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 debate was: - Delete - Whether or not the single sentence mentioning the statue in the article needs the small image to significantly add to reader's understanding is relevant. I am not convinced that it does. In this case the image also has the incorrect license and has no fair-use rationale at all and so also fails NFCC#10 - Peripitus(Talk) 12:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no freedom of panorama in the united stated, this is a copyrighted sculpture - it commemorates his last concert (which was in 1943) so it must have been published after that Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also let me add that if this is nonfree, it fails WP:NFCC8 and WP:NFCC1 - first of all, we don't need to have a photo of a sculpture in the article, and even if we did this could be replaced with a photo of a sculpture in a country where there is FOP (presumably there are sculptures of him in switzerland--where he lived for a time--or somewhere else) Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:42, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You have two arguments going. One argument, is that if we are going to provide a photo of a sculpture of Rachmaninoff to show what he looked like, it would be possible to obtain a free image. I agree with that. However, your other argument, that an image of this particular sculpture is not needed in the article, I take exception to. The fact that this memorial sculpture was made by a Russian artist, Victor Bokarev, and given as a gift to Knoxville is discussed in some detail. If one argues that this is a peripheral topic to Rachmaninoff, I'd argue that it would then belong in the artice on Knoxville. From that city's public art website, they take a good deal of civic pride in the sculpture and the associated memorial park. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:58, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crypticfirefly. Couldn't have said it any better. QuidProQuo23 00:34, 28 September 2008 (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 debate was: - Keep - Licensing appears reasonable now that it has been fixed and image now meets the fair-use requirements - Peripitus(Talk) 12:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image is not a pure screen cap, and was modified. The image is not public domain. Fair use on the originating site does not automatically confer fair use to the broader domain, and the image's editor's permission was not sought. 77.102.238.178 (talk) 15:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and put it back in the article it came from) with a slightly improved fair use rationale. Image adds greatly to the article Cloudbase and no free illustration can be created -- it is from a sci-fi television show. (Old version of article with image in [1] here.) Fair use or not on some other site is irrelevant to the analysis of fair use on Wikipedia. Further, contributor above concedes that he/she had no license from the copyright holder to create this unauthorized "derivative work" (which, if this[2] is was his/her source image, consists solely of color correction), it is doubtful that he/she has a personal right to object to this image. Which would be irrelevant anyway so long as it is validly being used under fair use. Crypticfirefly (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've restored the image to the article with a better caption (and a better fair use rationale) pending the outcome of this discussion. Crypticfirefly (talk) 03:50, 27 September 2008 (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 French edition of the book is mentioned only in the list of languages that it has been published in, and the cover of the French edition is not discussed at all. As such, this image does not improve the readers' understanding of the article in any significant way. J Milburn (talk) 19:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as uploader; while if it were up to me it would be kept, it isn't, and this was uploaded before the current image-use policy. Daniel Case (talk) 19:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Orphaned image. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c) 19:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons Reasonably well-described, possibly may be useful someday. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:50, 24 September 2008 (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.
Orphaned image -- Mufka(u)(t)(c) 19:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not really encyclopedic, and to the extent that this is a photo of the artwork, it's probably a copyvio. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To the extent that this a photo of what appears to be amateur artwork from WWII, it's probably not a copyright violation. Consider alone whether it is encyclopedic.Crypticfirefly (talk) 23:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Orphaned image -- Mufka(u)(t)(c) 19:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and move to commons Reasonably well-described, possibly may be useful someday. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2008 (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 debate was: - Now on commons - Peripitus(Talk) 12:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image -- Mufka(u)(t)(c) 19:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to commons Well-described, possibly may be useful someday. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:53, 24 September 2008 (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.
we now have a free portrait of this individual - fails WP:NFCC1 Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
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 debate was: Kept. Failure to address the use in the article about the photographer makes this a non-starter for deletion. If the use in racial segregation is unjustified (which seems likely), then address that there as an editorial matter. WilyD 15:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We have enough free images of racial segregation that we do not need to keep this particular nonfree photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non free images cannot be uploaded to Commons. -Nv8200ptalk 01:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I misread your description as "free" photo. Your comment makes sense. Crypticfirefly (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2008 (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.
WP:NFCC#8. The rationale states the image is "the primary means of visual identification of the article topic", but Image:1 Thing.jpg is the primary means since it's used at the top of the infobox and it's the cover used for the CD 1 release. Anyone who'd recognize the second image could easily recognize the single based on the first image since they use the same source image and font. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 22:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[2]](http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.tvcentury21.com/marc/images/cs-models/cbase.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.tvcentury21.com/marc/models-of-cs-spectrum.html&h=240&w=320&sz=7&hl=en&start=4&um=1&usg=__jLVdieyMYLfVPon8JekCYCqzjYc=&tbnid=-iNh03lb0GQzzM:&tbnh=89&tbnw=118&prev=/images%3Fq%3DCloudbase%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26rls%3Dcom.microsoft:en-us%26sa%3DN){kind=link}
