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.
copyright image used to describe key moment of episode, but uploader has not revealed what the key moment is Fasach Nua (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:NFCC does not state a requirement for uploader to "reveal what the key moment is". Key moment is described in article and image caption. — Edokter • Talk • 00:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the policy quite clearly states a detailed fair use rationale is required, it cannot be justified under FU criteria unless the rationale reveals the reason why the image is there Fasach Nua (talk) 07:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ask the user to explain what the key moment is. In this case it is the revelation of school geek Carl as a child Slitheen in Revenge of the Slitheen. StuartDDcontributions 09:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is being only used on the Slitheen page, and in replaceable there by another image of the Slitheen. StuartDDcontributions 11:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe it would have been a good idea for the FUR to have been updated when the image was re-purposed. If that were done, then this wouldn't be an issue. Or would "For identification purposes in conjunction with discussion of the topic of the article." not have worked? If that is the case then no image would work. If it will, then Keep and fix the FUR. - J Greb (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Simply needs a better FUR explanation. That a better screenshot might exist is immaterial. If a better one is uploaded, then we can delete this one under WP:FUR. 131.44.121.252 (talk) 23:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - image does significantly help the reader to understand the article; slight rewording of rationale needed per above. Addhoc (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept. No consensus to delete for reason given. -Nv8200ptalk 01:32, 18 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
copyright image used to describe key moment of episode, but uploader has not revealed what the key moment is Fasach Nua (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:NFCC does not state a requirement for uploader to "reveal what the key moment is". Key moment is described in article and image caption. — Edokter • Talk • 00:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the policy quite clearly states a detailed fair use rationale is required, it cannot be justified under FU criteria unless the rationale reveals the reason why the image is there Fasach Nua (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As above, ask user to explain key moment - in this case (as explained by the comment on the World War Three (Doctor Who) page it is the Slitheen inside Downing street waiting for the permission to use nuclear weapons. StuartDDcontributions 10:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rationale is okay. The specific scene is commented upon in the article, most in particular the red telephone used for the nuclear launch codes, which in itself is both an allusion to the Cold War and an anatopism. Will(talk) 10:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds a bit like OR, but if the readers are unable to visualise a red phone without reference to a photgraph of this one, we could crop the phone, and only use that Fasach Nua (talk) 13:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - If there is an absolute need to have an image for the episode, this is as serviceable as any other frame from it. This does point up the problem with infobox images for episodes: there are a lot more episodes that don't have that one, quintessential identifying moment than those that do. - J Greb (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept. No consensus to delete for reason given. -Nv8200ptalk 01:39, 18 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This image was kept at its 18 December 2007 IfD; however, DRV overturned that result because the IfD tag was removed from the image after less than two hours, and never replaced, preventing the possibility of a full discussion. For a full list of the image's defects, see the first debate. Delete per inadequate fair use rationale. Xoloz (talk) 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - it looks like an RFU image, although the gas mask design was unique. I think we'd be better off with getting an image from the episode both representative of most of the plot and unreplacable. Will(talk) 17:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete - similar to above, can be replaced by an image more key to the plot. StuartDDcontributions 20:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Image is rationaled to "provide critical commentary in describing a key moment in the said episode." This copyrighted image of a gas mask, while unique to the production of "The Empty Child", does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding; the topic itself being "The Empty Child" as a whole (WP:NFCC#8). — pd_THOR|=/\= | 03:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlike the above image, this one comes off as a random selection, not evocative of the episode or any plot point with int. - J Greb (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't greatly help the reader to understand the plot. Addhoc (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tag as fair-use and write rationale as it contributes significantly to the article it is in. Carcharoth (talk) 12:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that is not an option. There is no sourcing given for the covers used in the collage and its placement in the Nazi punk article is not accompanied by any critical commentary of these specific albums. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 00:53, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopedic image intended for promotional use on Wikipedia. As an aside, the contributing user's page is also up for deletion for similar reasons. jonny-mt 03:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One Wikipedian's photoshopped concept of an expanded Kyle Field, violates Wikipedia's policy on original research. Also, where did the original photo come from? -- B (talk) 03:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
original photo came from here, but they have since taken that image down. No original authorship was stated on the image at the time and an altered image of a PR photo I believe qualifies under fair use. Should it be marked as such?
Furthermore, this does not violate WP:NOR as such a concept has been discussed. This is merely an illustration of such a concept. If it is not acceptable on the Kyle Field page, then it certainly can be left on my user page and need not be deleted altogether. — BQZip01 —talk 04:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have no rights to grant someone else a license to use a TAMU-authored photo. So we cannot use it as a "free" image and on Wikipedia, it does NOT meet our non-free content requirements because it is replaceable - the building exists now, so you could take a photo of it yourself and photoshop that. But more than that, even if that concept has been expressed, you are making assumptions about how it will look and that's original research. --B (talk) 04:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I guess we disagree, it is simply one artist's interpretation. If modification of a fair use image is not appropriate, then please remove the image altogether, but I'm pretty sure I am in the right here under U.S. law (...and yes, I know that U.S. law does not necessarily apply to Wikipedia, but it certainly applies to the creation of said image). If I need to specify another license, then please tell me what should have been used. — BQZip01 —talk 05:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus is Delete, then delete it. I guess we disagree on application of policy/guidelines. If its use in an article (versus a user page) is in question, then the appropriate place is discussion on that talk page. I have removed said image from the page, so its active use is strictly on a user page now. — BQZip01 —talk 06:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether you could use this image outside of Wikipedia under a claim of fair use is not something that I can tell you (Wikipedia doesn't give legal advice - you would need to ask a lawyer). Some schools are territorial about such things and others don't care if you aren't trying to sell it. But on Wikipedia, because it is considered replaceable, it does not meet our non-free content policy. --B (talk) 06:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so we were talking about "rights" and that's what I was focusing on, but I can see how WP policy might differ.
Can we agree that said picture may be perfectly acceptable as an application of legal fair use (as I interpreted it IAW WP policy & US law), but that such an image does not fall under Wikipedia's application of fair use and associated policies/guidelines? — BQZip01 —talk 21:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]
In terms of whether it is legally fair use, Wikipedia does not give legal advice. That said, there is no exact standard in the law - in other words, it doesn't say you can do x, y, and z. Fair use is a defense against a copyright infringement claim, not something that is secured beforehand. So you would have to answer the question for yourself, based on fair use law whether or not your use meets the standards. For Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy #1 says we only use a fair use image when no free equivalent could be created. Obviously, in this case, anyone could take a camera to Kyle Field and take a picture of it - it's unquestionably replaceable. --B (talk) 04:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But an image of a possible expansion is not replaceable as one doesn't exist. Or are we talking about the original photo here? I'm confused. Furthermore, with the regulations implemented since September 11th, you cannot fly above the stadium like this and get such a picture during a game, so, no the image is NOT replaceable. — BQZip01 —talk 10:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Licensing is wrong; if fair use is claimed, it's still an unnecessary non-free image. -- RG2 06:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Bad license per others, user's analysis of project goals is original research that does not fall under the exemptions for images. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the interests of full disclosure, this diff shows something of CC's perspective on my editing. Please consider it in your decision. — BQZip01 —talk 10:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it's at all relevant to the actual content of his statement above... -- RG2 11:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the relevance here. When I say "project goals," I mean your interpretation of the design and construction of Kyle Field, nothing else. I apologize if that was unclear. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to get too much off topic here, but I was specifically refering to WP:NPA where it states you shouldn't use "...someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views." Since it doesn't apply, and no malice was intended, I hereby withdraw my initial reaction to your comment. Damn the English language and its imprecise lexicology! — BQZip01 —talk 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This image was tagged incorrectly since it was a derivative work and should simply have been annoted correctly. I can also see how some people think this image should be deleted. While I still think it is an appropriate image (not in violation with WP:OR), since it is no longer being used on the Kyle Field article, there is no longer a need for this fair use image on Wikipedia and it should be deleted. Furthermore, I will remove the image from my sub-user page. If a fair use reason for it comes up for it in the future, it can always be re-uploaded. I would like to reiterate that I still believe this was a tagging error, not a violation of WP:NOR. — BQZip01 —talk 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation. This is a derivative work based on a photograph retreived from a stolen cellphone. The flickr user who uploaded this photoshop acknowledges this in the picture comments[7]. The only modification to the original photo is the insertion of the fingers and sidekick. The original photo may be seen at [8] (NSFW). ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the photoshopped image is licensed under {{cc-by-nc-2.0}}, so the nomination is moot. Deleted per WP:CSD#I3. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 05:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus how many edit conflicts do I have to endure before I get a word in edgewise?? The parody is clearly protected under Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. If I can get proper license can it stay? ClaudeReigns (talk) 05:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hustler v Falwell dealt with freedom of speech, not copyright. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was used solely on Evan McCandless, which was speedily deleted because the person, Evan McCandless, is not notable. As this is a picture of him, it probably doesn't need to be here on Wikipedia, either. Lilac Soul(talk • contribs • count) 09:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Logo for a non-notable artist, whose article Krayzed was speedily deleted. Image is thus now orphaned, and unlikely to ever be used encyclopedically. Lilac Soul(talk • contribs • count) 10:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Images watermarked with URL or external commercial site. User is also spamming articles with the same URL. The JPStalk to me 12:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commons - reasonable quality image, appropriate licence Fasach Nua (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic image used only on vanity page Mayalld (talk) 16:30, 7 January 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.
Unencyclopedis, it's just a load of people, who probably have not consented to be photographed, in a shop; also, the image is way too large. Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
popularity - Shows Tesco's populaity and how busy it can get! Abfab27 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The image gives an excellent representation of a typical Tesco store layout and shows the new self-service checkouts. This deletion nomination is totally bad faith and there is no grounds for it. Consent is not needed for an image like this. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 23:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
commons - Also shows queueing Fasach Nua (talk) 14:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete If this photograph was taken on private property(ie inside the store) of people without their consent, then it is a violation the UK's data protection act, and therefore illegal Fasach Nua (talk) 19:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Clearly you have no idea what the data protection act covers and whom it protects. The image is perfectly free so your rationale is incorrect. └and-rew┘┌talk┐ 02:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep - This image should only be kept if there are other verifiable sources already being cited in the article about the amount of traffic through Tesco. If this image is being used a primary source for that statement it fails the OR exemption for images and should be deleted.Cumulus Clouds (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is not being used in the way I described, is a clear, encyclopedic and free photograph and the rationale used by the nominator is not a violation of Wikipedia policy. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image kept. No consensus to delete. -Nv8200ptalk 02:55, 16 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
don't need back cover of album Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment: its not the complete back cover of the album, its just a detail cropped from it. the purpose was obviously to illustrate the band rather than the album. After all, the pic is not in record sleeve ratio as you can see. I think it should not be deleted, I can write detailed fair use rationale. --Dzole (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CV. Yes I know that stands for Copyright Violation, but here it's also an actual CV, of the Prime Minister of Kuwait, apparently. I'm pretty sure it's useless and also pretty sure it's not GFDL. Orphan file. Absentee uploader. • Anakin(contribs • complaints) 20:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's somebody's Curriculum Vitae. Not at all useful. Orphaned file. Absentee uploader (this upload was their only contribution). • Anakin(contribs • complaints) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Krytoh first uploaded from a copyrighted site without cc-by-sa-2.5 proven. The fourth version uploaded by user:Trainedintheartofhate is unsourced, likely a copyvio. Other versions are the same and now on commons:WestPalmBeach1885. As this is now orphan and its name is too generic, I would like to suggest deleting it and locking it out to stop further overwriting. Jusjih (talk) 21:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commons showing through. -Nv8200ptalk 02:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic. Orphaned. Just somebody using us as a free webhost. File was their only contribution. • Anakin(contribs • complaints) 21:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic. Orphaned. Just somebody using us as a free webhost. Absentee uploader. • Anakin(contribs • complaints) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic. Orphaned. Just somebody using us as a free webhost for their CV. Absentee uploader. • Anakin(contribs • complaints) 21:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic. Orphaned. Just somebody using us as a free webhost for their CV. Absentee uploader. • Anakin(contribs • complaints) 21:47, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic. Orphaned. Just somebody using us as a free webhost for their CV. Absentee uploader. • Anakin(contribs • complaints) 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic. Orphaned. Just somebody using us as a free webhost for their CV. Absentee uploader. • Anakin(contribs • complaints) 21:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unencyclopedic. Orphaned. Just somebody using us as a free webhost for their CV. Absentee uploader. • Anakin(contribs • complaints) 22:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AFinding_Kraftland_poster.jpg&diff=182659204&oldid=178033216){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AThe_Legend_of_Sasquatch_poster.jpg&diff=182659848&oldid=178034244){kind=link}
_On_single_back.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_On_single_back.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
_On_single_back.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
_On_single_back.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
