brink.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by CyberAnth ( | contribs).

• Image previously deleted for improper fair use. Fair use rationale given, and good faith effort to use in fair use fashion, but not done in proper context, and so violates copyright law.

Uploader is trying to find valid ways to use this image in the religious views on masturbation and Onan articles. However image is copyrighted.

• Image was previously deleted because it did not meet fair use criteria.
• This is the same image, but uploader has tried to use criticism within the article to justify fair use.
• Creator of the painting (Anton Brink) saw the image, approved of our use, but said that he would only release it for "non-commercial" use. Went I sent the Mr. Brink an email asking for him to change the image to either unlimited free use under copyright, GFDL, or CC-2 licensing, or we could not legally use the image, he did not respond.
• The use with criticism in the articles does not meet U.S. Copyright law requirements for fair use, nor Wikipedia requirements. The uploader uses this text as an attempt at criticism "South African artist Anton Brink, son of novelist and academician André Brink, created an oil painting entitled "Conflict Onan". In describing his motivations for painting the piece the younger Brink stated, "Since childhood the injustice of patriarchal/religious arrogance, intolerance and bitterness has been embodied for me in the story of Onan." This does not qualify as review, criticism, or parody of the specific work. Using the artwork to criticize the topic of the article (Onan, Masturbation) is not criticizing the artwork or the artist itself. Such proper fair use would not be in an article about the subject of the painting (Onanism) but in an article about the artist (Anton Brink) or the style of oil painting, and such.
• In fact, in Wikipedia:Fair use this kind of usage is described in the list of counterexamples of "uses that would almost certainly not be fair use under Wikipedia's policy". "A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war."
• I believe there are free equivalents available to illustrate Onan or Masturbation, but the uploader has not pursued that alternative adequately.

Atom 14:50, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy between this image's use rationale for deletion frankly seems like a lot of wind and perhaps is bad faith. I say this because a permissible fair use rationale is so plain-as-day. The rationale says that such a piece may be used for critical commentary on the work in question. The articles both specifically and deliberately discuss the work in question. As wel, the author has specifically said "Please feel free to continue using my work in the present context."[1] That he has not released it for commercial use is completely and totally ingermane to its use under a fair use rationale. CyberAnth 20:40, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean no offense. I think protecting intellectual property is important. You may feel that my application of Wikipedia policies seems offensive, but I don't mean it that way. For fair use to apply, it really must be in the context of the artwork itself, or the artist. To use it to illustrate an article based on the topic of the artwork is, as I said a specific counterexample of what is not allowed by policy. Besides policy, the Copyright law allows comment, criticism, or parody of the work (Not merely in articles where comment or criticism is done.) To use it in an article to illustrate the topic, and then to use the excuse that the article involves general comment or criticism, or that the artwork is used to comment or criticize the topic is specifically not comment or criticism of the work itself, and not fair use, and also not ethical. This would normally be found in an article about the work itself, or the artist. (See Mona Lisa, or Andy Warhol).

Regarding your comment about the artist. There are several points:

• We don't know that the person who commented is really the artist. If it is, release for use has to be formally done per policy. I sent the artist email asking for written permission to provide according to policy, and he did not respond. Documenting his permission to use the artwork for unlimited use in Wikipedia is necessary, before use.
• The artist can release the copyright to the public domain, or choose to release it for certain purposes, and not for others (for instance non commercial use only) but Wikipedia policies require unlimited use. (Non-commercial use only is not suffient according to policy. Apparently the idea is that downstream use of Wikipedia could potentially be commercial.)
• This type of use is not "fair use", and none of the fair use law applies. It is copyrighted use with permission, valid, but different. Using fair-use as the rationale under those circumstances would not be appropriate, as it is not fair use, it is copyrighted, with permission for any use. So, you are right that his non-commercial clause is not germane to fair-use. But that is only because his giving us permission to use the image is not germane to fair use. Please see[ [Wikipedia:Requesting_copyright_permission#For_images]], where it says:

Any free license must allow all of the following, for both the image itself as well as any modified versions based on it:

1. Modification
2. Redistribution
3. Use for any purpose, including commercial purposes.

Also valuable is Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission.

In summary:

• To use with a "fair-use" tag, it must be according to the rules of fair use, as comment, criticism, or parody of the work itself. Use in an article whose topic os not the artwork, or the artist is probably not fair use.
• If the artist gives us permission, we need to follow Wikipedia policies to do that. He has to give Wikipedia permiussin formally (not just post a message to a talk page) that gives Wikipedia full rights to use the image for any purpose, including commercial use.
• The artist could choose to license the image with GFDL or CC-2 licensing. This might compromise his copyright rights though. (And that needs to be done before we use it in Wikipedia.)
• The "fair-use" path, and the "copyright with permission" path are two different paths. Getting permission for "non-commercial" use is an option in the "copyright with permission" path, and not the "free use" path. The non-commercial use permission may be fine for some usages for some organizations. But, Wikipedia clearly states that this is not sufficient for use in Wikipedia.

Atom 22:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See reply below - same principles apply. CyberAnth 05:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Leaving aside the fact that this is a re-upload of something already deleted, we are using someone's art to decorate an article, which is precisely what Wikipedia:Fair use goes to lengths to explain is not acceptable. This might be Wikipedia:Fair use in an article about the artist, or, especially, about the artwork itself, but it is absolutely not in the ways it is currently being used. Jkelly 17:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See previous discussion. Not Fair use. Atom 23:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no valid fair-use claim for its current uses. —Angr 06:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear-cut plain-as-day violation of fair use rationale. Jerry lavoie 00:02, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The result of the debate was delete --Coredesat 15:27, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Onan.jpeg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by CyberAnth ( | contribs).

• Fair use rationale given, and good faith effort to use in fair use fashion, but not done in proper context, and so violates copyright law.
• The use with criticism in the articles does not meet U.S. Copyright law requirements for fair use, nor Wikipedia requirements. The uploader uses this text as an attempt at criticism "A 1963 film Onan was directed by Japanese producer Takahiko Iimura and starred Natzuyuki Nakanishi. The film follows the actions of a young man who uses a heated stick to bore holes into nude photographs. He later gives birth to an alegorical plastic egg. According to Iimura, the film "is a work about desire (masturbation) which has no object but itself. The appearance of the large egg objectifies the man's desires. After colliding with the other (a girl), the hero falls down while still holding the egg, thus caricaturing the desire of the hero." This does not qualify as review, criticism, or parody of the specific work. Using the artwork to criticize the topic of the article (Onan, Masturbation) is not criticizing the artwork or the artist itself. Such proper fair use would not be in an article about the subject of the film (Onanism) but in an article about the artist (Takahiko Iimura) or the genre of film, and such.
• In fact, in Wikipedia:Fair use this kind of usage is described in the list of counterexamples of "uses that would almost certainly not be fair use under Wikipedia's policy". "A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war."
• I feel that a free-use image could be found, and the uploader has not put effort into doing so.

Atom 14:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy between this image's use rationale for deletion frankly seems like a lot of wind and perhaps is bad faith. I say this because a permissible fair use rationale is so plain-as-day. The rationale says that such a piece may be used for critical commentary on the work in question. The articles both specifically and deliberately discuss the work in question. The film is about masturbation and is a take-off from the story of Onan, which is exclusively a story in the Bible; so no work on Onan can be anything except drawn from it. The use is a model of fair use. CyberAnth 20:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see comments regarding Conflict_Onan above.

Fair-use is for comment, criticism, or parody of the specific work. Using the image in an article where some general comment, criticism or parody of the topic of the artwork is addressed, is not fair-use. Using excuses, and trying to work some kind of criticism into an article as an excuse to use someone's intellectual property is not ethical. The proper fair-use of this image would be in an article about the film "Onan (1963)"[2] or an article about "Takahiko Iimura".

"The use is a model of fair use." : What you mean, is that it is a counterexample for how fair-use does not apply. Using artwork that has Onan as a topic in an article about Onan, or Masturbation is specifically listed as usage that is not fair-use. The example, as I said above is: "A work of art, not so famous as to be iconic, whose theme happens to be the Spanish Civil War, to illustrate an article on the war." Which is given here in the fair-use policy.

With all due respect, your reasoning is very convoluted and self-contradictory in plain-as-day ways. I am using your cited counterexample as exactly why this image is acceptable. It seems you are saying that this image is used to illustrate the article's subject, so it is not fair use. How much more obvious can it be that that is wring? This is an article about an ancient person, Onan, true. The image used to illustrate the article is a different, ancient piece.

The article contains a section, "Onan in film and fine arts". That section contains fair-use allowing text and a screenshot of the film, to, uh, illustrate Onan in film. This so blatantly not the counterexample of "A work of art to illustrate [the main topic] of an article" it is not funny.

• It is like Richard Nixon that contains a section "Media inspired by the Nixon presidency", which shows this screenshot, although the text on Onan is stronger.

• It is like Bonnie and Clyde which contains a section "Popular culture" with text (much weaker than at Onan) an this image of a movie poster.

• It is like Truman Capote which contains brief comment on a literary work on him with the book cover shown.

• It is like Elizabeth I of England which contains a section "Popular culture" and shows with descriptions this screenshot and this this screenshot

• It is like Hunter S. Thompson that contains a section "Tributes" and this image of a Doonsebury comic

Given that this is image so blatantly not in accordance with how you have depicted it, I can only say you are either gravely mistaken or that this is further evidence that I cannot ASGF with you, a bit of the evidence of which can be viewed from your POV pushing concerning this image in countering very clear applications of policy and concerns by editors to the image expressed (for just a few examples) here (which removal you reverted), here, here, here, here, here, and here. CyberAnth 05:25, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ejaculation image is not a copyrighted image. Discussion of it here has no correlation with violating intellectual property rights and claiming fair use. See Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_February_5#Image:HorsesCM.jpg to see another image that I put up for deletion that is copyrighted. Although, like this image, I like it very much, it was not used properly. It's use in the nudity article was not in the context allowed for fair-use, and it is copyrighted.

The point is, you can't use a copyrighted image except under very limited circumstances. (comment, criticism, parody) of the work in question. In that context only! Using an image of Onan in film, or in art to illustrate the article about Onan, or to illustrate a section in the article about film and art about Onan are both still out of the context of the very narrow scope allowed by copyright law. That of critical commentary of that specific piece of artwork. This was designed to allow a TV or newspaper collumnist to comment on a piect of artwork in a brief review without risking violating copyright. It would not allow the newspaper to write an article about Onan, including a section about film and art related to Onan, and included a shot from a movie, or of an oil painting. Why? Because it is not critical commentary of the artwork itself. Atom 13:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the caption on this image Image:SpencerTunick-Brugge2.jpg. It says,as part of the copyright description itself:

It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of works of art

• for critical commentary on
  • the work in question,
  • the artistic genre or technique of the work of art or
  • the school to which the artist belongs

on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image, on Wikipedia or elsewhere, might be copyright infringement. See Wikipedia:Fair use for more information.

The Page itself says this "Fair use on Spencer Tunick page only".

The use of this intellectual property (Onan.jpg), protected by copyright law for any purpose other than critical commentary of the work in question, or the artistic genre or technique of that work, or the school to which the artists belongs is NOT Fair-Use! All attempts to rationalize differently is unethical and illegal. Trying to write critical commentary to attach as a justification to keep someone else intellectual property in an article is directly contrary to Wikipedia policy, and Copyright law. It is also not ethical. Unless we fairly are using the image with explicit permission form the artist, or fairly using it in the correct context of free use, it is not ethical or right.

• For both images, Religious views on masturbation, no ... the link there is tenuous ... the passage doesn't make too much sense in the article. The description of the movie talks about pornography, not masturbation. While related, they are two different concepts. For Onan, maybe. The passage is well-written and the images obviously contribute significantly to the text. Honeslty, though, I really think we should be moving away from fair use and finding free alternatives in questionable cases, rather than finding a way to use it. Still, though, both images would seem to meet our fair use policy for Onan, but not for Religious views on masturbation. --BigDT 12:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider the caption on this image Image:SpencerTunick-Brugge2.jpg, as I showed above. Click on it and read the Copyright warning. In the context of Onan, neither image meets "for critical commentary on the work in question" it is critical commentary, I will give you that. But not of the work in question. The critical commentary is an unethical attempt to claim fair-use in an unrelated context to what fair-use allows. Atom 13:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- would pass Wikipedia:Fair use in an article about the film, but not for articles about the film's subject. This is not what we use media we have no license to republish for. Jkelly 17:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete See previous discussion. Not fair use. Atom 23:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no valid fair-use claim for its current uses. —Angr 06:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As above, clear-cut plain-as-day violation of fair use rationale. Jerry lavoie 00:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Jkelly -- No Guru 21:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NJ_Counties.svg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by JimIrwin ( | contribs).

• Replaced by New_Jersey_Counties.svg in Commons — JimIrwin 16:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JackWright.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Shaunguyver ( | contribs).

• OR, image uploaded only for speedy deleted article BigDT 17:47, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Respective article has already been speedied. bibliomaniac15 01:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AndrewMatheson.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Shaunguyver ( | contribs).

• OR, image uploaded only for speedy deleted article BigDT 17:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hawa.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Lisha babygal ( | contribs).

• OR, UE BigDT 19:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bam margera adio.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Rkolegendkiller29 ( | contribs).

• CV Unlicensed. Still has watermarking from license owner. It is obvious the uploader does not have permission to use this. — Ocatecir 19:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Brian-lion.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Brian.fitzgerald ( | contribs).

• Snapshot of uploader (and duplicate of Media:Brian-Fitzgerald-and-friend.jpg) — 69.3.70.210 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - duplicate image, per 69.3.70.210 (talk). Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brian-Fitzgerald-and-friend.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Brian.fitzgerald ( | contribs).

• Snapshot of uploader (and duplicate of Media:Brian-lion.jpg) — 69.3.70.210 19:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Ejac.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by CSCS ( | contribs).

• OR, only link is to one talk page Ejaculation. Also likely OB - see Image:Ejaculation sample.jpg. — RJASE1 20:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:(_Chihuahua_)_JW's_Little_Keeper.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jwchihuahuas ( | contribs).

• OR, UE. RJASE1 21:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DMG05-2001.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Awyllie ( | contribs).

• OR, UE. RJASE1 21:28, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marayoor1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Cyrillic ( | contribs).

• OR. RJASE1 21:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PC190068b.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Harfo32 ( | contribs).

• OR, UE. RJASE1 21:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plebereception05.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Johnbrillantes ( | contribs).

• Orphan. RJASE1 21:42, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Maksim of orenburg.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Linear Model ( | contribs).

• Maksim of Orenburg does not exist (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maksim of Orenburg for discussion. I don't know where the image came from, but it isn't Maksim, and just saying "Library of Congress" isn't enough. — ArglebargleIV 22:41, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Microsoft logo YPOP.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Extranet ( | contribs).

• Not fair use: logo was decided against due to not being consistent with WP policy. —Michael Trausch ^{User page•talk} 22:58, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gasket14.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Schneelocke ( | contribs).

• Uploaded in 2003. Tagged as "copyrighted, and used with permission". No longer used in any articles; several free license versions are available (for example Image:Menger sm.png). – Qxz 23:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Go ahead and delete it — if a free replacement's available, there's no need to keep it. :) -- Schneelocke 12:59, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete- free alternative available. -- Chris is me _(u/c/t) 04:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hester2rams.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by ShadowJester07 ( | contribs).

• (Not an orphan) News media photo, not acceptable for fair use BigDT 23:39, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The image is historically significant, since it shows Hester breaking at least two records. It's one of his most iconic photos - and depicts an unrepeatable histoic event. Yes, it is a media photo, but other images from the NFL Lore page have been uploaded on similar terms. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  01:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "iconic" needs to be clarified. Kent State shootings is iconic. Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is iconic. For a photo to be iconic, the photo itself should be the focus of media coverage, not merely the event it depicts. Making a CSD for these images comes up frequently at WT:CSD and, in general, the consensus always is that we should, but coming up wih the right wording is problematic. News media photos are rarely appropriate and really should be expunged from Wikipedia almost anywhere they are found. --BigDT 13:48, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-iconic news agency photo, violates fair use criterion 2 per counterexample 5. —Angr 06:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not fair use. Rights of copyright holder supersede inconvenience to inconvenience. Other images indicated from NFL Lore are also not fair use, and shold be deleted. Atom 10:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The result of the debate was delete --Coredesat 15:29, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]