Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 24

< January 23	January 25 >

January 24

File:JanBrewer Portrait Padding.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: Speedy deleted as a violation of WP:NFCC. The problem with the tag was not "fixed", so the removal of the tag was not valid, and the tag could and should have been restored and the image deleted. +An gr 15:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image was tagged for semi-speedy deletion due to bad rationale (i.e. non-free image of a living, public individual). Tag was removed, so here we are. Doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1 in any way, shape or form. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:06, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:JohnDiebel.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: Speedy deleted as a violation of WP:NFCC. The problem with the tag was not "fixed", so the removal of the tag was not valid, and the tag could and should have been restored and the image deleted.

Image was tagged for semi-speedy deletion due to bad rationale (i.e. non-free image of a living individual). Tag was removed, so here we are. Doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:07, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Yes tag was removed, however this tag was removed by other user, as that tag stated it could be removed, if fixed. If was fixed by other user. Not sure why there is a problem with image. First, image has been up on Wiki going on three years, has the criteria been changed since then? Why is Wikipedia showing other living individuals?Rivertown (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Image can be not replaced with another and helps illustrate the article as does other living person articles here. Mca2001 (talk) 05:19, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:DHC-LBT-uniform.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: This file could be replaced with free content. Delete. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image was nominated for semi-speedy deletion due to disputed non-free content rationale, specifically that the image was replaceable. Tag was removed. I still think it's replaceable and doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1. So here we are. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, bogus rationale. "Purpose of use" says "Visually shows the uniform worn by all competitors of the DHC LBT. It is impossible to describe the uniform orally", but the article has no discussion of the uniform at all, and even if it did, there's no reason it would be impossible to make a free image of someone wearing the uniform. +An gr 15:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every sports team article that I've read thus far has (computer aided) drawn images of the uniforms. I don't see any reason why that can't be done here. Dismas|^(talk) 13:48, 25 January 2010 (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.

File:Newstart 1 001.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: Speedily deleted per G7. Shubinator (talk) 06:49, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete Duprie37 (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:USA Network 1st logo.gif

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. This is on commons. Not orphaned, not low quality, not obsolete though. Was listed previously. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OR, LQ, OB. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Renominating an image a mere three minutes after you've just closed it as "keep" seems a bit out of order to me. Jheald (talk) 09:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CSD#F8.--Rockfang (talk) 07:34, 29 January 2010 (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.

File:Jim Baxter statue Hill Of Beath.png

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 Adambro (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OB: More-original JPEG version at File:Jim Baxter statue Hill Of Beath.jpg --bjh21 (talk) 13:55, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Saddleworth Viaduct, Huddersfield Canal.png

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 - obsolete. Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OB: More-original JPEG version at File:Saddleworth Viaduct, Huddersfield Canal.jpg --bjh21 (talk) 14:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: But kindly request that this png is swapped for the jpg version prior to deletion. --Jza84 | Talk 22:07, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Carrigadrohid Centre.png

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 Adambro (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete: More-original JPEG version at File:Carrigadrohid Centre.jpg --bjh21 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Pogopossum91865.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, non-free content. Other sample images exists, this is surplus to requirements. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-free image being used at List of newspaper comic strips P-Z. According to WP:NFC#Unacceptable use, "The use of non-free media (whether images, audio or video clips) in galleries, discographies, and navigational and user-interface elements generally fails the test for significance (criterion #8)." I would say that this list counts as a navigational element and that including a sample of a comic strip in a list of comic strips is the same thing is including an album cover in a discography - which is explicitly ruled out by WP:NFC. The list has a link to the article Pogo (comics), which already has a sample strip, so the list does not need one. The image thus violated WP:NFCC#3 and WP:NFCC#8. +An gr 14:59, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:NoxArcana.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: Consensus to delete. One to keep, two to delete and one comment that seems to side strongly to delete, with detailed reasoning of existing practice and policy. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is claimed to be non-replaceable, with the rationale: "The band does not perform publicly, and the band themselves are not happy to release an image under a free license". Not clear to me that this means that the image could not be replaced. May not meet WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel it could be replaced? Typically, band photographs can be taken at public performances, but the band does not perform, and, as a side project, I doubt they generally appear at all, only meeting up as Nox Arcana in order to record. The second method, requesting a picture, has also failed here, sadly. I feel that this image can safely be considered irreplaceable. (I am coming from the point of view of someone who previously nominated the image, but was convinced of its irreplaceability by the uploader.) J Milburn (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: If the band doesn't perform publicly, why do we need an image of them at all? It means their visual appearance isn't actually part of their act. The image only consists of two regular head shots; as such, couldn't it be replaced by any two individual portraits of the two musicians, to be taken in whatever way, as with all other portraits of living people? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The image itself is from their second album. It's the clearest image offered and shows the musician's faces (as opposed to partial body shots in low light or costuming). On other albums the band members tend to dress in a costume representing the theme of the album (pirates, medieval warriors, Victorian era costume with props, etc). I just thought this one most accurately represented them, sans any extra decoration. I think this would be treated the same as an author who doesn't tour. Or perhaps a single composer who writes music but doesn't tour. How are those photos treated? Ebonyskye (talk) 02:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In those cases we would wait until somebody meets him in the street and takes a free photo of him. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as replaceable. In my view the image doesn't provide anything that freely licensed images of the two individuals wouldn't and I assume both individuals go out in public. Adambro (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2010 (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.

File:Nuna5 presskit photo.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, replacable non-free content. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the Nuna 5 article, I don't see any reason for supposing that this non-free image could not be replaced by a free one, either by going to Delft and taking one, or by photographing the vehicle in a race. May not meet WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Angusmclellan, image is replaceable. Adambro (talk) 20:06, 26 January 2010 (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.

File:OSXServerBoxes.png

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: No consensus. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of box artwork used in the Mac OS X Server article. Not at all obvious that this use meets WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with same rationale as the OSXBoxes file below -- NFCC8 assertion is tenuous at best. I don't see how showing pictures of the shrinkwrap boxen is a violation of Copyright or NFCC when used to show the evolution of the product line over time. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 16:20, 30 January 2010 (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.

File:OSXBoxes.png

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: Keep. Apologies for the previous decision, I got confused between this one and the OS X Server proposal. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of box artwork used in the Mac OS X article. Not at all obvious that this use meets WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the history of how the logo evolved is an important visual reflection of the product's branding history. Althepal (talk) 19:22, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:OhioImpromptu.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image could well be replaceable and may not meet WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:10, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Leeds United pitch invasion 2007.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. The main reasoning is that it is a non-free image that does not really illustrate the actual event terribly well. The objection is that it does, but overall this is not agreed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph from commercial news source to illustrate an event in 2007 (football fans invading a playing field). Fails NFCC#8: not necessary to understand description of the event, doesn't in fact aid in understanding it at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would beg to differ, the subject requires illustration. As it happens I was there at the event (not on the pitch of course), however failed to photograph the event. A decent artcle requires illustration to some point. This was perhaps the most notable event in recent years of the subject it is used to illustarte and there are no alternative free images. Show me a free image of any such LUSC activity and I will conceed your point. Mtaylor848 (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The description in the text ("about 200 home fans spilled on to the pitch [...] Around 100 of them ran toward the South East stand where the away supporters were located. Eight wheelchair-using Ipswich fans suffered injuries...") is quite expressive and informative, indeed much more informative than the image. The image looks as if they were just happily standing there and celebrating or something. The criterion for having an image or not having one is not how important the event was, but merely how much the event is in need of illustration in order to be understood. This one isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NFCC 8, doesn't "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". Adambro (talk) 20:19, 26 January 2010 (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.

File:Olympic Cool Cap.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. As the closer, I agree that it is definitely something that should be replacable. "Why should it need to?" is not persuasive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Cool cap article, this device is in fairly widespread use. For that reason the image should be replaceable and may not meet WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:21, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why should it need to? The image came out of an advertising pamphlet. I believe I left a link to the source.--v/r - T P 19:34, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Olympic Whitewater Stadium.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As currently used, this non-free image seems not to meet WP:NFC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:23, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Olympic Training Center - Hall 4.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As currently used, this non-free image seems not to meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Olympic Training Center - Hall 3.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As currently used, this non-free image seems not to meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Olympic Training Center - Hall 2.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As currently used, this non-free image seems not to meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Olympic Training Center - Hall 1.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As currently used, this non-free image seems not to meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Olympic Tennis Center.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As currently used, this non-free image seems not to meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:26, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Olympic BMX Center.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As currently used, this non-free image seems not to meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:26, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Olympic Aquatics Stadium.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As currently used, this non-free image seems not to meet WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:26, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Once Upon A Midnight publicity photo 2.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 February 16.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 March 14.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 - one comment is that a stronger caption might be useful, I will put in my own opinion that this is replacable so consensus is to delete. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In this context in which it is used, this non-free image appears to be replaceable by anyone with a camera who is willing to sit through a performance of the "rock opera" next time it is staged. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC#1. May not meet WP:NFCC#8 either. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:33, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that recording or photographing most productions is strictly forbidden, that seems a bit harsh. The case for keeping the image would be a lot stronger, however, if its caption in the article were a bit more descriptive as to what are the notable stylistic aspects, that the reader is supposed to be enlightened about by seeing the image. Jheald (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Onetenwaterfire.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: No consensus. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

According to the OneTen article, this project to build a nondescript high rise in Providence RI has been scrapped. Not evident to me that this met WP:NFCC#8 before, and even less evident that it meets it now. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you think the subject isn't notable, then nominate the whole article at AFD. But given the context that we do have an article, in that context it is contextually significant to show what the subject of the article would have looked like. Jheald (talk) 23:39, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:OptusC1.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: No consensus. Image has also been added to another article now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used in Optus fleet of satellites. It's not obvious, to me if to no-one else, that this image meets WP:NFCC#8 in this context. Is the appearance of a satellite significant enough that we should use non-free content to show it? I would say not. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe the image contributes to the reader's understanding of the differences between the different series of spacecraft in the Optus fleet. The visual appearance of the spacecraft may not be viewed by all readers as important as the technical capabilities, but it is significant and encylopedic in my opinion. -- Rob.au (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that I have now also added this image to Space Systems/Loral after noticing this platform was not illustrated there. -- Rob.au (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2010 (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.

File:OptusD1 SatelliteOnly.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: No consensus. I also note that the image has been added to another article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As with File:OptusC1.jpg above, it's not obvious to me that this non-free image meets WP:NFCC#8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Same answer as above, I believe the image contributes to the reader's understanding of the differences between the different series of spacecraft in the Optus fleet. The visual appearance of the spacecraft may not be viewed by all readers as important as the technical capabilities, but it is significant and encylopedic in my opinion. -- Rob.au (talk) 10:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that I have now also added this image to STAR Bus after noticing this platform was not illustrated there. -- Rob.au (talk) 10:55, 25 January 2010 (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.

File:OtokarKayaCargoCarrier1.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, non-free replacable content. "Editorial only use" does not meet our criteria for free images, free images must have no restrictions on their usage. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all obvious why this image would not be replaceable. Not obvious that it's adding much to the reader's understanding. May not meet one or both of WP:NFCC #1 or #8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi that photo was released free for editorial use by Otokar: http://www.otokar.com/en/products/p_gallery.aspx?tip=0&urun=86 (Read the small writing at the bottom of the page). This photo is used to show the visual difference between the Kaya Variants. Mystery.sin (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way its my fault for writing "No free equivalent available so unreplaceable". Infact it could be replacable but its pointless since its released free for editorial use. Mystery.sin (talk) 02:54, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the Replaceablity to yes, and i think i might of used the wrong table for the fair use part. Mystery.sin (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see section below. Sorry, "for editorial use only" is not free enough for us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:50, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just about anything that says "for X use only" is not a wikipedia-friendly license. APL (talk) 08:12, 29 January 2010 (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.

File:OtokarKayaPersonnelCarrier1.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, non-free replacable content. "Editorial only use" does not meet our criteria for free images, free images must have no restrictions on their usage.

Not at all obvious why this image would not be replaceable. Not obvious that it's adding much to the reader's understanding. May not meet one or both of WP:NFCC #1 or #8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi that photo was released free for editorial use by Otokar: http://www.otokar.com/en/products/p_gallery.aspx?tip=0&urun=86 (Read the small writing at the bottom of the page) and this photo is used to show the visual difference between the Kaya Variants. Mystery.sin (talk) 02:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way its my fault for writing "No free equivalent available so unreplaceable". Infact it could be replacable but its pointless since its released free for editorial use. Mystery.sin (talk) 02:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the Replaceablity to yes, and i think i might of used the wrong table for the fair use part. Mystery.sin (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is not clear to me at all what "for editorial use only" means, but I doubt it is free enough to count as "free content" in our sense (which requires "free for all purposes"), so I'm afraid this won't be enough. It's a replaceable non-free promotional image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:49, 28 January 2010 (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.

File:Ottawa Soccer Stadium.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: keep. Consensus was that this is irreplacible, and it is significant to the article. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non-free image of a now-cancelled sports stadium as explained at Ottawa Soccer Stadium. Not self-evident that a non-free image of a banal structure such as this meets WP:NFCC#8 in this context. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Contextual significance, rather than absolute significance, is I think the word of policy that's relevant here. Given that we have an article on this never built stadium, in that context I think it does add understanding to show what it wasn't built to look like. Jheald (talk) 23:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is improved with it. Actually, for Ottawa, that is not a banal stadium. Not really a joke, but the proposal was intended to appeal on its looks, beyond its functionality. Other Ottawa stadiums are very plain and functional. ʘ alaney2k ^talkʘ 15:51, 25 January 2010 (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.

File:P-league-competitors.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This non-free image is used in the Bowling Revolution P★League article where it is captioned in a manner that suggests that it isn't particularly significant and could also be replaced by one or more free images. May not meet one or both of WP:NFCC #1 and #8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:03, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:P30 - Left.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although the non-free content rationale states that "ownership is limited", the Heckler & Koch P30 article lists various users of this gun. Should be replaceable and doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:08, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:PSCS4.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non-free picture of a box. A blue box. With some words on it. But basically a box. It is possible that this non-free picture - did I mention it shows a blue cardboard box? - might not entirely meet all of WP:NFCC in every respect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, why can't someone take a picture of a blue box? Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 26 January 2010 (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.

File:Adobe Photoshop 1 retail box.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A non-free picture of a box. But this is not a blue box. No. This box is white and black. With some words on it. And a picture. But still a cardboard box. It is perhaps possible that this non-free picture might not meet WP:NFCC in every respect. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:19, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:PlayStation Motion Controller.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. No objections. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image used in the PlayStation Motion Controller article, but this also uses the non-free file File:PS wand at TGS 09.jpg to depict the subject. Not evident that a second image here meets WP:NFCC#3a. One or other of these could surely go. I picked this one to nominate, but I could have guessed wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:24, 24 January 2010 (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.

File:Sardar Mohammed Obaid Khan.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: speedily deleted, uploader's request. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no source and copyrights. uploaded accidently. it should be removed because it violates the privacy of this person Sardar Mohammed Obaid-El-Hakim Khan 20:32, 24 January 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:Willy rey.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: keep. A more detailed explanation is needed here given that there is some controversy over whether to keep. In the discussion, we had the following viewpoints:

Damiens.rf - copyrighted image, we are impinging on Playboy's commercial interests by republishing the photo here. Therefore, it should be deleted. Playboy are very clear and strict on copyright, they do no support Wikipedia republishing their work. Also, the picture is not notable in its own right for being a Playmate image. Also does not believe that we have satisfied fair use transformative criteria.
Jheald - this satisfies fair use criteria, we have satisfied the transformative criteria for fair use. He refers to Bill Graham Archives vs. Dorling Kindersley and argues that the fact that we are illustrating an encyclopedia article on the subject this is significantly different to the original intended purpose of the iamge. Also argues that we are not impinging on their commercial interests as, if anything, we are driving traffic to their site through reader interest.
Fut. Perf - we have not satisfied fair use criteria, we will be impinging on their commercial interests by republishing this photo. There is also historical precedent for removing Playboy images, he expresses concern that by having these images reuploaded it will reopen the floodgates.
Dismas - in agreement with Jheald.
Tabercil - also in agreement with Jheald, has reduced the size and quality of the image (I believe) to reduce the amount and substantiality of the original image in order to better satisfy fair use criteria.

While the arguments of Fut. Perf and Damiens.rf may be persuasive, so too are those of Jheald. Given that the image has been reduced in size and quality and given that there are three people who wish for the image to be kept and two for deletion, consensus is that the image should be kept. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "fair use rationale" does not explain why is it ok for us to use copyrighted images from Playboy. Being "irreplaceable" is just one of the criteria. Damiens.rf 20:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It says it's being used for identification, i.e. to show what the subject of the article looked like. That would appear to indeed be adding significantly to reader understanding, satisfying NFCC #8. The subject is dead; from the tone of your comment it doesn't appear you're raising an objection under NFCC #1. And I don't see that a simple (cropped) low-res image, merely showing the models face, is of any significant detriment to Playboy's interest. So I don't see any showstopping problem under NFCC #2. Was there any other of the criteria you were concerned about, or are we done now? Jheald (talk) 23:23, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Playboy corporation is very strict on the use of their images. There's no reason to believe they will be ok with us using them just because we need an illustration for our site. The images they produce are they most valuable asset. This images were not produced for being reused outside playboy. The legal notice on the very website this image was downloaded explains that any reuse is not welcomed. --Damiens.rf 00:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- See the example of File:Lenna.png, a playmate picture that has become notable itself (a notable picture, I mean). While we can claim fair use for using the image in the article about the image itself (Lenna), we have no grounds for using the image as an illustration on the playmates's bio (Lena Soderberg).--Damiens.rf 01:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's because Lena is still alive. (NFCC #1).
  - The question, according to NFCC #2, is whether the image is "likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". Given that the image is low resolution, cropped, only a small part of the original set, and being used for a limited encyclopedic purpose; was originally produced to sell magazines thirty years ago; and if anything is likely to drive people towards the Playboy site to find out more about her -- in my view there is not a problem under NFCC #2. A corporation may be quite assertive about its copyrights; but where fair use is justified, we should be shy away from asserting it. It is after all a First Amendment public right. Jheald (talk) 09:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - - There is not just the primary "original market value" of the photos for selling magazines thirty years ago, but also the secondary one of attracting visitors to websites today. Which is one thing Playboy systematically uses these images for. These pics are taken directly from Playboy's database/catalog of historic playmate photos, which is one central attraction of its commercial site, and we are "replacing the market role" of that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        An alternate view is that Playboy publishes that database to promote and sustain interest in its back-catalogue of paywalled pictorials. That's what Playboy is really selling on that site, and if anything coverage in WP promotes and reinforces that interest. It's not headshots of models that Playboy has its particular reputation for. (Though I understand some people "subscribe just for the articles", apparently). Besides, we are using a total of three of these images. That's different to duplicating Playboy's site wholesale. Jheald (talk) 20:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        We have only three because we cleaned up the rest in 2006/2007, and somebody only recently started re-uploading these. Once we allow these three, there will be no stopping our editors from claiming the same fair use case for all others. And then we will indeed soon have the whole database here again, just as we did, IIRC, at some point a few years ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        We have more than three. These are just the three that have been tagged. And again, those were magazine covers! Not head shots of dead people. Dismas|^(talk) 22:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, the Lenna picture would still be forbidden as a bio illustration if she was not alive. You describe these images as if they were promotional material intended to draw attention to playboy's website, but they are note. The reuse and distribution of promotional images is encouraged by the copyright holder. This is clearly not the case with these photos. --Damiens.rf 13:40, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't have to care whether it's encouraged by the copyright holder or not. We're claiming it as fair use. Jheald (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        The use needs to be transformative if we're going to use it in a way not "encouraged" by the copyright holder. Currently, we're just using it to illustrate our web-article about the model, that's exactly the same purpose Playboy is using it. --Damiens.rf 17:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jheald's argument. Tabercil (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jheald. Dismas|^(talk) 13:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. AFAIK, it's been a long-standing practice to treat these cases as deleteable, basically for the reasons stated by Damiens.rf. I remember speedy-deleting these in troves in early 2007, and there are numerous precedents at FFD too (e.g. [1]) Essentially, Playboy uses these low-res web quality copies for its own website, where they illustrate its own historical database of playmates, in order to attract visitors to their website. Not to ours. So yes, by essentially replicating the same database with the same images on our site, we are potentially stepping on the owners' toes economically, and Playboy, IIRC, have been pretty clear that they don't like that. As for non-replaceability, that is an issue purely within our own NFCC, but utterly irrelevant to actual fair use law – just because we want something particularly badly doesn't give us any more or any less right to take it from somebody else. And we are not adding any "transformative value" to our use of the images with regard to the owner's creative work (as we would do if we were using them for critical analysis of the artistic style or something like that, which we aren't), so we have no reasonable standing for claiming genuine fair use vis-a-vis Playboy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- - On the specific question of transformative use, you might like to look at Bill Graham Archives vs. Dorling Kindersley for what it has to say about that term. Our use is transformative because our purpose, namely writing a encylopedic biographical entry as part of a systematic and thorough overarching encyclopedic project, is quite different to the purpose for which the images were originally created and sold. There is not a requirement for commentary on the images themselves for their use to be transformative. Jheald (talk) 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Are you saying Britannica could also use it to illustrate an article about the model? Our use is not transformative. We are using it to improve our web-accessible article about the model, and this drives eyes out of the Playboy's page about the model. --Damiens.rf 17:17, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, I am saying I think Britannica could use it. That's exactly the test, per policy, that we have to apply. Jheald (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        For example, the local Fox News affiliate appears to have done just this in its report on the death of Jennifer Lyn Jackson earlier this week, as has the website for local radio station WTAM. Jheald (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Those were magazine covers. Not simply images of the Playmates themselves. It's not the same thing. Dismas|^(talk) 14:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's precisely the same thing, or even more so. (More same than same? Well you get what I'm saying). As long as Playboy is using these images for its own commercial purposes, they are off limits to us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:15, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've gone and further reduced three images in size and quality from the source. The image size on the Playboy website were all 240x340; I've reduced them down to 176x250. The original image sizes on the Playboy website were all 66 to 71 KB, they now stand around 16KB. As a consequence, any commercial utility in the images is severely degraded from the original. Also, the exact phrasing of NFCC #2 (which is what this entire debate seems to be turning around) states: "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." What is the market role for Playboy? Selling a specific lifestyle: high class and sexually free. The Playmates belong to the second part of the market prong: as an icon for a liberal sexual viewpoint. Our use of the image is different: as simple means of visual identification for the subject. Tabercil (talk) 22:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read it more carefully. The police mentions the "market role of the original copyrighted media" and you ask "What is the market role for Playboy?". Playboy is the "copyrights holder", not the "copyrighted media", which happens to be the photo. And its market role is to improve the value of the website playboy.com.

Even at this reduced size, as long as the image is usable as an web-illustration, we are diminishing the reasons one have to ever use playboy.com to read about the playmates. Since Playboy uses the site as a means for brand promotion and marketing, less readers means less commercial opportunities. We can't use their copyrighted work to lessen their commercial opportunities. --Damiens.rf 13:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring the other information on the Playboy web site about the Playmates which we do not provide. There is still info at their site which we have not used. Dismas|^(talk) 13:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? We are still using their copyrighted work to diminish the value of their site. --Damiens.rf 16:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's far from clear that that is the case. For example, relevant {{PD-Art}} images have lead to increased clicks on corresponding museum websites. Jheald (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2010 (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.

File:Carol vitale.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: keep. Almost all editors have referred to the following discussion over File:Willy rey.jpg, so please see this for my decision in that file deletion discussion as it largely applies to this file as well. However, there is on this occassion an overwhelming consensus to keep, unlike the Willy Rey image discussion which only had five participants. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "fair use rationale" does not explain why is it ok for us to use copyrighted images from Playboy. Being "irreplaceable" is just one of the criteria. Damiens.rf 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per discussion of Willy Rey above. Jheald (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As states by Jheald. Tabercil (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jheald. Dismas|^(talk) 13:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the case above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That is the only present non-free image for this deceased individual...and a picture is better than no picture for her wiki article. Its a low resolution photo too. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We all agree it would be very convenient for us to be able to use such image, but we're just not ignoring copyrights or using naive fair-use-allows-me-all rationales as most websites do. --Damiens.rf 13:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Irreplaceable is only one of the criteria, but the nominator has failed to mention which criteria he feels is being violated. APL (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2010 (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.

File:Merle pertile.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: keep. Almost all editors have referred to the following discussion over File:Willy rey.jpg, so please see this for my decision in that file deletion discussion as it largely applies to this file as well. However, there is on this occassion an overwhelming consensus to keep, unlike the Willy Rey image discussion which only had five participants. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "fair use rationale" does not explain why is it ok for us to use copyrighted images from Playboy. Being "irreplaceable" is just one of the criteria. Damiens.rf 20:59, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per discussion of Willy Rey above. Jheald (talk) 23:24, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As stated by Jheald. Tabercil (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jheald. Dismas|^(talk) 13:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the case above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Irreplaceable is only one of the criteria, but the nominator has failed to mention which criteria he feels is being violated. APL (talk) 08:06, 29 January 2010 (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.

File:Crawlinggnat.gif

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: keep. General consensus is it's harmless, and in the public domain. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, Use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and I'm going to nom it to become a featured image. --emc ^{(t a l k)} 01:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this image appears on a lot of web boards and other assorted web sites. It will probably never be used outside userspace and some talk pages, but then, we have smileys, so why not this? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely copyvio: If it appears on a lot of places out there, doesn't that indicate that the uploader's claim of authorship is probably wrong? This uploader has made other obviously bad image uploads previously, e.g. File:Schoolmap.jpg, so his assertion doesn't seem too trustworthy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I missed this comment during my closure. I suggest taking to WP:COPYVIO if you have evidence that this is a copyright violation. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:16, 30 January 2010 (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.