Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. This image is a scan of Amalgam Comics Cards (CR Marvel & DC 1996, 1997). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Doomsday (talk • contribs)
Reply: That's actually a reason for deletion. Doczilla (talk) 16:41, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. This image is a scan of Amalgam Comics Cards (CR Marvel & DC 1996, 1997). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Doomsday (talk • contribs)
Reply: That's actually a reason for deletion. Doczilla (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doczilla (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete. This image is a scan of Amalgam Comics Cards (CR Marvel & DC 1996, 1997). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doctor Doomsday (talk • contribs) 23:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: That's actually a reason for deletion. Doczilla (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2007 (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.
First off, the user was warned by Jimbo Wales himself that the image was a violation of userspace policy, after Jimbo removed the image from Mcrazychick's userpage. Second, now that Mcrazychick has retired, the image is highly unlikely to be used in any encyclopedia articles. Finally, Wikipedia is not an image host, and this file is unlikely to be used for anything even outside of article space. Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 06:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see a specific reason to delete this file. There are a number of similar and related images on commons [1] which are filed there for people to select from. This can be added to the store for someone to use in a current or future article. That the image is inappropriate for someone's userpage doesn't follow that the same image is inappropriate to use on an article. SilkTork *SilkyTalk 08:47, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's little encyclopedic value here. I don't not find the argument that there is a sex category on commons complelling because most of those pics are artwork or merely scanty clthing, not full nudity, the image here in question is full frontal nudity and the photo quality is not that good. Many nude images get deleted from commons. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons. Image appears to be useful and free. – Quadell(talk) (random) 14:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved this to Commons. Delete here. – Quadell(talk) (random) 14:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, this user just quit Wikipedia after receiving some unkind words from Jimbo, so I strongly question the idea that it's appropriate for us to do whatever we want with her image without her permission. Now that she has quit, it's quite possible that she would not want a nude picture of herself on our project. Everyking (talk) 16:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's quite possible. If she says she wants it removed, I'm happy to delete it -- but not on speculation. One could argue that if she didn't want the photo used, she wouldn't have released the photo under the GFDL. – Quadell(talk) (random) 19:22, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it should be the other way around—delete it unless she says we can still use it. This is a very explicit photograph and we cannot assume this person is willing to let us use it now that she has quit the project with apparently negative feelings. Everyking (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't generally delete the uploads of retired Wikipedians. I don't see any reason to treat this image differently. Anyway, I guess that's an issue for Commons now -- the copy here should be deleted either way. – Quadell(talk) (random) 19:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We don't generally because generally they aren't nude photos. That's a tremendous difference. And if this now has to be subject to a Commons process, I ask that someone please raise the issue there, because I don't participate on Commons. Everyking (talk) 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Zee free status of the image is in any way questionable since it was not taken by the uploader.Geni 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
OB Image:Church Genealogy of Revival Centres International.png obsoleted by Image:Revival_Centres_International_Church_Genealogy1.pngTopsaint (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, logo for a school, so presumably copyrighted B (talk) 15:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I never actually used this image for anything so feel free to delete it, I made it just as a test before I helped with the Archbishop Temple School article. --Mollsmolyneux (talk) 08:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free image or a bishop praying, used in 7 articles, but it never passes NFCC#8. (It doesn't show an event that it the subject of any of these articles, or any section of these articles.) – Quadell(talk) (random) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free image of two actresses. The uploader claims it passes NFCC#1, since the actresses are "in costume", but I don't think they are. I think any photo(s) of the actresses would serve the same function in the article. – Quadell(talk) (random) 19:08, 18 December 2007 (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.
uploader says he took the photo in 2005 but article says the subject died in 1998 Mangostar (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it's a picture of a statue of the guy, made after his death. ;-) 00:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Cropped image of Image:Aggiebonfire2005.jpg was used as an example as to what should be done with it. The original image has since been replaced by this image. Image:Aggiebonfire2005-2.jpg is no longer needed and is a duplicate of Image:Aggiebonfire2005.jpg. Do NOT delete the latter as it is going to be on the Main Page on 22 December2007— BQZip01 —talk 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, and a self-described "mash-up" that doesn't say where all the pieces came from Mangostar (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
certainly not PD-self, and also almost certainly not PD considering the years Fernando Amorsolo was active Mangostar (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned. a photograph of a religious sculpture that doens't say how old the sculpture is. i'd guess it's PD but no one could know for sure without more info Mangostar (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Mangostar (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2007 (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 was Keep. Fair use rationale has been provided. — Edokter • Talk • 16:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very confused FU rationale (if any), fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and could easily be replaced with a photograph of someone in gas mask Fasach Nua (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a screenshot of a show, demonstrating an aspect of that show. I have no opinion on whether it passes NFCC#8 or not, but it certainly passes NFCC#1. – Quadell(talk) (random) 00:28, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I would agree if it's to generically illustrate a gas mask, but it's a screen capture from the episode itself used to illustrate the episode, so replacing it with a generic gas mask image wouldn't do. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 05:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does this convey that a gas mask wouldn't? How would the readers understanding of the subject be detrementally damaged if a generic image was used in it's place? Fasach Nua (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If a generic gas mask image was used, it would violate fair use provisions because it's not illustrative of an event in the episode (it would be illustrative of a gas mask, which is not what the article's about). This image isn't used to illustrate a gas mask. It's being used to illustrate a key moment/character in the episode itself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are many free images of gas masks, commons has a whole category dedicated to them, could we use one of those? Fasach Nua (talk) 11:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What "moment/character" is it illustrating, and how would the absence of the image be detremential to understanding? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point. This isn't illustrating a gas mask. This is illustrating a key character in the episode itself - in fact, the title character of the empty child, whose shocking appearance is defined by that image of the child in the gas mask. The rationale is explained quite adequately, and that pretty much is all I have to say on the subject. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:17, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we want a free image of a child wearing a gas mask? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, we want a free image of that particular child wearing that particular gas mask in that episode. Since there is none, the fair-use of the screenshot is what we have. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So how would the readers understanding of the episode be detrementailly damaged (Wikipedia:NFC#Policy_2 #8) if an image of someone else wearing a gasmask was used in it's place? Fasach Nua (talk) 12:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same kid. It's not the same gas mask (which was a custom one created for the episode). It's not illustrative of the same episode. Therefore a generic image would be an inaccurate representation. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would the readers understanding of the episode be detrementailly damaged? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fasach Nua (talk • contribs) 12:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if they wanted to understand how creepy the kid looks. By the way, "detrimentally damaged" is tautologous, in case anybody was paying attention. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 12:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does this creepiness in appearence not extend to any child wearing a similar mask? What is so special about this image Fasach Nua (talk) 13:02, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's from the episode. If we used a generic picture of a boy wearing a mask, it wouldn't be representative (as I've pointed out, the costume is unique), and if we did, one might argue that it doesn't fall under proper fair use because the article is about the episode and the picture isn't from the episode itself. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may also note that 5 days have passed with two keep votes and only one delete from the nom. Can we close this? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 13:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One might argue that, but it would be truly ridiculous! to take a free image apply copyright to it, and then use it under a FU rationale, rather than just take a free image and use it is madness. I am ambivalent to closure at this point, no valid grounds for keeping have been presented and as WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, delete away Fasach Nua (talk) 13:21, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually encountered an argument like that before during discussions about whether a picture was valid for fair use, and it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. To use a generic picture when it's not a generic subject defeats the purpose. It's akin to saying, let's use a Marilyn Monroe impersonator image because it's free rather than a picture of the real person.
As to closure, I am simply suggesting that, rather than an up/down vote, that as it stands there is no consensus, and a suitable period has elapsed for the discussion. I do believe that I have presented valid grounds - just because you've rejected them doesn't mean they're any less valid - so with no consensus after that suitable period, I'd think the status quo applies and this back and forth is simply a waste of time and resources. And the status quo does not mean "delete away", but to keep. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a quite clear consensus, in favour of the Fair use criteria, to say there is no consensus is untrue. I would agree that my opinion in no way alters the validity/invalidity of your arguments. The fact remains that the claim is made "The image provides critical commentary in describing a key moment in the said episode", It is unclear what moment it is referencing, and it is not mentioned in the text Fasach Nua (talk) 14:27, 2 January 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-free image (screenshot of Wikipedia) not used in article space – Quadell(talk) (random) 23:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all; No offense to you Quadell, this isn't directed to any user in particular. This community is incredible, the screenshot was made when WP:HOCKEY got on of our few FA's on the main page, we wanted to show members that it can be done and to work to get more articles featured. 2 out of 3 screenshots were deleted and this one is the only one to survive this far. I have got hundreds of template messages from a bot. I my self often try to get rid of copyright images from wikipedia but when the community try so god dam hard to get rid of an screenshot of the community it self I just don't know what to do.... --Krm500 (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To paraphrase Krm, who did a lot to get that article onto the main page, and oher valuable contributions, it was a screenshot of an ice hockey article being the main page feature, and the pointless, self-contradictory rules are helping to destroy the fabric of Wikipedia. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:25, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wait: This shouldn't be terribly hard to replicate by using the Cologne Blue skin (no Wikipedia logo) on a full screen screenshot (no Firefox logo). But I don't know how to render a replica of the main page for this purpose. Anyone know? Kelvinc (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just find the revision which showed it on front page. ViperSnake151 13:43, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the main page transcludes templates for its content, including featured content. So that won't work directly. But there should be a way. . . I'll look into it. – Quadell(talk) (random) 13:53, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will this do for you? If not, I can try to find a way to recreate the entire mainpage on a given day. . . – Quadell(talk) (random) 14:02, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I was frustrated, and I went over the line. I just think that in some cases the rules can be as Kaiser matias said, self-contradictory. --Krm500 (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
