Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 May 8: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:15, 9 May 2008

< May 7	May 9 >

May 8

Image:Mchenry-sullens01.jpg

Image:Mchenry-sullens01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brgnrh (notify | contribs).

watermarked,OR,NE SkierRMH (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:DSC01786-1.jpg

Image:DSC01786-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ashleyjaross (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic self-pic Bigr Tex 01:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mr_LLC.png

Image:Mr_LLC.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joe28704 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution), likely Unencyclopedic Bigr Tex 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Skate_045.jpg

Image:Skate_045.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sideeffect138 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution), likely Unencyclopedic self-pic Bigr Tex 02:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bernie_Faloney.jpg

Image:Bernie_Faloney.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sundevilesq (notify | contribs).

Per item 7 of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2, a football card should not be used to illustrate an article about a football player unless the card is notable and discussed in the article Bigr Tex 02:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's also not a poster, so the license tag is wrong. ~ Bigr Tex 01:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The purpose is to identify and illustrate the subject of the article to the reader. It is a low quality scan of a 45-year-old trading card and and of such a size and quality to be of no commercial use and not impact the copyright-holder's ability to use the original work for profit. The subject of the article is deceased and no free-use image is currently available or foreseen to be available. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment: I concur wholeheartedly with DoubleBlue, this is a low resolution scan of a 45-year old football card of a deceased CFL HOF player that is NOT replaceable. PLEASE do NOT delete. Sundevilesq (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried contacting the team and/or the estate to request that they release an image for us to use? ~ Bigr Tex 01:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Relevant to the article at hand, and if this was not used, a copyrighted image of him would probably be claimed under fair use anyway. asenine ^{say what?} 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, we'd have a copyrighted image of the subject of the article, not an image of a copyrighted artwork that pictures the subject of the article. If you have a publicity photo of Bernie Faloney, it would be fair use for us to use it to illustrate the article about Bernie Faloney. The picture of the football card is fair use to illustrate an article about the football card, not the football player. ~ Bigr Tex 01:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Datti.jpg

Image:Datti.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mrmysterious (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, looks like a screenshot which would likely be a Copyright violation Bigr Tex 02:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jay_Heer.jpg

Image:Jay_Heer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DanEckard (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution), Unencyclopedic (uploaded for Jason david heer) Bigr Tex 02:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:677026317_l.jpg

Image:677026317_l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by L-shapedroom (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Absent uploader, no context to determine encyclopedic value Bigr Tex 02:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunset666.jpg

Image:Sunset666.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by I_am_Paranoid (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic, possible Copyright violation Bigr Tex 02:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Csuseal.gif

Image:Csuseal.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Clueless (notify | contribs).

Orphaned. Was meant to be used in an template cannot accommodate it due to Fair Use policy. Clueless (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Deepika in Saree.jpg

Image:Deepika in Saree.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sreerajarasa (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Absent uploader, possible Copyright violation --Chech Explorer (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Collaborative Marketing.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 debate was speedy delete: I5

Image:Collaborative Marketing.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Limelight Public Relations (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, unencyclopedic, probable copyvio, probable attempt by uploader to spam Redfarmer (talk) 11:15, 8 May 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.

Image:NetObjects_Founders.jpg

Image:NetObjects_Founders.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Peter_Eisenburger (notify | contribs).

Decorative image that fails WP:NFCC#8. Rettetast (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has been discussed and decided before. The discussion seems to have vanished from the archives, and the templates seem to have changed. I only find this. However, the photo can't be "replaced by free images in other contexts" and since, as I pointed out before, it is a historic photo, it can't be taken again by anybody either. I don't understand why it is listed again.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Virgin Killer.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 debate was never lively to bear any relation to the fascinating, but totally irrelevant, moral panic seen below. I include the heroic defenders of free speech. It's only a bloody album cover on a wiki people. Bathos surely. Anyway, I asked myself "Does this image meet my understanding of WP:NFCC?" I'm fairly sure it meets most people's standards, but I take 8 quite seriously. No free passes for album and books covers. This is not a significant (Blind Faith, Abbey Road, Never Mind the Bollocks) album cover. The article lacks meaningful discussion of the cover. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It doesn't, it won't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

This may be child porn and the FBI is reviewing the image for possible violation of US law. [1] --204.78.9.12 (talk) 12:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - Federal law clearly states that in order for a photo to be considered pornography, or in this case child pornography, the content of the photo must be sexual in nature. Look up TITLE 18 PART I CHAPTER 110 § 2257

As I have already mentioned in my book Finding Naked Chicks and Photographing Them, the human body is not an obscene thing but rather a work of art. Not to be misunderstood, I am not advocating anyone photograph underage human beings for public display or justifying the production and application of this photograph. All I am saying is that the photo in question, in and of itself, does not appear to be sexual in nature and therefore, not unlawful. Tacky perhaps, but not unlawful and not worthy of being censored. Keep in mind that someone's parents provided consent for this photo to be taken and published publicly.

Comment: Previous IfD here. I'm unsure about this one. ~~It's definitely borderline child porn~~ and ~~it is orphaned~~. However, it is also a legitimate album cover released by a notable band. I'm still trying to decide on this one. Redfarmer (talk) 12:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strike that. It was only orphaned because an anon ip removed it from the page. Redfarmer (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Receiving adverse coverage including reports of FBI investigations due to possible violation of US child porn laws. It has been removed from the Virgin Killer article and is thus orphaned and I personally do not see any educational val;ue to having this image on wikipedia as we do not promote pedophilia on the project. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Combined a second AfD with original and also moved vote down to existing AfD. Redfarmer (talk) 19:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for your help, the image had not been ifd'd at the time so I assumed I was ifding it personally here, didnt search this page first. Doh. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not orphaned as I have restored it to the article, as no doubt many others will do to those seeking to remove it. We have a very clear policy found at WP:CENSOR which details why controversial images are kept on the Wikipedia. Also note the previous IfD discussion from a little over 5 months ago that resulted in an overwhelming vote of "keep". Nothing has changed since then other than some sabre-rattling in the blogosphere. If we don't acquiesce to the sabres of those who wish to remove the images of Muhammad, then we should not do so for this one either. Tarc (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably keep I would like something more substantial than just the worldnetdaily for this. If really illegal, the foundation should tell us to delete this image. By looking at some online record store's I saw this image being used. See also the comment of User:Jeffreybh in the previous IFD, tasteless yes, but does this image promotes pedophilia? Garion96 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This image is NOT illegal under US law. "World Net Daily" is just a silly conservative propaganda site.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Deleting it is extremely ridicilous. It's not child porn or even close to it, merely a nude child. Wikipedia is not censored and will hopefully never be. --81.227.83.65 (talk) 19:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Editors have decided to remove the image from the article; unless there is consensus to restore the image, as an un-used fair use image it must be deleted. I think a decent case could be made for displaying and analyzing this image, but the Virgin Killer article doesn't even have any references, much less secondary sources that discuss the image's significance. Until the image can be properly contextualized using reliable sources, the image should not be available.--ragesoss (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no. First off, editors have decided to retain the image; the removal is what goes against consensus, as it has passed a previous IfD. Second, it has long ago been decided that using album art on the article of the album itself satisfies WP:FAIRUSE, so that line of argument is without merit. I certainly want to see a section of the article devoted to discussio of the image controversy, but it is not required, and its absense is not a valid reason for deletion. Tarc (talk) 19:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 1

Delete Does far more harm than good. I tried to get this deleted quietly some months ago to no luck. I am a staunch defender of the project's right to publish whatever legal material it wants, including images including nude adults. But whether this is legally child porn or not, it is hurting our credibility with the reading public, and may in fact put the project in jeopardy legally speaking. If there's even a chance we could be charged with distributing child porn, we must take action. Even the accusation can irrevocably damage our ability to meet our goals. VanTucky 19:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Child porn is not educational, no need for this image. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I notice that on this page, you argue strenuously to leave in images of Muhammad, based on the argument that "Wikipedia should not obey sharia law." That is an argument I agree with. So I find it utterly hypocritical that you are here arguing that we should obey right-wing Christian fundamentalist moral panic over a heavy metal album cover. FCYTravis (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - While tacky and tasteless are reasonable descriptions, it's certainly not pornography. Nude torsos of prepubescent boys and girls are common, and given that the only possibly illegal portion of the original photo is missing in the finished project any description of the cover as 'pornography' is dependent on the imagination of the viewer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.167.240 (talk) 19:39, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We are not lawyers, and we can't decide whether or not the image is legal. The image passes all the other criteria of inclusion of album covers. -- lucasbfr ^talk 19:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we do not decide if an image is "illegal" or not (we can't). _→AzaToth 19:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- comment we are not debating the legality of the image per se we are debating whether it should remain here at wikipedia and whether it is a fair use image should be, we delete many legal images every day. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I just stated above as well, using album art on an article about that specific album satisfies fair use criteria already. This is a non-starter of a point to try to make. Tarc (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - The deletion request statement was "This may be child porn and the FBI is reviewing the image for possible violation of US law. [1]" _→AzaToth 19:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Just because we can is not a reason for inclusion when it harms wikipedia. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Can you show concrete evidence that this is hurting Wikipedia? Redfarmer (talk) 20:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well lets just weight till its all over the newspapers not the anti-wikipedia blogs, if you can't see why this story could be used to really harm wikipedia then you know nothing of the Media. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - But this would not be the first time something was in the newspapers and the anti-wikipedia blogs. How could this possibly be more damaging to public opinion than, say, the Essjay controversy or the Seigenthaler incident? Redfarmer (talk) 20:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Lets play russian roulette and find out then. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 20:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's not "Russian Roulette"...making insinuations about possible harm done to the project without any evidence is alarmist and often absurd. What web site does not have its share of detractors? If everyone likes Wikipedia, that's the day I retire and don't come back because it means we've compromised one too many times. Considering that his job would possibly be on the line, I'd believe there was more of a threat to the project if Jimbo Wales came over and said, "Yes, this needs to be deleted!" Until he or another high level admin say otherwise, I tend to believe that such calls of damage to the project are just that: alarmist and absurd. Redfarmer (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd even be more blunt: If we delete this image as being bad press, we should hold Muhammad to the same standard. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Agreed. The willingness of some to censor this project is more alarming to me than this image or the potential PR fallout. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Yep. If this is deleted, I will immediately speedy-delete all the so-called "offensive" Jyllands-Posten cartoons and any depictions of Muhammad we have on the encyclopedia. Because... otherwise, we're complete hypocrites. Apparently it's OK if we offend Muslims, but it's not OK if we offend right-wing moralizers. Ridiculous. FCYTravis (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 2

Keep - The deletion debate is sparked by a newspaper article whose readership is fairly much "conservative morality oriented", and targets a wide range of Wikipedia images and articles as pornographic. One specific image - this one - it states is "banned" and "under review by the FBI".

I'm not inclined to give much weight to the claim that it is "under review by the FBI". A site that disapproves of sexual media and also earns revenue by marketing itself to readers who broadly disapprove of it, contains a note that an image has been submitted to the FBI for review. If the FBI formally notify WMF that the image is unacceptable under US law, then I'd take it seriously. But "under review" may mean as little as "one of our staff sent an email saying OMG YOU MUST LOOK AT THIS". Zero evidence the FBI actually consider it noteworthy, or actionable, and the source is decidedly non-neutral in the impressions it would like to create as to "what people think". So currently, not a major factor.
WP:NOT#CENSORED. We don't host gratuitous imagery, but we do host a wide range of images of many kinds, on commons and here, and some sexual imagery is appropriate. Not all, but some. This specific one is not on Wikipedia because it's "child porn" or "a juvenile" or "for titillation". It's here because it is related to a significant controversy on which we have article coverage. The article on which it is used is not a borderline article; it's well within norms for albums, and the treatment of the cover is exactly akin to other album covers, plus the discussion of it which is merited by sources.
Finally, an "on principle" objection to having communal decisions enacted by pressure groups with agendas. If we want neutrality, then part of that is that we don't bend the rules to favor one view or another, we try to use similar norms and approaches where possible. I see no evidence that normal approaches weren't followed, and this image was discussed (Talk:Virgin_Killer#image_showing_a_naked_prepubescent_girl) as has the album (AFD of article; IFD of image); and it's evidently been around and had lots of attention communally since 2005... as a community we have evidently given it a lot of thought in that time. An old "child porn" version was deleted, which suggests we are communally vigilant and do delete when reasonable. And yet, in one way or another the idea that we use the album cover to illustrate the article of that name, has remained unchanged from 2005 until now. I don't see "some magazine now decided to say its evil" as a reason to believe that 3 years of editorial attention is suddenly mistaken, and the newly arrived external agenda is what must be followed in its place. I have a bit too much concern over kneejerk reactions, to feel its a good decision to make that way, without a better reason.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As several editors have mentioned, there is no proof that this image is illegal. If there is an actual issue, the FBI will contact the foundation. As editors here, it neither our duty nor privilege to judge the legality of this image. hmwith τ 20:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm here because I heard the negative buzz on teh intarwebz. I think, regardless of how odious the source which is publicizing Wikipedia having this image, having it still brings the project into disrepute, and the net benefit to the project is in deleting it.-PetraSchelm (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Really? I heard in Apocalypse Cow (a recent Simpsons episode) that Homer was going to go home and "fix" several parts of a wikipedia entry to be in line with his fantasy. I heard in a 30 rock episode another reference to fixing a characters page on Wikipedia, again, to be in line with fantasy (even for the show). In the recent John Oliver standup special, he asked his audience to edit 5 wikipedia pages. So you're saying that we're reputable enough now that even though the term Wikipedia is bandied about as a joke, this one thing will bring "disrepute"? You're joking. --TIB (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appropriate fair-use image illustrating an album article, directly relevant to the subject and discussed in text of article. I will also say that removing content in order to satisfy extremist anti-freedom websites such as WND would be fatal to Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DuncanHill. But thanks for providing this opportunity to consider the matter. --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think it's a net negative. A mention could be made in the article of the cover controversy (as there already is), but I think it's highly inappropriate to have the image there, especially as it's fair use anyway. Enigma ^message 21:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 3

Comment.The most important factor missing from this discussion is the nature of the ban at time of production. The article asserts the original cover was banned in the US. If so, by who? The .gov, or the individual merchants? If it was the .gov,then we can assume the image to be illegal, or at the least likely to present legal troubles for a time. If it was an 'opt out' by merchants, then there may be no problems, but the image still needs disussion. ThuranX (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This image should not be a part of the encyclopedia.

The image is exploitative of a young female - a child;
The child is fully nude and posed in a sexually provocative manner;
This is not about pressure groups although they may be responsible for the present discussion;
This is not about legalities. That which is legal is not always right;
This about being responsible and having some moral floor to our business here.
This is not about censorship. We censor all sorts of things here like personal information and information from children.
There is nothing that says we have to have an image of every single image that ever existed.

I am asking the community to do something that on balance will not harm the Wikipedia. Let's do the right thing here even if we don't have to. The issue here is far beyond what may or may not be legal - it's what is right. -JodyB_talk 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Six billion people in this world, and six billion differing ideas of what "right" is, exactly. Passionate defence, I'll admit, but not supported by policy. Reso lute 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep if properly sourced critical commentary is added to the article concerning the controversy over the cover artwork (per WP:V/WP:RS). As with any album cover, the article must contain sourced critical commentary about the work in question in order for the image's use to pass non-free content criteria (commentary being substantial content beyond just an infobox and tracklist), and the entire article is currently unreferenced. If such sourced commentary is provided, then it is perfectly acceptable to keep the image based on Wikipedia's policy of not being censored. Readers have the option to configure Wikipedia so as not to display images they may find objectionable, so personal tastes about the image's content are irrelevant. Unless this image has been declared illegal by a U.S. court of law, then as cover artwork it can clearly be used. And if the controversy over the cover art is a significant part of the album's notability, which it seems to be, and if references are used to support commentary about the controversy, then by all means the image should be kept. This is not about taking a moral high ground, it is about approaching subjects dispassionately and with academic detachment in the interest of writing a good encyclopedia. If this is properly sourced then it is certainly a subject of academic interest. --IllaZilla (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The photo is not pornographic. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2256.html The FBI has an obligation to investigate a complaint as do we but there is no basis for it. It is an album cover that had a controversy in the United States and the depiction of it is germane to the article about the album. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The blatherings of a propaganda group who's claims are unreliable at best are not a resonable reason for deletion. The cover generated a great deal of controversy (naturally), so the image is appropriate as a visual aid to the article. The only reasonable reason for removal is potential illegality of it, and that is something the foundation's lawyer should be deciding, not laypeople. Based on arguments from this IFD, the last IFD and the current AN thread, I would tend to accept that the image is not illegal, pending any overruling of this belief by Mike Godwin. Reso lute 22:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - Whether illegal or not, hosting such an image is grossly unethical. While Wikipedia is not censored, there do have to be limits. Any illustrative/educational value this image may have is outweighed by the inherent moral problem in keeping this on the site. We shouldn't keep patently inappropriate material just in order to thumb our collective noses at the world in the name of rejecting censorship. Walton^One 22:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the initial question is whether the image is illegal or not. We can't make that call in this fashion. Let Mike Godwin handle it --Duk 22:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment legality is not the only issue here at all and while MG cand ealw ith that the if\d is debating other issues about whether we want the image on the site. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 4

Keep. Required to illustrate the controversy it generated.-Wafulz (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually neutral on the image, but questions of legality are for the Office to handle, not the community. Kelly ^hi! 22:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it passes Fair Use, it is not orphaned (until someone unilaterally takes it out again), it has survived at least one IFD attempt, and Wikipedia is not censored. If the question is legality, let the government decide and then Wikipedia will comply. Until then stop the internet lawyering. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 22:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and use the image. It is not porn - I am more concerned about people who think it is kiddie porn than about the image. It is very clearly not porn. Furthermore, it is useful to illustrate the article. The fact that we're here talking about it shows that it is controversial; how else to give complete information on the controversy? Wikipedia is not censored except by law and community consensus. Since it's not illegal, and there is no good reason to delete it, it should be kept. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 22:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - unless there is a legal determination made that the picture is unlawful child pornography. We didn't delete the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons or the Depictions of Muhammad despite an outpouring of extremist Islamic moral panic, and I'll be damned if we're going to cave into this right-wing Christian fundamentalist moral panic. It's a heavy metal album cover from a mainstream rock band, for God's sake. Hundreds of thousands of copies were printed and distributed around the world (~~except in the U.S.~~ including in the US, apparently... until it was changed after protests, which means there's an encyclopedic story to tell about the reaction to it). Surely everyone who owns this album is not a child pornographer. FCYTravis (talk) 23:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The controversy surrounding this album cover is a large reason the album is even notable, and once reading about it people are going to want to see firsthand what the controversy was all about. We should provide that for informational purposes, since that's of course what we're here for. Combined with "no censorship", we have good reason to keep the image. Plus it's a vintage rock album cover from the '70s, which constitutes an artistic work. It's not some illicit underground porn, and I think people need to get over their over-sensitivity to these kinds of issues.Equazcion •✗/C • 23:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE! By all means keep it! I want nothing more than to see Wiki taken down by the FBI. Legit stuff gets censored and filthy trash is just begging to be kept. Man....is this friggin' site upside down....— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.101.151.206 (talk) 00:52, 9th May 2008 (UTC)

Comment - World Net Daily is just a nasty propaganda site. For example: after the 9/11 attacks, World Net Daily published an article claiming that the attacks were "God's punishment against America". Need I say more?--24.129.100.84 (talk) 01:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Although I disagree with the extreme to which you said it, I do agree with you that WND is not to be trusted, especially considering the libel suit they just settled. I'd like to see evidence this is actually being investigated by the FBI. I'm not going to trust a paper that falsely accused an Al Gore fund raiser of being a drug dealer and interfering in a criminal investigation. Those aren't the kind of people I want to see us setting policy by. Redfarmer (talk) 01:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Based on what I've seen here, I'm voting keep. The image serves an illustrative purpose and the only reason it was ever orphaned was because some of the people voting delete unilaterally removed it from the article. It is tacky. It is tasteless. If I were to buy the album, I would probably want a picture of the band on the front rather than the girl. It is not child porn, however. From our own article on child pornography: "Legal definitions of child pornography generally refer to any pornography involving a minor, varying by jurisdiction with regards to the age of consent. For research purposes, child pornography often refers to any recording (photograph, video, or audio) of sexual activity or sexual posing involving a prepubescent child." I see nothing outright sexual at all about this photo, and I challenge anyone who claims they do see something sexual to point it out. To understand why this image should be kept is to understand the difference between child pornography and child nudity. The first is illegal; the second is not. If we delete this image, we are catering to an extreme organization which has been known to make false and extreme accusations against people in the past. As pointed out above, this would make us hypocrites as hard as we fought to keep depictions of Mohamed on Wikipedia and may actually confirm a Westerncentric bias. If it is indeed illegal in the states, Jimbo and the legal team will come along and fix it. IfD is not the place for interpreting United States law but rather for interpreting Wikipedia policies. Redfarmer (talk) 01:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- By the way, we're being discussed by them. Redfarmer (talk) 01:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Bragging rights, eh? It's really not that difficult to raise hell on Wikipedia -- I've done it before quite easily, and I didn't even need my own website. It might nevertheless be prudent in the future to ignore this particular publication's articles. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 5

Strong Keep. There are three possible reasons to delete this image. 1) It is not encyclopedic (therefore failing one of our fair use criteria). This is patently false, as it has immense encyclopedic value; the controversy the image caused upon initial use by the album publisher is a major aspect of the album's notability. 2) It is illegal. While we could debate until the cows come home on the legality of this image, the truth of the matter is that it's not an issue we can decide here. Either Jimbo and the Foundation step in with an WP:OFFICE action, or we have to assume it's legal. 3) It is immoral. This is the only issue we could reasonably debate here. I think our NPOV ethos demands that we not take a stand on whether the image is immoral or not; as with all information in Wikipedia, we present it to the reader and let the reader decide what to think about it. Powers ^T 02:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But we do make moral judgments, all the time. The BLP policy, for instance, is all about not harming the subjects of our biographies by spreading misleading, distorted or unfair information. This is at least as strong a moral imperative. Furthermore, I disagree that the image has sufficient encyclopedic value to be worth keeping despite the ethical issues; we can explain the controversy in the article without actually illustrating it. I am very concerned that so many Wikipedians seem to be motivated by a desire to shout out "Wikipedia is not censored!" and thumb our noses at the world's standards. Wikipedia is not an experiment in how far we can push back the boundaries of good taste and decency; it's an educational reference work, used by millions of people every day to find information. That gives us a social responsibility, and keeping this image violates that social responsibility. Walton^One 10:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - In my opinion the image does help the article significantly. If I read an article about an image that stirred up controversy, I would want to be able to see what all the hubbub was about firsthand, and I'd go looking for the image elsewhere were in not included in the article. I'd furthermore be annoyed at having to do that on a site that's supposedly uncensored. This isn't about pushing boundaries, at least not for me. It's about keeping the article complete. You may have moral objections, Walton, and while I respect that on a personal level, it just has no bearing here. Our policies allow an image like this, as long as it isn't illegal -- and it clearly has been determined that it isn't. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Blind Faith also has an image of a naked child on the cover. Should we delete that, too? How about the naked baby on the Nevermind cover? I don't think so.--24.129.100.84 (talk) 02:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The picture is not explict, and therefore not pornography. The explicit part is covered up by the cracked glass. -Freekee (talk) 02:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- While I hate to undermine someone who agrees with me on the basic issue, I should point out that material doesn't have to be explicit to be pornographic. That doesn't necessarily mean that this particular image is pornographic, of course. Powers ^T 03:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Calling this child porn is an insult to how truly evil child porn is. So what if the FBI is investigating it? Anyone can ask the FBI to investigate anything. The appropriate U.S. Attorney will quickly render an opinion that no crime has been committed, and then we've succumbed to censorship. I'd vote to delete it if you'd asked before someone tried to hijack the process by launching a media campaign, but because it's been campaigned against is sufficient reason for us to keep it absent a legal order for removal. Jclemens (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In the UK there are 5 levels of child porn, the 5th being the worst. While I do not know what criteria are used I do recognise this is level 1 or 2, truly evil child porn is levels 4 and 5 butt hat does not mean that levels 1 and 2 are not child porn, its simply a misunderstanding of what child porn is. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment It should be noted that nudity does not equal pornography in the United Kingdom. DuncanHill (talk) 10:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Per my comment above I still think this image in its current context is fine, however I'm not sure where this "not explicit" designation is coming from. Try posting a picture of a nude 10 year-old girl's "top half" on some public website and see who thinks it's not explicit. That particular part of the anatomy of a female, if uncovered, is still considered pretty darn explicit. It's not just the reproductive organ that constitutes a sexually-explicit photo. Again though, there's more to this particular case, and I feel this image should be kept. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, undeveloped girls can go topless without much comment in many areas. My sister had a Wilson Phillips album with liner notes that included an old picture of the girls, topless, when they were about 7. Powers ^T 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - The "many areas" doesn't include present-day America. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Funny, nudity is considered porn in the US but having a gun is somthing normal. It seems they move towards the islamist moral standards and it's only a matter of time until girls wear a burqa. I would say some pervs try to push their pov and censor because they get excited and consider it's obscene in their universe (=their dirty minds). Morality issues are 100% subjective and noone should expect the rest of the world to get closed minded and conservative 'cos it's the right thing (tm) Iunaw (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also the only laws we need to be concerned with are Florida and USA. There are two levels in the US "child porn" and "not child porn". Major US first amendments issues about artistic expression. There are lots of stuff large numbers of people are morally opposed to that are permitted by law. This is one of them. --NrDg 03:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Le mot juste. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is your untested and unproven opinion, NrDg. Any individual editor would be well advised to obey the laws of the country in which they are located while editing instead of worrying purely about the laws of a foreign country they likely will never step foot on. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Individual editors aren't the concern of this discussion. The existence of the photo effects Wikipedia, not individual editors. The photo exists on servers in Florida. NrDg is correct in that Florida/US law should be our primary concern. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 6

- I believe that the "not explicit" is an appropriate description since there are no genitalia depicted. SqueakBox, I know nothing about U.K. laws, but in the U.S. an image is either illegal child pornography, or it is legal. Absent the various levels, I believe this image to be not illegal under U.S. law, but am in agreement that if a real prosecutor disagrees with that description, then it should be removed. Jclemens (talk) 03:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Again, I'm not sure how many people would agree there. Female breasts are considered sexually-explicit. Like I said, it's not just the genitalia that are generally considered a problem. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think concern for the well being of our editors is far more important tot he project than you make out in this statement, and for instance restoring an image or uploading an image that is then considered illegal child porn ciould bring a lot of trouble to an editor, and we definitely want to avoid that. Though it has not been mentioned there are also clear BLP issues as the girl in question is almost certainly still alive (to the point where it is not reasonable to assume otherwise) and without her explicit permission posting this pic of her is a BLP violation. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure, a public service announcement that people should obey the laws of their respective jurisdictions is great. But it again has no bearing on this discussion. The photo is already there, and what country everyone here lives in bears no significance on whether or not we remove it. Equazcion •✗/C • 03:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And the BLP issue that's been tacked on here is highly questionable. If the model had a problem with the photo, or legal reason to have the photo removed from the album cover, that would've been done already. The album has existed for 30 years and we can post a representation of it. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually I am not convinced we can. (a) her image hasn't been published outside the interent to the best of our knowledge in 32 years and (b) if we aregue it is child porn we would logicvally conclude she was abused (ie the taking and subsequent publishing of the photo was inherently abusive) and therefore it is clearly not her responsibility for ensuring we do not publish it, its being pubklished in wikipedia is our responsibility. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're reaching. Whether or not it's child porn in a legal sense isn't for us to decide, and any assumptions as a result of that are similarly not ours to make. Again, if there were a legal issue with the photo, someone would've been arrested and/or this would've ended up in court already. There are absolutely no grounds for us to say the model on the front of a 30 year-old album cover was abused, and there's no BLP issue here. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        BLP is probably best discussed on the talk page and other blp places such as the noticeboard though the factt hat this person may be uncomfortable with this photo should be considered. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        That's a little ridiculous. We don't need to make sure people are okay with photos of themselves that appear in previously-published material. If it were a home photo that would be one thing, or if the article we actually a bio of the girl, that might also be something to consider. But this is just an article about an album, the cover of which she happens to appear on. How the model feels about this is pretty irrelevant to BLP. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        The nature of the image is what makes it problematic re BLP, as it is what makes it problematic full stop. Thanks, SqueakBox 04:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        If you can contact her, let us know what she says. Short of that (if that), how the model might feel about this photo won't be a deciding factor in this discussion, I assure you. Equazcion •✗/C • 04:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment See US Supreme court case Massachusetts v. Oakes and some discussion at Salon. Basically the pictures must have lascivious display of genitals or pubic area and nudity is not even required to meet that test. This picture is not child porn by US law. Whether or not it belongs in Wiki is another argument I have no opinion on. --NrDg 04:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep It; honestly, i really don't see the big deal. it's not really sexual in nature at all. plus the fact that how many children are actually doing a report on anything sexual or the scorpions for that matter. plus, aren't most kids that are using the internet for reports supossed to have parents or an adult there to make sure they aren't going to sites they shouldn't be? and i'm also sure that no school's computer is going to let you see that for that exact reason. personally, i think it's just parents who are overreacting as usual because "Oh my god, there's a naked girl picture on a website that allows users to edit and basically put up whatever they want short of illegal activities!" here's an idea, how about instead of blaming others, and going on your idoitic rants, take responsability. lay down the law. if your kid is watching something you don't want them watching, don't complain to the tv networks that the show is brainwashing our kids, turn the tv off. same goes for the idoitic parents that are complaining about the latest grand theft auto game. last time i checked, the game is meant for teenagers 17 and older. so if your kid is not seventeen, and you're not with them, there's no way they're gonna play it. if you learn one of their friends has it, ask that friends parent to not allow their kid to play it. basically the point here being that parents need to take responsability for their kids and stop blaming everything else. turn off the tv, turn off the video games, and find something useful to do instead of being hypocritical morons. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.51.124 (talk) 04:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this seems like a bad faith nomination to be honest, if there is any real question about which cover should be used, use both.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I doubt the FBI really has the time to waste investigating old news. For some reason Conservatives seem to have this idea in their heads that the FBI is at their beck and call 24/7 to enforce moral decency or such.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 05:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100% and this is a very bad precedent for wikipedia and a time waste drama sparked by a ultra-conservative lobby. If there is any illegal content leave a court decide that and do not feed the trolls Iunaw (talk) 16:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Although I do not believe the image to be illegal, deciding on the legality of any material is ultimatelly the Foundations job, so its a moot point. Regarding the claims that it's not valid fair use, album covers have long been considered acceptable use of the fair use provision, so this too is a moot point. Which leaves us only with morality. I'm of the strong opinion that Wikipedia should not be making this kind of moral call, since what is morally acceptable varies from culture to culture. If Wikipedia was not censored for the depictions of Muhammad then it must not be censored for this, lest we be enforcing a Western (WASP conservative, to be more exact) morallity bias while at the same time being extremelly hypocritical Acer (talk) 10:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Opposing child porn is a "Western WASP conservative morality bias"? Good God. Walton^One 10:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's a bit of a glib response. Child porn is of course illegal -- but as Acer states, once we accept that argument as moot, it becomes an argument of morals, which yes, is in this case a Western concern. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Whether or not it is illegal, it is fundamentally immoral according to the standards of most people and most societies in the world. That isn't just a "Western" concern. Walton^One 10:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - So the other day when I read a National Geographic article on China and one of the photos featured a fully-nude, pre-pubescent boy skinny-dipping, completely showing his penis, that was immoral and we should do something about it since, by your logic, his parents obviously object to it? Not everyone shares your views on nudity and National Geographic has been proving that for years. Redfarmer (talk) 11:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - As NrDg stated so well: "There are lots of stuff large numbers of people are morally opposed to that are permitted by law. This is one of them." Wherever the moral standard you refer to originates (and I think regardless of your "most of the world" claim, this is more of a personal concern for you), it simply doesn't have any bearing on what we include in our articles. Whereas BLP as a moral issue is less controversial, "decency" is too subjective in this case to be a standard by which we operate. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 7

Comment - This discussion itself has now received external media coverage: [2]. This is dragging Wikipedia's name through the mud, for no reason other than to make a political point. Let's just speedy delete the image, close the discussion, and reiterate that child porn is NOT acceptable, anywhere, in any situation. This is a fundamental ethical issue. Walton^One 10:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I quoted that "news coverage" above and, as I said, I don't trust this organization. They just recently settled a libel lawsuit in which they falsely accused an Al Gore fundraiser of being a drug dealer and interfering in an investigation. I'm not convinced we're actually being investigated by the FBI (none of this person's articles even once quote an FBI source, anonymous or otherwise; the reporter simply makes the assertion and then interviews a conservative lawyer for more fun Wiki-bashing) and it's funny how mainstream news sources aren't lining up to jump on this bandwagon. This reporter could just be a poor reporter or, more likely, there's not much of a FBI investigation at all, if any. Redfarmer (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether or not WorldNetDaily is a reputable news source, it is pretty clear that Wikipedia is now in danger of getting bad press across the Internet because of this controversy. I see the purported FBI investigation as a non-issue; if I had been aware of this image prior to this discussion, I would have nominated it for deletion myself. But I'm concerned that the attitude here seems to be "we're not censored, let's prove that by thumbing our noses at the conservatives and keeping this image". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an experiment in how far we can push back the boundaries of moral outrage. The question we should be asking is "do images like this ever belong in a legitimate educational reference work?" And the answer to that seems to me to be a pretty clear No. Walton^One 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - And, as I've said before, it wouldn't be the first time Wikipedia has been getting bad news coverage...and has survived every time. What's different about this time? What distinguishes this from other controversy which have plagued the encyclopedia since its inception? It really sounds like you're being alarmist, using fear of what might be to get what you personally feel should be on the encyclopedia. Redfarmer (talk) 11:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The "external media coverage" is the only reason this debate was started. WND is an extremist political organization masquerading as a news organization, trying to use Wikipedia to further their politics. Wikipedia's name is not being dragged through the mud, rather WND is trying to impose their agenda of hate and censorship on Wikipedia. We give in to them on this, next they will be after articles - on gay people, on abortion, on Islam, on the (really rather wonderful) First Amendment to the American Constitution. Their reporting skills appear to be nill, as does their commitment to ethical reporting. WND carries the motto "a free press for a free world" - yet their idea of a free press is one that is strictly censored to promote a very narrow-minded version of Christianity and xenophobia. DuncanHill (talk) 11:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - ^That's right. WND started this whole debate, and is just trying to sensationalize this issue. Of all the reasons to be concerned, that is the least of them. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - (To DuncanHill) It seems that your dislike of right-wing conservatism is colouring your stance on this issue (I could be wrong, of course, but that's the impression I get from your comments). Furthermore, you're employing a classic slippery slope argument and battleground rhetoric - "if we give in to the evil conservatives on one point, it's only a matter of time before they take over the encyclopedia". No one wants political censorship of WIkipedia. But we're not a free speech forum, we're an encyclopedia project, and we need to have a sense of social responsibility. Walton^One 11:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Since a sense of social responsibility is subjective, we have policies regarding our content. The image doesn't violate them. You can't possibly think that your opinion on a moral basis trumps that. Even on a moral basis, most of the people here seem to disagree with you. I don't see how you can call for "just speedy delete"ing the image in the midst of this. I'm frankly very disappointed to see this from you, Walton. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - The WND is not what I would call "conservative" - of course this may be a cultural difference. I do dislike "right-wing conservatism" (is there a "left-wing conservatism"?) and my user page does try to allow other editors to judge my political stance so that they may weigh my comments accordingly, but the WND is far beyond anything that I recognize as conservatism. As to the free speach question - a censored encyclopædia is more or less worthless, whether it is censored by the extreme right or the extreme left, by religious fundamentalists or by anti-theists. DuncanHill (talk) 11:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Duncan, I'm assuming your British judging by your talk page. I'm sure you know already but I'll reiterate: conservatism means something vastly different in Britain than it does in the states. There's much more of a moral edge to American conservatism than there is to British conservatism. I've had to explain to one of my British friends who is studying in South Carolina next year that he is going to have to explain a lot to people how he can be both conservative and in support of gay marriage--there just isn't the moral aspect of British conservatism that there is in American conservatism (just another reason why I love Britain!). Redfarmer (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I will immediately undelete this image if anyone speedily deletes it. Speedy-deleting an image in the midst of a highly-active deletion debate which has absolutely nowhere near any consensus to delete, is the very definition of disruption. Walton One, I am shocked at your brazen demand that we give in to World Net Daily's alarmist, moral panic scare tactics. The "fundamental ethical issue" here is that we do not censor Wikipedia as a knee-jerk response to external attacks - not when extremist Islamist Muslims scream at us, and not when extremist right-wing Christian conservatives scream at us.
- There is and should be a healthy debate about where to draw the line as to what we host, and we should not be in the business of needlessly hosting pornography. But this image is not even in the gray area. It's a mass-market album cover distributed worldwide in huge quantities by a mainstream heavy metal group. It's not pornography and I would question the agenda and judgment of anyone who actually thinks it is. FCYTravis (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I should clarify that I haven't personally looked at the image, so I'm not qualified to unequivocally state that it is or isn't pornography. However, I firmly believe that with any image involving children, we should err on the side of caution. Walton^One 18:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then you have no business commenting on the issue, because your entire view of it is based upon biased, sensationalized coverage from an extremist right-wing Christian fundamentalist "media" outlet with a demonstrated pro-censorship, anti-freedom agenda. If you refuse to consider both sides of a given argument, your stance carries zero weight. "Err on the side of caution" does not mean "knee-jerk delete anything that moralizing right-wing censors say is bad." FCYTravis (talk) 18:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think you've misunderstood me. Firstly, I was never going to speedy-delete this image, and I agree that it would be an abuse of admin tools under the circumstances. I do think it would be the best thing if it were speedy deleted, but that is my personal opinion and I will abide by consensus, as I always do. Secondly, I agree that we should not censor Wikipedia as a knee-jerk response to external attacks. However, when material is highly controversial and ethically dubious, we should consider very carefully whether it is necessary to keep it in order to ensure balanced encyclopedic coverage of the topic, and should weigh this against the ethical implications. In this case, whether or not this image fits the legal definition of pornography, it is highly controversial and has serious ethical problems, which IMO outweigh any encyclopedic value it may have. WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't mean that we need to go out of our way to keep unnecessary offensive content just so we can thumb our noses at the "moralizing right-wing censors". I should also add that, given that you (FCYTravis) are one of the more vocal advocates of strict enforcement of the BLP policy and have argued for greater awareness of the impact that Wikipedia coverage can have upon real people's lives, I would have thought that you would be willing to recognise that Wikipedia has social and ethical responsibilities which sometimes oblige us to remove content which we might not otherwise remove. Walton^One 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the "external media coverage": No. The bad PR caused by this debacle may have some effect on our image. Removing content for the sake of polishing our image would utterly and deservedly destroy it. --Kizor 18:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There's only one thing questionable here, and it's not this image but the funny conservative extremists blog "wnd" that claims wikipedia is an hard-core porn site [3]. Pseudosciences, conspiration-theories, homophobia.. these people have nothing to censor here, they should better block wikipedia on their browsers to stay safe from depravity and evilness Iunaw (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This is not child porn, but merely an image of a naked child. Nothing offensive about that. Furthermore it is the cover of a music album which must be considered art. Although the record industry censored the image at the time of release, we should not censor now. Next step would then be to filter which ancient greek statues should be allowed... jarihj (talk)

Comment - there is a more general discussion going on elsewhere in an out-of-the-way location (not linking to it for the moment, but will do later once the discussion has moved). I want to move that discussion somewhere more appropriate. Could the people commenting here suggest where that discussion could be held? The discussion involves a list of Commons categories and images based on the newspaper article that started this discussion. I think a discussion on Commons about the images, and a discussion on Wikipedia about which of the images are encyclopedic, would be best, but again I'm not sure where to hold the discussion. Any ideas? Carcharoth (talk) 13:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Village pump (policy) is the best place to hold a centralized community discussion. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unless it's already kinda long to put on a page like that -- perhaps a subpage of VP policy then. Equazcion •✗/C • 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - This discussion should just be closed as Keep - that is the concensus based on existing policy. Also the conclusion based on the other 2 times this particular image has been nominated for deletion - nothing has changed. Legal by US law image with encyclopedic value. The higher level discussion about how existing wiki policies and procedures should cave to outside pressure is irrelevant to this particular image.--NrDg 16:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think he's talking about moving this discussion, but a different one occurring elsewhere. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Then just give an FYI pointer for those that might be interested in the other discussions and discuss the movement there, not here. This image is not a free-use image so is irrelevant to commons discussions as it cannot ever be in commons. --NrDg 16:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 8

Strong Keep. At the very least, the image has important historical value for students of censorship. AaronSw (talk) 17:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "A 50s baby, at a few months old I was photographed naked on the hearth-rug in our front room. Such images were a common-place in that decade: cliched. Thousands of such pictures must have been taken. Thousands of others record children and adolescents playing unclothed in suburban gardens. There is nothing out of the ordinary in such images. These pictures document visions of seemingly innocent, untroubled childhoods." [4] WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "In the same way that everyday crime and criminalization operate as cultural enterprises, everyday popular cultural undertakings -- those social activities organized around art, music, and fashion -- are regularly recast a crime. Certainly much in the worlds of art, music, and fashion gets caught up in controversies over "good taste," public decency, and the alleged influences of popular culture. In some cases, the producers of art or music themselves stoke these controversies in order to promote consumption of their cultural commodities; in other cases, right-wing interest groups, religious fundamentalist, and others promote these cultural conflicts as part of their theo- political agendas. Frequently, these two dynamics intertwine in ironic, symbiotic relationships of mutual amplification. Of interest here, though, are the many cases in which such conflicts promote not only controversy, but also reconstruct cultural production, distribution, and consumption as both criminal and criminogenic." [5] WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "I mention in the following article that parents are frequently arrested for taking innocent photographs of their own children. I urge you to read this horrifying account of a young mother who was beat up by police, in the presence of her little boy, for photographing him for a Harvard photography class." [6] WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- "The women in the Peace Corps group wore skirts to their knees but not long enough to completely cover their legs, as was the custom for Ethiopian women. The Ethiopian women, however, didn't cover their breasts. "We look at them, they look at us, and both groups think, `How strange!' " Mirkin said. Mirkin grew up in New York. His father was a lawyer and his mother was a homemaker. The family, including his older sister, lived comfortably on the west side of Manhattan in an apartment on the top floor of a nine-story building. As a youngster he played stick ball on the street and handball in the schoolyard or else ventured to one of two nearby parks. The culture gap he encountered in Ethiopia constantly amazed. There, Mirkin taught English to seventh-graders and sometimes treated them to American movies. In one, two young lovers were innocently holding hands and giving each other quick kisses. To Americans it was innocent. The Ethiopian students asked if the woman was a prostitute. Only a prostitute would hold hands in public, they said." [7] WAS 4.250 (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's all very well for you to make arguments decrying the paranoia surrounding nude images of children. But it isn't Wikipedia's job to change or challenge socio-cultural attitudes, IMO. And we should err on the side of caution in things like this. Walton^One 18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Haven't seen any valid arguments for deletion, therefore can't se what the argument is all about - seems to be all due to an obscure media report, which should have no bearing. The import album can be bought from Amazon.com with this cover, and numerous other websites show the original. And why wouldn't they - it was withdrawn in the US - not banned. -- Chzz ► 17:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The issue isn't the press coverage per se; that simply served to draw attention to it. Had I been aware of this image before the controversy erupted, I would have nominated it for deletion instantly. It doesn't belong on Wikipedia and should never have been uploaded here in the first place. Walton^One 18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But you haven't been able to give a valid reason for deletion since the beginning. Everyone of your arguments is framed in the context of alarmist "the sky is falling" rhetoric or WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I agree with the user you responded to: there hasn't been a valid argument against the photo. Period. Redfarmer (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As AaronSw suggests above, the controversy surrounding the image (including, now that WP is objectively important, the controversy here) is all the more reason to keep it. (FWIW, it doesn't look all that gratuitous either...if this is wank material for pedophiles, so is any tabloid with articles on Miley Cyrus or Jamie Lynn Spears. Thus, the marginal amount of sleaze this image adds to the world is, at worst, trivial.) --zenohockey (talk) 18:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing about pornography is that you know what it is when you see it. And when it comes to child pornography, a more cautious approach should be exercised when making decisions about what is appropriate or not for the encyclopedia. What is first and foremost important here is protecting the project. A nude photo classified as kiddie porn taken 30 years ago would be considered just as illegal today if it were found by the authorities in the possession of some web surfer. For what I understand, Google will prevent US users from seeing certain images from being displayed from other countries outside the US that have child porn attributes. In the best interest of protecting the project, we should temporarily remove it until we can establish that the FBI doesn't have an issue with the cover being displayed in the US. I know that this is not the most popular opinion on the subject. I know there are other controversial covers. Let's not overlook the obvious, there was an alternate cover made for the album for a reason. Nude Greek statues and child pornography are not the same. I believe we should take the cautious approach on this. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 18:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The image is viewable on about a thousand different sites, yes even viewable from the US, directly on Google via an image search. There's no legal concern here. This is purely an appropriateness debate regarding the wiki. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Legal issues should be left to the Foundation. Beyond that, it seems well within fair use for album covers. -Chunky Rice (talk) 18:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close this IfD. While I debate the artistic value of the image it is not child pornography. Child Pornography is displaying children in a very explicit manner in which it's main goal is to sexually arouse the viewer. This represents the title of the album. It is a very notable album cover that has historical merit. As so it is indeed important to the article at hand. Also this deletion violates Wikipedia's Do Not Censor policy. Rgoodermote 18:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like a textbook case of WP:NOTCENSORED to me. Put legal issues aside, as that is not our call as editors one way or another. Pretty simple, to me. --mordicai. (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 9

Strongest delete ever: It's illegal! You can quote 'uncensored' as much as you like, DELETE!...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Legality is for the foundation to decide, not editors. Besides, the RCA record company would probably disagree with your assessment. Redfarmer (talk) 18:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Comment. The legality or illegality of the image is not a concern for editors. If it was genuinely, unambiguously illegal, I guarantee you the Wikimedia Foundation would have deleted it in a heartbeat already. We are not here to serve as legal arbiters, we are here to decide if the image is in policy or not. Ford MF (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Besides which, it's not illegal. It's an album cover that's been around for 30 years. If it were illegal, a lot of people would be in prison right now. Equazcion •✗/C • 18:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I WILL retire if this is not removed. I refuse to affiliate myself with child pornography!...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 18:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Putting the melodrama aside, you still haven't said how you feel this is illegal or child porn by any standards and a reading of the previous seven sections above will tell you that no one else has either. If someone can make a case, they might prevail but simply asserting your disgust with the cover does not make it child porn. Redfarmer (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - It's a naked 10-year old girl. Nudity is the base definition of pornography, and it's a child. That makes it child porn. That's illegal...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Nudity is not the base definition of pornography -- check your dictionary. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Nudity is not the base definition of pornography. If that was the case, my parents and many photographers for National Geographic would be in jail. The two factors that must be present in pornography are a depiction of the genitals and a general depiction in a sexualized way which serves to sexually stimulate others. The person in question does not necessarily have to even be nude, simply have their genitals exposed. I've seen plenty of porn where the person was clothes. Redfarmer (talk) 19:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Google definition search for pornography. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Wiktionary: The explicit depiction of sexual subject matter...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sure I don't need to remind you that Wiktionary is written by... us. Besides which, "sexual" and "nudity" are not one in the same. Again see the google definitions, as they illustrate the issue a bit better. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Er, doesn't that definitionally criminalize pediatrics textbooks? --Kizor 19:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        OMG! Sounds like an horrified taliban discovering the decaying occidental culture. It would be better if everyone would wear a burqa right? nude=porn=bad perv=you go to hell. This is your POV, it doesn't make it illegal, sorry. And calling it child porn you are INSULTING real victims that have been abused, and that is something noone can joke with. Iunaw (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I AM NOT INSULTING ANYONE. I find your accusation highly uncivil...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, okay, let's calm down. I don't think Dendodge was insulting anyone -- he's just struck by the photo and had an extreme reaction to it -- a reaction the photo was designed to provoke. There's no need to accuse each other. Just calm yourselves. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Some may find this interesting: "We met the girl some 15 years later and she never had a problem with it." Equazcion •✗/C • 19:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, based on WP:NOTCENSORED. And IF the image is being looked at by the FBI, then that's not the concern of us as editors. Legal issues are dealt with by the Wikimedia Foundation as they arise. The album cover is in extremely poor taste, yes. But the picture is really not that different from the fine art photographs of Sally Mann, whose works can be found in those notable magnets of pedophile lust, the MoMA and the Met. Ford MF (talk) 19:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Image is not illegal (which is not for editors to decide enyway) and is clearly notable. HermanHiddema (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: I will be satisfied if we put it lower in the article, in {{hidden}} tags...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no need for a compromise. Most people are for keeping the image. And it was decided a while ago that hiding potentially-offensive images is a no-no, hence the deletion of the template that had been created for that purpose. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - But this is is extreme. Hiding it would mean it was still accessible, but wouldn't shock or offend people casually browsing the article...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that argument has been tried before for all manner of "extremely" offensive material, but try to understand: We're uncensored. Taking extreme offense at something is just not a reason to hide or remove it here. Equazcion •✗/C • 19:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, I'll leave it until the FBI come back with a result, but if they find it illegal we delete it, correct?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 19:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, if after 30 years the FBI now decides that this image is illegal, we'll delete it... Equazcion •✗/C • 19:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

break 10

Delete. Censorship is a complete red herring, it's of questionable legality and unused. Wikipedia is not an experiment in freedom of speech, it's an encyclopaedia, and keepign probable child porn images just because we are not actually censored is somewhere between WP:ILIKEIT irrelevance and a WP:POINT violation of a particularly risky kind, given that it places the Foundation in legal jeopardy. Guy (Help!) 20:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It's used -- Virgin Killer. Legality isn't our concern. If it were child porn, the producers would be in jail, and they're not. Equazcion •✗/C • 20:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If after 30 years it still has not been labeled child porn I doubt it will now. Rgoodermote 20:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supreme Court in 1989 has already decided - this type of image is definitely NOT child porn. This isn't even a grey area in the law. There is no questionable legality except in the minds of people who need a uustification to dislike the image.--NrDg 20:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I think this is the first time I've completely agreed with JzG. :-) In all seriousness, it is true that Wikipedia is not a free speech forum, and we're not here to experiment with pushing back the boundaries of moral outrage. This is a reference work, and while we don't censor necessary encyclopedic material on the grounds of taste and decency, we also shouldn't keep unnecessary material simply to thumb our noses at the world's standards. Walton^One 20:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this very demonstration of the controversy the album cover caused is proof that the image is necessary. It illustrates what caused the controversy, which is a major reason the album is notable. It couldn't be more necessary, in my opinion. In fact I think it's among the most necessary of all the album covers we claim the right to use under "fair use". Equazcion •✗/C • 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Far more trouble than a fair use image is worth. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Not a reason.--NrDg 20:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keeping a fair use image simply because we can is not a reason either. You might want to put a proper rationale on it too instead of the boiler plate one. EconomicsGuy (talk) 20:50, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - We're keeping it a) for the same reason we keep any album cover image under fair use, and b) we have the extra reason that it illustrates a prominent controversy that's notable in and of itself. We have more reason to use this image under fair use than we do the thousand or so other album covers that exist here. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious Keep: There is no indication that this 32 year old album cover is illegal. It is a legitimate cover for an album by a notable band. If an FBI investigation is under way (which I doubt) and they find that this cover is child porn (which is probably a court decision anyway) then we can by all means delete the image. Until then, there is no need for discussion. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 20:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep merely because of the controversy it caused; it is useful to have the cover to relate to this. If it were so illegal they would never have released the cover anyway. weburiedoursecrets inthegarden 20:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's an album cover. The article is about the album. The article includes discussion about the controversial cover. Showing the controversial cover helps readers looking for this information understand the article. The creators of the album do not appear to have been prosecuted for publishing child pornography, and the image was not created primarily to arouse, nor is it used for that purpose on Wikipedia. I'll bet $20 that User:Mike Godwin has already had a look at this image, and if he thought it was pornographic, the Foundation would have taken care of it. My opinion is that it isn't, and that it is useful for understanding the article. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The mere presense of nudity does not render something pornographic, and I can think of a certain statue that would serve as an example... Tabercil (talk) 20:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP it. Its not pornography, its not sexual, and its not original. It happened and is relevent part of the history of this aritcle. No one is selling it , no one is promoting it, its just being reported and remembered as a factual part of history that we can now discuss. That's all it is!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.149.206.52 (talk • contribs)
Strong Keep - Pornography or not, it is tasteless. However, that tastelessness is a part of this artists history. Deleting this image would be like only selling censored versions of albums. Same concept, right-wing panic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.123.238.77 (talk • contribs)
- These last two votes seem surprisingly similar in tone and appeared on top of each other. Both IPs have just this single contrib. Just a heads-up. Equazcion •✗/C • 21:13, 9 May 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.

Image:Jack Thwaites.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 debate was Speedy keep Permission received on OTRS. Note that we can't mark the permission on the image page until after it is uploaded and the system can get backlogged, so it is best to wait a while before nominating for deletion. --Mr.Z-man 20:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jack Thwaites.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mgream (notify | contribs).

claims of "permission" for use under GFDL need to be substantiated through OTRS SkierRMH (talk) 14:34, 8 May 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.

Image:RickRoll.png

Image:RickRoll.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Firefoxman (notify | contribs).

Wrong license, see the end of the template. 'This tag is not appropriate for images and media found on websites; it should be used for screenshots of websites only.' asenine ^{say what?} 16:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fix license tag and speedy keep. Did this really need an XfD? xenocidic (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The licencing tag was fixed. (Disclosure: I uploaded the PNG version of what was originally a JPEG) ffm 16:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
License fixed by author. asenine ^{say what?} 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't understand why you couldn't have just fixed the license yourself, rather than bringing this to XfD. xenocidic (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Possible Delete nod I think the license upload is wrong. The license clearly states This is a screenshot of a copyrighted web page, which the image clearly doesn't show. Rather, it shows only a portion of a website. Ergo, the upload license needs to be fixed further.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fair-use licenses now cover both the image of the video and the partial screenshot of the website. there's no need to distinguish between a screenshot of an entire website and a portion of it. its a screenshot either way. xenocidic (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's still a portion of a screenshot of a webpage. I don't see Portion in the fair use tag. So, either a new file has to be uploaded to comply with the tag parameters, or just the music clip tag should be used instead. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense. A screenshot, by definition, will always be some portion of a website. It would be impossible to have a screenshot of the entire page of the Rick Roll video, it would be way too long. xenocidic (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anonymousexposed rickroll.JPG

Image:Anonymousexposed rickroll.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cirt (notify | contribs).

See the end of the boilerplate tag. 'This tag is not appropriate for images and media found on websites; it should be used for screenshots of websites only.' This clearly contains a still from the original video, so it is not merely a website that you must claim under fair use. asenine ^{say what?} 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fix license tag ( Done) and speedy keep. Did this really need an XfD? xenocidic (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Poor nomination rationale. Qst (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Appears to be fixed now. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Capt.bx10202032146.gay bar shooting bx102.jpg

Image:Capt.bx10202032146.gay bar shooting bx102.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NTK (notify | contribs).

non-free (and supposedly color-altered, but more on that later) image that does not meet the requirements of non-free use and has a contradiction in sourcing. The principle of non-free use means that the picture fulfills a few needs: "To illustrate the subject in question" - no, because what you see is the end of a barrel of a gun, more so than the subject, and there's a perfectly good fair-use booking photo further up the page to illustrate the subject. "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" - it's already pretty clear from the article that he was a neo-Nazi with a weapons interest, so I'm not sure this "adequately gives information," and again, there's a booking photo above. Furthermore, and (perhaps more importantly) the links given to support sourcing either don't work or don't return the source photo. Also, this blog claims the photo was not "uploaded and color-reversed by a user at Queerty" as claimed on the image page, but rather "taken directly from Robida's Myspace," but the article on Southern Poverty Law Center says the negative was on the Myspace. So, we don't actually know with any certainty where this came from. My personal opinion (which doesn't really factor in) is that this photo places the subject in such a light that the viewer is either negatively horrified or positively impressed, and I don't think we should be either trying to evoke a reader reaction like that with sensationalistic media, or to be at all glorifying his actions, however indirectly. MSJapan (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the source is dubious, and I agree with your rationale for this image not meeting our FU policy. -- lucasbfr ^talk 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Velos D16 21JAN2006.jpg

Image:Velos D16 21JAN2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pmoshs (notify | contribs).

Superseded by better Commons image (Image:Velos D16.jpg). Sandstein (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Two-FaceEckhart.jpg

Image:Two-FaceEckhart.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ConstantineChernabog (notify | contribs).

uncredited fan art, not an actual production image. Cna't responsibly be used anywhere on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 21:03, 8 May 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 speedy deleted for lack of licensing and source info. —An gr 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CGproducts2.jpg

Image:CGproducts2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Redthoreau (notify |contribs).

Although the collage itself may be an original work, as it is a derivative work the copyright of the works included in the collage still exist. The usage of the collage fails the criteria "3. Minimal usage": the inclusion of so many copyrighted works is not necessary to convey the information in the article. There is no rationale provided that copyrighted work is necessary to the article and that non copyrighted works cannot be found instead. –Mattisse (Talk) 21:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has no copyright tag, and does not provide sources or identify the copyright holders for the copyrighted images scraped for use in the collage. Violates several provisions of WP:NFCC. Kelly ^hi! 22:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images are needed to reflect his visual role on popular culture. Popular culture also consists of publications and copyrighted sources. In order to show his place in visual pop culture, it is imperative to show this use.

Redthoreau (talk Redthoreau 02:22, 9 May 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.

Image:Sinister six.jpg

Image:Sinister six.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ConstantineChernabog (notify | contribs).

from Deviantart without permission or credit, unusable for articles. ThuranX (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Per l9. Rgoodermote 18:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fullhouse_kimmy.jpg

Image:Fullhouse_kimmy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Veljamh (notify | contribs).

Uploader doesn't appear to own copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Untrusted uploader already caught lying about ownership of another imaged uploaded at the same time. See Image:Lori_Loughlin.jpg for details.--NrDg 22:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation refer [8] linked from page [9] MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anita-barone.jpg

Image:Anita-barone.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Veljamh (notify | contribs).

Uploader doesn't appear to own copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Untrusted uploader already caught lying about ownership of another imaged uploaded at the same time. See Image:Lori_Loughlin.jpg for details.--NrDg 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation refer [10] refer from [11] (image has had copyright statement cut of bottom!) - MilborneOne (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lori_Loughlin.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 debate was speedy delete: I9

Image:Lori_Loughlin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Veljamh (notify | contribs).

Uploader doesn't appear to own copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Blatant copyright violation - copy of http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Profiles/20061002/244.loughlin.lori.092806.jpg. Uploader lied about ownership. Also no fair use of this image is possible as it would be a replaceable fair use living person bio image if the uploader had attempted that justification. --NrDg 22:57, 8 May 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.

Image:Jo_marie_payton.jpg

Image:Jo_marie_payton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Veljamh (notify | contribs).

Uploader doesn't appear to own copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Untrusted uploader already caught lying about ownership of another imaged uploaded at the same time. See Image:Lori_Loughlin.jpg for details.--NrDg 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright vlation refer [ http://a69.g.akamai.net/n/69/10688/v1/img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/rsz/434/x/x/x/medias/nmedia/18/35/88/22/18740997.jpg] from page [12] - MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:200706_p2.jpg

Image:200706_p2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Francisco81a (notify | contribs).

Uploader doesn't appear to own copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OP final.jpg

Image:OP final.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DeKreeft27 (notify | contribs).

Img with a non free use rationale and a liscense that contradicts the rationale. Undeath (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The uploader replaced the self license with non-free logo tag compatible with the rationale. —teb728 t c 21:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 72: / Line 72: @@
 ====[[:Image:Virgin Killer.jpg]]====
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;">
+:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this section. ''
+The result of the debate was never lively to bear any relation to the fascinating, but totally irrelevant, moral panic seen below. I include the heroic defenders of free speech. It's only a bloody album cover on a wiki people. Bathos surely. Anyway, I asked myself "Does this image meet my understanding of [[WP:NFCC]]?" I'm fairly sure it meets most people's standards, but I take 8 quite seriously. No free passes for album and books covers. This is not a significant (Blind Faith, Abbey Road, Never Mind the Bollocks) album cover. The article lacks meaningful discussion of the cover. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It doesn't, it won't. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]]  [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
+<!--Template:Ifd top-->
+[[Category:Archived image and media for deletion discussions]]
 {{notavote}}
 This may be child porn and the FBI is reviewing the image for possible violation of US law. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63722] --[[Special:Contributions/204.78.9.12|204.78.9.12]] ([[User talk:204.78.9.12|talk]]) 12:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
@@ Line 298: / Line 307: @@
 *'''Strong Keep''' - Pornography or not, it is tasteless. However, that tastelessness is a part of this artists history. Deleting this image would be like only selling censored versions of albums. Same concept, right-wing panic.  {{unsigned|76.123.238.77}}
 ** These last two votes seem surprisingly similar in tone and appeared on top of each other. Both IPs have just this single contrib. Just a heads-up. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<font color="#000">Equazcion</font>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)''</small>
+:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span>  Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]).  No further edits should be made to this section. <!--Template:Ifd bottom--></div>
 ====[[:Image:Jack Thwaites.jpg]]====