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

The result of the discussion was: The result was keep JoshuaZ 20:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ducati mach1 800.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Izaakb ( | contribs).

• I had originally tagged this image with {{rfu}}, but Izaakb's comments indicate that this is a more complicated case than a normal replaceability decision, so I'm listing it here instead. The image is a drawing of a motorcycle, used in an article about the company that made it. The uploader maintains that no mint-condition cycles of this model exist anymore. (I'm copying his comments to me as a comment below.) I still thing the photo is replaceable, for the following reasons: (1) It's a drawing, so someone could redraw it (2), I don't know of any good evidence that no unmodified bikes of this type exist, (3) I don't see a reason why a new photo of a minorly-modified bike wouldn't work just as well in the article it's in. But I'd welcome other opinions from other folks.- – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This image is not replaceable. There are no more factory-condition original Ducati Mach 1 bikes in existence, anywhere. Google the image and see for yourself, the only ones that exist are modified. The image is used within the context of the Ducati article to describe one of Ducati's major milestones in motorcycle design and it is relevant whether or not an original bike is shown. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 22:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC) Note: this comment was copied from the image talk page by Quadell[reply]

Also, this is NOT a drawing. It is a colorized photograph of the motorcycle. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 01:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, no. . . no, that there's a drawing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have an original print of the image, the backside says Colourized Photograph of 1965 Ducati Mach 1 (Concept). Copyright is held by Ducati Meccanica, now called Ducati Motor Holdings.izaakb ~talk ~contribs 02:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may say that, but if so, it's a photo of a drawing. You can see the ink and other really obvious artifacts. If that's a photo of a bike, I'll eat my hat. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance? Let's just pretend I'm ignorant of copyright law: now's your chance to shine. •Jim62sch• 20:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a drawing, then anyone could replace it with a new drawing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it looks like a drawing, but the claim is that it is a colourized photograph. That is where a black-and-white photograph is printed onto paper and then someone adds colour to the print. Today, you'd do that in Photoshop. Carcharoth 15:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as replaceable unless evidence is offered to show otherwise. Also, the image has no source or copyright holder information and should be deleted per WP:NFCC#10 unless this is provided. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

just curious what proof is possible to show that something does not exist? izaakb ~talk ~contribs 02:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of source. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot prove that something does not exist. If you believe a free version can be found, then find one. I am telling you that only 10 Concept Mach 1 motorcycles were made and none exist now --period. See: Negative_proof izaakb ~talk ~contribs 02:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but your statement that the object doesn't exist is original research. All I'm asking for is some kind of source that states this. How do you know the object does not exist to be photographed (or that no free photographs can be made available)? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement that it does exist isn't original research?SuperElephant 00:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the burden for showing that a copyrighted image is necessary is on the uploader. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is that in this case it's unprovable, so you have to falsify it.SuperElephant 01:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not unprovable, all you have to do is cite a published source that says "instances of this product no longer exist". Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Valuable and informative image per detailed case made by Izaakb.—DCGeist 06:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I believe that the uploading editor is correct. This is not the right forum to question his judgement whether it is or not anyway. Some objects are that rare that they no longer exist. Until proven otherwise, this is an obvious keep. -Nodekeeper 08:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it can't be proved that there object no longer exists. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:21, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless you can prove that brain-eating mice don't exist.SuperElephant 19:32, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • • I've heard elephants are afraid of mice. :-) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This image also has a problem with WP:NFCC#4 - there's no evidence it's been published outside of Wikipedia. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC) The source link wasn't working for me last night, but now I can see that it was published on the Ducati website. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given that the delete votes have already proven that brain-eating mice exist. •Jim62sch• 20:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This Dukati illustration is a classic example of fair use where even the manufacturer/publisher/author is delighted to see as many reproductions as possible spread as far and wide as possible. In my opinion, it meets all 10 NFCC except perhaps for a bit of missing boilerplate such as WP:NFCC#10(c), for which the editors should, IMO, reasonably be given, no, not a week with a notice on the image page, but, say 30-60days with a notice on any applicable article talk pages. Presently there are no free-licensed equivalents that I could find, even though we could reasonably expect the possibility for someone in the future to upload any or all of the other images and maybe clog WP with free-licensed images of their pet restoration projects.
  ........ The assertion(s) above in this discussion that the image must be necessary, IMO, erroneously takes the use of the word "necessary" out of the context of NFCC3(a) and applies it to either NFCC#8 or to a notion that the burden of proof is for the uploader and/or article editors to prove that the image is necessary rather than that it "significantly enhances reader's understanding, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I believe this is a misguided application of the intentions of the Wikimedia Board. But irrespective of my belief, kindly allow me to present a reasonably forseeable future scenario, with a bit of freindly hyperbole included.
  ........ Look at the variety of alternatives in people's backyards, driveways, etc., and compare them to the perfectly clean, articulate brochure image. here, here, here and here.
  ........ Now, let's say the creators of all these images would be willing to grant free-licenses for them and upload them into WP. The first problem is that they're simply not anywhere near as useful as the stock photo, and the second is that there's a potential for proliferation of persons vying to put their own projects into the article namespace, hardly a sensible approach in my view. I just linked to something of a proliferation of inferior images on the web at present, and that's just for the obscure Dukati Mark 1 alone. to which we can add everybody's foreseeable future pet-restoration project free-license submissions, fully defensible to keep in WP because they'll be "free" for all motorcycles, cars, trucks, RVs, you name it. Heck, the WP image database could end up looking like the sum total of the countless hobbyist and motor-vehicle restoration sites in the future, something like an enlarged category similar to like these at Hubcap Cafe, but with immeasurably more photos to choose from, because everybody will know that all they have to do is put all their images up with one of them'there free license templates and they're in like Flynn. ("Hey, Clem, I'm agonna take som pictures of our restoration project and put 'em on WIKIPEDIA!! under a FREE_LICENSE!!"). So, while I'm at it, a recommendation for WP:NOT, specifically a proposal for a clause that WP:Wikipedia is not a repository for photos of people's motor vehicle restoration projects. Sheese! ... Kenosis 21:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for nomination is a suspicion that it fails NFCC #1. (It passes #8, in my opinion.) It's a drawing of a motorcycle. Does anyone believe that a competent artist couldn't produce an adequate replacement? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, I hear NFCC#1, #3, and #10 on this one, so maybe I should take #8. This "shotgun pattern" is becoming increasingly predictable in these IfDs; if it ain't one thing, it's another, and if it ain't that, it's something else. Since, theoretically, all non-free-licensed images in Wikipedia could be replaced with free-licensed images, maybe just remove all images that do not have one of the currently available "free licenses". I should include public domain images in that recommendation too, I suppose, because no one has the right to grant public domain material over to a free license due to the fact that they're already freer than free-license. Anyway, I imagine we all should be happy to know that since the Dukati company didn't disclose the artist, and assuming they don't disclose the artist before 2035, it'll be in the public domain in the EU, after which no one will have the rights to make it a "free" image in the EU. In the US, we'll simply need to wait until 2060AD, after which no on will have the right to make it a free image in the US. But I digress somewhat. ... Kenosis 14:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it would be simpler to require all non-free image rationales to use a 10-point template where the case for each NFCC criteria at the time of uploading is dealt with. This could also be done at IfD, where every nominator would be required to give their opinion on each NFCC for that image. It would be acceptable to put "no opinion". The IfD could then swiftly comes to a consensus on most of the criteria and squabble over NFCC#8 as usual... Carcharoth 15:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The hand-coloured photo image is of a no-longer available item. This model is no longer available in factory original form. izaakb ~talk ~contribs 01:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:Spectre30.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by J Greb ( | contribs).

• Excess non-free image of a comic character (Spectre (comics). Delete per WP:NFCC#3a. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• While I appreciate being informed... I only uploaded a reduced size version of the image for fair use reasons. The original uploader is User:Lesfer. That being said... I agree with the point Videmus Omnia has put forward, the image is not doing much with in the article, and it competes with at least one other image for supporting the same points. - J Greb 06:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whether it does nothing or not for the article should be discuseed on the article's talk page. Not here. -Nodekeeper 08:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep An excellent image and hardly excessive within the context of this thoughtfully composed article.—DCGeist 06:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Soley because editorial decisions concerning worthiness of an image belong on that article's talk page. Not here. Fair use concerns have been addressed by article editor. -Nodekeeper 08:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Image deleted. Excessive number of fair use images on the page to identify the character. Nothing significant about this image and no critical commentary in the article about the image. -Nv8200p talk 03:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:FredThomsonFBO.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DCGeist ( | contribs).

• Delete per WP:NFCC#8, a non-free photo of this actor is not needed to demonstrate that he worked for this particular organization. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As the content of this Featured Article makes clear at multiple points, the actor was the studio's most bankable star and one of the biggest movie stars in the industry during the period he worked for the studio. Throughout the recorded history of publishing since soon after the introduction of the medium of photography, images of people who have achieved fame working for "particular organizations" have been deemed crucial to studies of the history of those organizations. The "argument" for deletion of this image is puerile and ludicrous not sensible; it fails to recognize the fundamental and significant role that historical images of a movie star play in informing the reader about the cultural and production context in which he worked and in which the studio operated.—DCGeist 02:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think it does add to the article's value. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you understand this is not enough to satisfy our policy? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepThis article has passed a featured article review. The editor that submitted this IfD submitted this for no other reason than it's a 'non free' image, because clearly it has utility to the article from a historical perspective, and fair use concerns have been addressed. -Nodekeeper 08:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • HAve the concerns raised on this IFD been discussed in the featured article review? If so, please, provide us this useful link. If not, what's the point in mentioning the featured article review here? Are you saying that just because some problem wasn't spotter earlier it can't be discussed now? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepOnce again, the image is crucial to this high-quality article. The importance of the person illustrated to the history of the film studio is made clear at several points in the article. Mr. Badali, no "problem" of any sort has been "spotted" or mentioned. The person who put this image up for deletion expressed an entirely subjective view that it was not "needed" for the article. First off, the image serves a purpose well beyond to "demonstrate that he worked for this particular organization." This sort of image is fundamental to an understanding of culture and cultural history. Second, this is a featured article. Everyone who participated in the featured article review process made a determination about the image's "usefulness" and "singificance" as we did about everything else in the article. Different opinions about such subjective matters should be brought up on the article's discussion page, where all interested parties can address them--especially when its an A-class or featured article. This venue, where only the person who uploaded the image is officially notified, is an entirely inappropriate place for such basically subjective efforts to delete article content. Thank you.DocKino 22:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not like policy post a note to Talk:Jimmy_Wales Nodekeeper 11:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no matter of policy being debated here. It's a matter of process. Those who are looking to make deletions are reaching entirely subjective conclusions about the value of certain images on an ad hoc basis in fields with which they are clearly unfamiliar and perhaps not even particularly interested. Concerns about the value of images are legitimate per policy, but they should be raised in a way that as many people can weigh in as possible on this subjective issue--that's good process. If after a full and open discussion that takes place beyond the small precinct of this specialized page, the value of a given image seems negligible, then it can in good faith be brought here and proposed for deletion--not on the basis of a single person's opinion, but a real conversation on the matter. This image, for instance, gives all sorts of information that can not be conveyed in a reasonable amount of text--about the era in which it was taken, what a leading star looked like then, what kind of hair and clothing was in fashion for a genre star, what sort of image the studio was identified with. All of that could have been made clear by a simple query on the article's Talk page if Mr. Omnia had made that good faith effort.DocKino 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the points you raise, concerning the era, appearance of a star, hair and clothing, image of a studio, etc. are even raised in the article in which this image appears. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If I may. (A) That's incorrect--the article does cover both the era and the image of the studio. (B) That's irrelevant--as Dr. K explained, historical cultural images provide us with a wealth of supplementary information on top of what's explicitly referenced in an article's text. Readers of reference works appreciate this greater breadth of understanding of the culture of a given place and time, valuable information transmitted visually.—DCGeist 17:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This image is public domain anyway. But as long as it's characterized as "fair-use", a mere notice to "fix the rationale so it states that it's public domain" ought be adequate. As to the four fair-use criteria of US copyright law, it's a no brainer. As to the Wikipedia WP:NFCC, it appears to me that only #8 is arguable, and that's what's being argued here. As far as I care, if the local consensus says it helps the article significantly, I support its use under NFCC #8. ... Kenosis 17:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Nv8200p just left a note on my talk page about the possibility of PD status of this image. I don't think it's merely possible, but virtually certain. I quickly researched the history of FBO and RKOs acquisition of it in the late 1920s, and also looked in the US Copyright Office online records to see if there were any renewals in the early fifties. I searched the US copyright records (e.g., here) to see if either RKO or FBO renewed any copyright after 28 years for works that are not motion pictures or musical compositions, e.g., periodicals, collections of photographs, etc.. As far as I can tell, there are none under either FBO or RKO.
  In the EU, just to be additionally cautious about the analysis, it's public domain because unattributed or corporate "works" lose copyright 70 years after first publication where no author is disclosed, and it's been well in excess of 70 years. Frankly, though, I doubt that this is relevant, since it was published in the US by a US company. ... Kenosis 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After reading Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Film Booking Offices of America and Wikipedia:Peer review/Film Booking Offices of America/archive1, I find no review of the images in the article other then "well illustrated" in the peer review and discussion about the logo versus a movie poster at the top of the article. This significance of the image was never commented on. The article would have made FA status without the image. Reading the article, it seems as if Joseph Kennedy was more important to the studios success then Fred Thomson. Kennedy was the one who signed Thomson. An image of Kennedy would be more crucial than this one. This image says it it an RKO publicity photograph, but I cannot verify that and I question its source. Thomson looks older and this may be an image from Paramount, which would put it out of context in the FBO article. -Nv8200p talk 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Image kept. Research shows image is in the public domain. -Nv8200p talk 20:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:CowboyCopPoster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DCGeist ( | contribs).

Also: Image:TarzanGoldenLion.jpg

• Two non-free movie posters used in an article about the company that made the movies. Not needed per WP:NFCC#8 for the reader to understand the company's involvement. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC) Nom withdrawn per the links Dan provided. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As significant content of this Featured Article per text of article itself and detailed fair use rationales. The "argument" for deletion of this image is puerile and ludicrous not sensible; it fails to recognize the fundamental and signifcant role that images of movie posters play in informing the reader about the cultural and industrial context in which a studio operated, its approach to advertising, what sort of audiences it sought to attract, how it chose to present its stars--all information aspects of which can be delivered much more precisely, subtly, and effectively through images than through text.—DCGeist 02:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think they do add to the article's value. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you understand this is not enough to satisfy our policy? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I understand is that certain editors here are obsessed with deleting things. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:03, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This amounts to a destructive edit of a featured article as the image is historical. Only up for deletion because it does not fit within an iron fist view of WP:NFCC#8. -Nodekeeper 08:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Please tone down the rhetoric. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't know whether this would pass NFCC #8, but I believe this article is actually in the public domain. This seems to be the entire poster, published before 1978, and it doesn't appear to have a copyright notice. Wouldn't {{PD-Pre1978}} be appropriate? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - rhetoric aside, this is another case of a clearly non-replaceable text where people assert it doesn't help the understanding of the article. But as I've oftened maintained, this helps the article in every way that a fair use image can. This is not a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. To delete this image, we might as well ditch fair use. The Evil Spartan 18:11, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepOnce again, the images are crucial to this high-quality article. And again, the person who nominated it for deletion has raised an entirely subjective concern about the "need" for it that should be addressed on the article's Talk page where all of those in the community interested in the article are likely to be able to voice their views--just like subjective concerns about any other part of an article.DocKino 22:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This really is the appropriate forum for this concern. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:11, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, no, Mr. Quadell, it really isn't, as I've attempted to explain. Look, let's take this case as an example. A reasonable amount of text cannot come close to approximating all the information these posters convey--about the nature of the films the studio produced, about how they were marketed,about what their stars looked like. And their value goes well that--good encyclopedic cultural history can inform us about all sorts of things beyond

the immediate topic--while serving the article in a vital way, these images also, efficiently, inform us about the era in which they were made and in which the studio operated: they tell us about graphic design, they tell us about ideas of heroic posture and behavior, they show us what people thought to be attractive in that time and place looked like.

• • Now I can make that case--and others can agree with or challenge it--but I can only make it because the contributor who happened to upload the images informed me of this situation because I'd participated in the article's featured review process. Now what about all the other people who might be interested in the article? Who really care about the topic? Shouldn't they have a fair chance to express their opinion about the images' value before someone--someone who, it appears, has no particular interest in the field of cinema history--decides totally on an individual basis to bring the image up for deletion out of the view of the general readership? Yes, I know, you can keep doing it the way that you are--but that doesn't make it anywhere close to right.DocKino 20:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This should probably be raised on the policy pages. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:35, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'd just like to reiterate Mr. Omnia, I don't believe I'm raising a question of policy, but of process--basically, the choices you and others who have concerns about images' propriety make in addressing those concerns. I appreciate that this isn't the ideal forum for this debate, but it's where I landed and it's exactly where, to me, the process seems a bit out of whack.DocKino 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up Per Quadell's observation above, the images for each poster appear to show the entire poster and no copyright notice, as would then have been required for copyright protection. To verify that the posters are public domain, I did a search of U.S. copyright renewals for the Cowboy Cop poster (pub. 1926) and the Tarzan poster (pub. 1927), covering the years 1953 through 1955 ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]). This search reveals no copyright renewals for this poster or any collection of material that might encompass this poster, as would have been required to maintain copyright protection, if any. I have changed the image description pages to reflect the fact that these images are public domain.—DCGeist 16:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Image kept. Research shows that image is in the public domain. -Nv8200p talk 20:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: JoshuaZ 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fred2004.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jibbajabba ( | contribs).

• No evidence this was released into PD Abu badali ^(talk) 03:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy keep From the site of Westboro Baptist Church: All original material on this web site is © 1955-2007 Westboro Baptist Church. You may use any of our material free of charge for any reason. This web site is hosted by First Amendment Hosting.SuperElephant 19:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I couldn't find this image in that Website. Please, fix the source and the nomination will be withdrawn. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow, that's terrific. Keep, and retag as NoRightsReserved. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: deleted JoshuaZ 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Soatrader logo med.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kyngas ( | contribs).

• Unused non-free image. Sander Säde 05:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: deleted JoshuaZ 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nympho_logo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr. Conner ( | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, article was speedied as A7 Coredesat 08:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:Anaca.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pepso2 ( | contribs).

• non-free book cover used in an article not about the book Abu badali ^(talk) 14:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No longer true. Much material about Alicia Castro's book has now been added at Anacaona (all-girl band). Pepso2 15:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This shows how non-free material can damage the project. In order to justify the use of a non-free image uploaded to show what some person looks like, a POV-filled original analysis of a non-notable book's plot is added to an article. Delete the image and the recently added paragraph. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The POV is in a review, and the purpose of a review is to provide POV. Pepso2 16:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I might point out that even if what Abu claims is true, that there is clearly no non-free equivalent of a 75 year old band. It would be a shock if they weren't all dead right now; in any case, a modern photo of the women would not do it justice. Meets criteria for nonfree usage. The Evil Spartan 17:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I see no problem with the image, as long as the advertising paragraph stays out of the article. I also found it quite annoying that the image had been repeatedly scaled to 300px. I think it would be more appropriate to put the image and the deleted paragraph in a separate article, like Anacaona (book). --El Cazangero 01:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Image deleted. Image is not in an article discussing the book, but in an article about the underlying subject matter of the book. - Nv8200p talk 20:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:Kned001-corina.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Urso ( | contribs).

• Magazine cover used to illustrate what the person looks like. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • that's not what the description says- the dvd cover is to illustrate the controversy which surrounded the fact that she wore her official leotard in this DVD. Otherwise, there would have been no controversy, so how does this render it non-notable? Also, how could the image be replaced given that all images associated with the controversy are either covers, copyrighted photos or video? Urso 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Image deleted. Image can only be used in article about DVD, not underlying subject matter. -Nv8200p talk 02:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: Closed as keep Appears to be very like published prior to 1978 and so is almost certainly PD.

Image:Wyszyński.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 172 ( | contribs).

• image is likely not be PD in the U.S Abu badali ^(talk) 22:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • How so? The image was published in Poland Polish copyright law applies. Unless you can prove it was earlier or simoultanesly published in US? -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  22:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Correct me if I'm wrong, but the image's tag says that it's not in PD in the U.S. if it was published after 1923 (which seems to be the case here). --Abu badali ^(talk) 23:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • According to this, if a work was first published outside the U.S. between 1923 and 1977, and the work was not protected by copyright in its home country as of January 1, 1996, then it is considered public domain in the U.S. So long as this photo was first published in Poland before 1978, it's PD. Since he died in 1981, and was a notable cardinal since 1953, this seems likely. Do we know when the photo was taken? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Quadell Alex Bakharev 01:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Quadell voted keep? --Abu badali ^(talk) 04:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I did not. But I can see how someone could, in good faith, vote "keep" based on my analysis. Personally, I wouldn't vote keep unless there was better evidence the image was published before 1978. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:Ceausescucourt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Formeruser-81 ( | contribs).

• Unnecessary non-free image showing a dictator on trial, doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't alreadty conveyed with text Abu badali ^(talk) 22:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again, this is a valuable screenshot that shows the dictator on Romanian TV at a crucial turning point in history. As noted in the articles, television played a crucial role in the downfall of Ceauşescu and its aftermath. This image both shows how the dictator looked at this important juncture while he was on trial for genocide and other crimes and helps us to understand the interaction between TV and his trial and ultimate execution, the way no text could. By the nature of the exceptional historical event depicted, no free image of it is likely to exist.—DCGeist 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Image deleted. The head shot does not pass muster per WP:NFCC #8. The ideas presented in the discussion for keeping are original research.

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.

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: deleted JoshuaZ 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Contriblimits.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deus_Ex ( | contribs).

• Orphaned Abu badali ^(talk) 23:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:Benito_Mussolini_1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vps ( | contribs).

• Image is unlikely to be PD in the U.S. Abu badali ^(talk) 23:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Why do you think it's not PD?SuperElephant 00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the Italian rule also applies for all Italian government pictures over twenty years old. -Nard 02:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you think that? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you think opposite?--SuperElephant 23:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • [8]. -Nard 01:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Image kept. Research shows image is in the public domain. -Nv8200p talk 02:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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:ARVN_soldiers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DO'Neil ( | contribs).

• Orphaned, no justification given for PD claim Abu badali ^(talk) 23:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please stop lying: [9]SuperElephant 00:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please, consider being civil. The source site says the image is from the National Archives and Records Administration and that it's "strongly believed to be in the public domain". Are images from the National Archives always PD? Is teachpol.tcnj.edu a reliable source for this kind of information? If so, the nomination may be considered withdrawn. --Abu badali ^(talk) 01:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • You wrote no justification given for PD claim and that is obviously false statement. Your doubts about legality of some images are not only beyond reasonable doubt, but beyond absurdity. It's hard to not take it as a sign of bad faith. SuperElephant 02:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, unless some reason can be found why this image would be in the public domain. "Some non-notable guy says he thinks it is, but doesn't give a reason" really isn't good enough. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Doesn't give a reason? All images are strongly believed to be in the public domain. They were obtained from non-copyrighted U.S. government holdings and publications and from published works with clearly expired copyrights. Thus there are absolutely no restrictions on their use.[10] [11] --SuperElephant 20:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

Image deleted. Orphan. Not needed on Wikipedia. If public domain, upload to the Commons. -Nv8200p talk 02:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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: Closed as PD. JoshuaZ 20:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dixie_Square_Directory.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SchuminWeb ( | contribs).

• Cover of a mall directory that consists mainly of a map showing the mall's location. Delete per WP:NFCC#8, removal of image not detrimental to readers' understanding. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is marketing material for when the mall was actually open, and marketing material for an historic mall does enhance the reader's understanding of the subject. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the map could be redrawn, the sketch could be redone, and important information in text could be conveyed by text in the article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 23:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On review, I believe this image is in the public domain. Keep, as such. (If it were a non-free image, I don't think we could keep it, but that's not relevant.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. You could "redraw" any illustration. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes you could. That's why "maps", "charts", and "graphs" are listed as unacceptable uses of non-free media at Wikipedia:Non-free content. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • And if I redraw something from someone else's drawing, I have (1) violated their copyright, if any; and (2) introduced "original research", as I could subtly change the drawing to push some viewpoint... and since the original is not available in the article and would likely be otherwise hard to find, who would know? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's not a map. It is a historical document, advertisement and illustration. Nobody would care if it was just a map! But the document design layout and font choices for a mall opening in its heyday in 1966 is unique and beautiful. Is there a better copyright tag? If the original mall corporation is defunct, who owns the copyright? or would it be {{PD-Pre1978}}? --Knulclunk 01:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. And definitely pre-1978, because it was already abandoned by then, which is why they used it in the Blues Brothers film. It's also valuable as an artifact by itself, as it's a good example of 1950s / early 1960s design work. Notice the stylized human figures, which dates it to that time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't discuss the artwork on the cover design or any of those elements you discuss - to do so in an article about a mall would probably be off-topic. In any case, free images could be obtained to demonstrate any of the design elements you discuss above. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you find some "free images" of that mall, get back to us. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary offense. Have you recently looked a Videmus's upload log? --Abu badali ^(talk) 04:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is the attitude of the deletionists that's unnecessarily offensive. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A little off-topic - I don't think I'm a deletionist, I'm passionate about adding free content - see User:Videmus Omnia/Free Images. There's no need to attack the motives of particular editors in discussing a good-faith content dispute. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are, in fact, a deletionist. There are people on this site that are obsessed with the notion that somebody is going to sue wikipedia for illustrations that were printed 40 or 50 years ago. Would that 10% as much energy were spent on more useful endeavors, such as addressing the lack of credibility of this site due to the hare-brained policy that "anyone" can edit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who in the hell mentioned "being sued" here? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright lawsuits. That's what the deletionists are obsessed about. Like somebody from an obsolete mall from 40 years ago is going to sue wikipedia for reproducing their pamphlet cover. Yeh, when pigs fly. We've got people threatening wikipedia for supposedly coddling child molestors and allowing them to promote their agenda here. That is serious stuff. Would that someone cared 10% as much about that kind of thing as they do about this illustration-deletion mania. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note in some instances (if not most) it's a cultic following of GNU Project principals. Kinda like scientology, but with software. Not suggesting that of present editors. Still unsure as to what it is with their motives. -Nodekeeper 09:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Bugs, please go take a cup of tea, then come back to re-read this whole thread. You'll notice that nobody is suggesting we may get sued over this image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there's no fear of a suit, there's no reason to delete it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me put it another way. I got the "someone could redraw it" speech from someone else. OK, so let's say someone takes that illustration and re-draws it. How is that any less of a copyright violation than displaying the original? Answer: It isn't. As my Mom would say, "Use your head for something besides a hat-rack." Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redrawing a map, unless the specific unique details and features from this map were redrawn as well, would not be considered a derivative work. IMHO. And please, stay calm and avoid the personal remarks, thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enough with the lectures. I'm commenting on your approach to editing, not on you yourself, a courageous member of our military whom I hold in the highest esteem, I assure you. The thing is, this subject gets me riled, because certain editors will say "a free equivalent could be found", based on nothing. If they are so bloody sure a free equivalent is out there, they should go find one and stop hassling editors that are just trying to improve the content of this website. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is most likely a PD image, as I doubt that the copyright was renewed and/or it does not have a copyright notice on it. I do not have the time to chase this one down. Nodekeeper 12:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This image is irreplaceable and I will tell you exactly why.

1. it is currently tagged as a copyrighted, fair use image. Redrawing it in such a way as to convey the same information (including the historically unique map, the unique sketch of the mall interior, the directory, etc.) would constitute copyright infringement.
2. it is a unique historical document that shows what an ad and a directory looked like both from this time period and in this particular case, namely the Dixie Square Mall. It also has a full directory listing of all the stores that existed during said time period.
3. The Dixie Square Mall does not exist as such anymore, and whoever was responsible for creating this piece of original artwork and information could never be located.
4. there is ZERO chance of being sued over using this image. Anyone who says otherwise is suffering from Copyright Paranoia.
5. It is quite likely that this image is considered public domain and is simply tagged incorrectly, as the corporation responsible for creating it has no further vested interest in it, as it ceased to exist 30 years ago. There is no copyright information present on this document, so retagging as PD-pre1978 and leaving it alone would seem appropriate. The Parsnip! 20:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have updated this image with the correct PD tag. Media was published before 1978 (the mall had closed by the end of 1978 and, as the pamphlet advertises "more than 50 shops under one roof", it could not have been printed in 1978 as there were only a couple of stores left by that point). Also, media contains no copyright information, so by the rules of PD-Pre1978, it is Public Domain. The Parsnip! 02:27, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.