Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 27

< April 26	April 28 >

April 27

File:Windows-8-m3-screen-shot.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image is in violation of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, clause 4 and 6: It is tagged as permitted by Microsoft but in fact it isn't because the permission grant states: "you may not use screen shots of Microsoft product boot-up screens, opening screens, "splash screens," or screens from beta release products or other products that have not been commercially released." . In fact, this image is not even eligible for fair-use because screenshots of leaked alpha products have the potential to financially damage the producer. Fleet Command (talk) 04:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure Microsoft will survive a screenshot leak. 94.9.218.131 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
- We don't break laws simply because no one objects our doing it. Wikipedia intends to uphold copyright laws and even be stricter on that regard. Read Wikipedia:Non-free content. Fleet Command (talk) 19:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First, this image is not in violation of WP:NFC#4 because it has been published outside Wikipedia. This clause means you cannot create your own original content and upload it as a non-free image. The image came from Microsoft, so clearly it has been published outside Wikipedia. Second, I don't see how this is a violation of WP:NFC#6, as I have read through WP:IUP and haven't found any issues. Third, Microsoft's "Use of Microsoft Copyrighted Content" are simply guidelines set by the company, but it doesn't mean we legally have to abide by each clause. Microsoft's rules are if one wishes to "benefit from Microsoft's automatic permission grant", but sometimes we have to ignore all rules to improve this encyclopedia, so we can go against Microsoft's guidelines and instead ensure it complies with fair use laws. For example, it also says that images of boot screens cannot be used; however, the boot screen article includes an image of the Windows 2000 boot screen to help illustrate it. The screen shot doesn't appear to have a potential to "financially damage" the company, as it is just one screen shot at a low resolution, so I don't see how other companies could be cashing in on it. Uploading multiple screen shots or information such as the operating system's source code would be an issue in that case. The template states that "the use of this screenshot in Wikipedia must comply with Wikipedia Non-free Content Criteria policy", which it does, and more importantly, it still complies with fair use laws. As a side note, the image wasn't complying with NFCC due to its size, but I have since resized the image and replaced the Microsoft copyright tag with a generic software screenshot tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dream out loud (talk • contribs)
- With all due respect, you have overlooked the fact that:
  1. Image must be published, not stolen. (Proponents of euphemism call it Leaked.) This is stolen.
  2. WP:IAR only applies to Wikipedia itself, not community laws. The Microsoft license is a binding contract.
  3. We sometimes use images that violate Microsoft contract under a fair-use defense. This one is not even eligible for fair-use because first, it is a stolen secret; second,. its fair-use rationale is patent-nonsense: The fair-use rationale says "To identify Windows 8". Just tell me: Who needs to identify a program that is still not available to him?
  4. Fake license tags go against NFCC#6. (I believe this issue mitigated.)
  5. The fact that you "don't see" has nothing to do with what is legally right or wrong. Until now, you have justified your lack of proper regard for copyright laws with "I like it".
  Fleet Command (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You never once stated that the image was "stolen". In that case, yes, it would not be appropriate. If that is your reason for nominating this image, then you should have stated that above, and not left it up to other users to make the assumption that that was your reasoning. Just because the software has not been commercially released doesn't necessarily mean any screenshots have been stolen. But your reason for deletion was because it is not allowed in Microsoft's guidelines and that it could potentially damage them financially. Those two arguments are irrelevant. If Microsoft has not, in fact, released this image, then deletion would be appropriate. Ignoring the fact that your main argument was omitted in your nomination, I expressed valid reasoning for my statement above, and "not seeing" how this image violates any laws has absolutely nothing to do with "WP:ILIKEIT". I never said I liked the image or made any argument listed at WP:ATA. If you can prove that this screenshot has been illegally obtained, then I cannot argue against deletion by any means. –Dream out loud (talk) 21:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did mention that it is "leaked". (Read the last sentence in nomination.) Proving it is easy: The screenshot says it is from build 7971. The Windows 8 article (and its source) call it "leaked" (= Stolen). Try to download this build from Microsoft website or legal outlet. You can't. Fleet Command (talk) 12:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- How do we know that this screen has been published anywhere (NFCC #4)? If this is a situation where someone obtained a copy of unreleased Windows 8 software (in a manner not explained) booted it and then photographed the screen, it seems tricky. If the same shot had appeared in the trade press, it would be less worrisome. Also, we do run the risk of posting a made-up image that is not actually from Microsoft. Zanwifi's edit summary when adding this image at Windows 8 was 'Don't Ask.... Please.' This suggests he may not be eager to explain how he obtained the software. He also observed on his own talk page 'It's not fake im saying that there's no way to prove that it is a leaked version'. That does not make me feel any better. There is a supposed Windows 8 screen at neowin.net but it is festooned with Microsoft confidentiality notices. I'd be against using that one also. EdJohnston (talk) 03:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just FYI No "Creditable News Site" can actually clam it's leaked because the screenshot shows no source which is the Microsoft Confidential secondly For all you can know this could be Windows 7 with aero off and with a wallpaper that simmilar a "leaked" build with the Microsoft Confidential text or it could be real all along But theres no way to tell I filled it under the correct templates which was from Windows 7..(just changed the 7 to 8)..Anyway I think it should be kept to just help show what the article is illustrating I mean nothing really major is leaked I can understand if it was a whole new design like if Windows Vista was getting leaked because you can clearly see the difference but this screenshot illustrate just one little change change. Zanwifi (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection. And here comes the uploader! If it is so as you say and no one can tell, this image is eligible for speedy deletion for violating WP:NFCC#10 and WP:NFCC#6 because Wikipedia mandates that each and every screenshot of a commercial product must be well-attributed and show evidence of permission. Otherwise, everyone can put a {{di-no source}} or {{di-no permission}} and delete it unconditionally. Fleet Command (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Objection #2. Everybody knows that right now, Windows 8 is not released to public yet. Therefore, each and every screenshot of it must be either leaked or fake. Both are unacceptable under the current fair-use rationale. The fair-use rationale says "To identify Windows 8". Just tell me: Who needs to identify a program that is still not available to him? Fleet Command (talk) 06:07, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm not so sure I concur with the argument that this image file itself constitutes a violation of policy or U.S. copyright law, but I do believe that it would be wise of us to verify the authenticity of the subject matter that it depicts. We should contact Microsoft's Public Relations department and submit an enquiry, then either document supporting evidence or discard the file accordingly. — C M B J 00:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if this image is not in violation of copyright, it is in violation of at least a couple of NFCC clauses.
  But you are the only one here who thinks so! Even User:Dream out loud, who advised keep acknowledged the fact that this image is in direct violation of Microsoft permission grant and switched the licensing tag to fair-use defense. Now, you speak of contacting Microsoft and asking? Well, by all means waste your time to do that if you are fond of receiving "no" as an answer.
  Fleet Command (talk) 06:17, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm leaning towards delete. Based on the information I have,
1. Windows 8 is currently only distributed to select persons and is therefore an unpublished work.
2. The uploader claims to be the source of the image.
3. It is unlikely that the uploader also previously leaked it to another news organization that published this image.
4. Therefore, as an image of an unpublished work, this image fails WP:NFCC criterion 4 and should therefore be deleted. RJaguar3 | u | t 13:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Hold on! Who said I clam the image it's under copyright templates from Microsoft and as I said above no news site can clam this as it was a popular image that found it's way over news sites Zanwifi (talk) 18:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - From the image description page: "Source: Self Taken, based on the Windows 8 operating system (© Microsoft)." If this is false, then, this image fails criterion WP:NFCC #10, as FleetCommand alluded to above. RJaguar3 | u | t 20:16, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per discussion above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:00, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fast keep. ELeschev (talk) 13:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Then we say "must be published", we say "must be published legally". Microsoft can say nothing, but its silence doesn't make this image publicated legally. Alex Spade (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- NFCC does not require that the work be published under the authorization of the copyright holder. Unpublished non-free works or derivative works thereof that are first posted to Wikipedia are strictly forbidden. However, an unpublished work that is published without the authorization of the copyright holder is nevertheless published under NFCC (but not under copyright law), and is not categorically prohibited. However, I would suggest that images first published by someone apart from Wikipedia without the authorization of the copyright holder must meet elevated standards to satisfy NFCC. This image does not meet the high hurdle in any article in which it is used. RJaguar3 | u | t 18:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't said "must be published under the authorization of the copyright holder", I have said "must be published legally". These are enough different situation. I know that fair-use conception in US copyright law (on which NFCC are based on) allows the publication of unpublished work without permission. Similar possibilities exicts in other (other countries) copyright laws too. But this additional possibility exist not for all cases but for cases when permission of copyright holder is very complex or impossible (author/copyright-holder is unknown, corporations denies truth and etc.). In addition, the (main) article is named "Windows 8", not "Windows 8 alpha/beta/RC". Alex Spade (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - By definition, if it is published without authorization of the copyright holder (excepting 17 USC 107 through 122), or in breach of a contract, it is not published legally. Also, we accept images that violate individual contracts between photographers and other parties (such as an agreement not to take pictures at a museum); those images would also be illegally published. Thus, legal publication cannot be the intended meaning of publication in the context of previous publication in NFCC. RJaguar3 | u | t 01:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - There are enough situation in law (in whole), then same action is both legal (from one POV, one artlice) and illegal (from other(s) one(s)). The court will make final desicion - was action (in whole) legal or illegal. And there are enough situations, then action is illegal from any POV. In our case, we haven't got both authorization of the copyright holder (obviously) and real insurmountable obstacles from it. We must to or can wait a little. Alex Spade (talk) 08:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This goes beyond screens from beta release products or other products that have not been commercially released. Windows 8 is in Alpha or Milestone 3. Users of this development stage are typically under a strict non-disclosure agreement. Typically with a clause like "Your thoughts and opinions are the intellectual property of Microsoft Cooperation. Discussion regarding this product with unauthorized personnel is considered theft, and is punishable to the full extent of the law." So not only is this violating two Microsoft licences but it also violates copyright laws, ect. Charles E. Keisler (talk), A Network and Security Certified 22:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikimedia is not a party to any such contracts between Microsoft and employees and alpha users. RJaguar3 | u | t 03:21, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per the discussion above. And I wouldn't be surprised if Microsoft issued DMCA take-down notices. —Mike Allen 23:33, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe this fails verifiability as genuine Windows 8 screenshot Chris Ssk _talk 11:22, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Powa shot.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A similar non-free image in featured in the same article (File:Powaqqatsi.jpg), therefore we don't need two copies of the same non-free image. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:44, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Vlcsnap-2010-08-18-00h04m55s192.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept - Image is PD and used - Peripitus (Talk) 10:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image can be replaced by text to state the title's definition or to mention that the definition is featured in the film. Fails WP:NFC#1 and WP:NFC#8. –Dream out loud (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Well technically this could be {{pd-text}} but that's not a fight worth having. In the absence of that, then yes, the nom is correct, at least with WP:NFC#1, probably with WP:NFC#8 as well. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This item is not eligible for copyright in the first place. It IS {{pd-text}}. Since when do we delete images just because "well, I know it isn't copyrighted, but we'll use the criteria of copyrighted stuff to delete it." Complete misapplication of policy here folks. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:RussellVarian.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn Sven Manguard Wha? 02:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free portrait of a person used to illustrate an article on a company he founded. The portrait does not identify the article; this logo might do that. There is no commentary on the portrait, and its use does not significantly increase reader understanding of the article. —teb728 t c 06:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No article yet on the individual, image of founder relevant to the company, where's the policy that says this exceeds the scope of fair use? Very helpful to increase understanding of some of the pioneers of Silicon Valley. Also see no violation of WP:NFC#UUI, though am open to review of other relevant policies at work here. Seems overly restrictive, particularly as links to individuals redirect to this article. No objection to adding the logo, of course, except that probably violates some other rule. Sigh. I suppose now I have to go write two biography stubs to save the images. SIgh...Montanabw^(talk) 15:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Follow up': Created biography Russell and Sigurd Varian. Hope this saves the images. Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (by nominator) in Russell and Sigurd Varian (removing the photographer credit per WP:CREDITS) and Remove from Varian Associates. Thanks for creating the bio; surprisingly a joint bio makes encyclopedic sense here. In reply to your comments: WP:NFCC intentionally exceeds the scope of fair use; criterion 8 is the policy most relevant here. I mentioned the logo not to suggest using it but only because a logo is what is used (if anything) to identify an article about a company. —teb728 t c 23:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Implemented: The images were removed from Varian Associates and kept in the article of the people themselves. As the nominator has now voted keep, this is effectively withdrawn. I'm doing a non-admin close. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SigurdVarian.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn Sven Manguard Wha? 02:35, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free portrait of a person used to illustrate an article on a company he founded. The portrait does not identify the article; this logo might do that. There is no commentary on the portrait, and its use does not significantly increase reader understanding of the article. —teb728 t c 06:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No article yet on the individual, image of founder relevant to the company, where's the policy that says this exceeds the scope of fair use? Very helpful to increase understanding of some of the pioneers of Silicon Valley. Also see no violation of WP:NFC#UUI, though am open to review of other relevant policies at work here. Seems overly restrictive, particularly as links to individuals redirect to this article. No objection to adding the logo, of course, except that probably violates some other rule. Sigh. I guess I gotta go write this biography too. :-P Montanabw^(talk) 15:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Follow up': Created Russell and Sigurd Varian. Hope this saves the images. Montanabw^(talk) 18:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (by nominator) in Russell and Sigurd Varian (removing the photographer credit per WP:CREDITS) and Remove from Varian Associates. —teb728 t c 23:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- Implemented: The images were removed from Varian Associates and kept in the article of the people themselves. As the nominator has now voted keep, this is effectively withdrawn. I'm doing a non-admin close. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:36, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Longifolene.PNG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality image, orphaned (replaced in Longifolene). Leyo 07:40, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Levetiracetam.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted as F1 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor resolution, orphaned/replaced by File:Levetiracetam Structural Formulae.png and File:Levetiracetam.svg. Leyo 07:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep This is a free image, and the images listed as orphan/replacing this are of different chemical structures that this image. As they are not the same thing, all should be kept. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They all show the same molecule. I am not sure about your knowledge in chemistry. --Leyo 18:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Chemistry knowledge is irrelevant, what's important is that they are not all the same image. Based on the same principal that there are multiple correct ways of illustrating the same thing (in this example "triangle"), that we have two other ways of illustrating this molecule is not a particularly good reason to get rid of a third, especially since they are all PD. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:46, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  (Simple) chemical structure are necessarily PD (otherwise it would be copyfraud). Hence, that's no argument. And sure, every molecule can be depicted in dozens of different ways. This image is simply too small to be useful. --Leyo 07:40, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Georges Remi.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photo copied from some copyright infringing website. No information on the photo's copyright holder, author or copyright status is known. Damiens.rf 18:32, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normally, I'd make the argument that a non-free image could be justified for a non-living person, and as long as the FUR was in place, it would be all good. However, it's clear looking at the source site that this can't be properly attributed. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete...but replace with a sourced image (preferably a free one): [1] — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Tintin in the Land of the Soviets pane.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:07, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a random decorative non-free scan of a comic strip. Not sure why seeing this specific scene is important to the article's reader. Damiens.rf 18:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not really add to the article not free = has to go. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is the very first scene in the entire series to feature the image of Tintin. It is therefore of vital importance to this page. It also illustrates the drawing style that Herge used in this comic, something which is discussed in the article.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
- The first two sentences is a non-sequitur. And the other scenes already in the article can be used to support the discussion about the drawing style. --Damiens.rf 12:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I checked a mess of places (to include the copyright laws themselves in Belgium), but this comic strip is well and firmly copyrighted. As other illustrations are already in use which depict the information purported to be irreplaceable, I see no reason to keep this image. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:22, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Angry King in Tintin.JPG

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Kept and moved - Peripitus (Talk) 11:03, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a random decorative non-free scan of a comic strip. Not sure why seeing this specific scene is important to the article's reader. Damiens.rf 18:38, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move & Keep Ideally, this should be moved to the "Colonialism and racism" section, where it could easily be justified by the text. At the same time, File:BaBaorum in Tintin.JPG also would serve to illustrate the racism aspect, however I think that this file would do a slightly better job of it. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I honestly don't see how this image can be helpful for the discussion about racism on the comic book. Is it just because it shows some black characters? --Damiens.rf 04:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - This current image does depict the highly stereotypical - and thereby racist - style (i.e. big red lips, gaumless expression) in which the Congolese characters in the book are portrayed. For this reason I would strongly argue retaining this image.(Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
    - If the article discusses (with sources) about these racist stereotypical characteristics being used on the comic, than one image illustrating this can be used. The image should be preferably be used next to the text it supports and the fair use rationale should made it clear this is the purpose of use. --Damiens.rf 12:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move & Keep seems the most sensible policy to me. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Move... with the codicil that there be some additional comment made specific to the image within the article (as an example of...). And agree that this image would be a better choice than File:BaBaorum in Tintin.JPG. Skier Dude (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just needs to be moved. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Lolo Soetoro Ann Dunham Maya Soetoro-Ng Barack Obama.jpg

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete - While there are strong and weak arguments on both sides of the debate, disregarding the opinions not policy based the consensus is that the image does not pass NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed semi-speedy. The current rationale explains nothing of what the image is adding to the article, or why it is needed. The article already has multiple non-free images of the subject; admittedly, none of them are with her husband, but, bluntly, I fail to see why the facial features of her husband are important enough to warrant the use of a non-free image. Yes, it's her husband- I think we can all guess that they sometimes posed together. Why is a non-free image needed? J Milburn (talk) 21:03, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article in question has 3 images, one of the article subject, a family shot with her with her first husband, a family shot with her second husband, both of whom are discussed in the article. It clearly contributes to the article. --Insider201283 (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact someone is discussed in an article is not a reason to include a non-free image of them with the subject of the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a decorative use of a non-free image. As stated, the look of this lady's husband/family is not material to the article. --Damiens.rf 22:21, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Why is it assumed that this photo is not free? The campaign released it and others, which are used in news media all the time, yet we argue about whether they are free. It's not decorative, it's a picture of the subject and her family, central to this biography, that obviously illustrates the section of the article that talks about her 2nd marriage. Tvoz/talk 23:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What it means for your for an image to be free? --Damiens.rf 00:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, this image is in fact not free. Looking at the releases, there is nothing to indicate that they had been placed in the public domain, rather copies were made available for the press to use, which is a standard industry practice. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is assumed non-free until proven to be free. And yes, it does illustrate that section- no one is denying that. Again, please take a look at our non-free content guidelines. The simple fact that it accurately illustrate something is not a reason to keep a non-free image- it has to illustrate something that actually needs to be illustrated to be understood. Yes, there is a consensus that a single image of the subject of a biography meets our NFCC, but this does not extend to family photographs or multiple photographs at different stages of their life. J Milburn (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A crop of this image was used for the article on Lolo Soetoro. That's fine with me, as the sole person depicted is Lolo. This image, however, is a non free image with living people in it (notably, the president) and on top of that, really dosen't add much to the article it's used in. The other non-free image used in the same paragraph is higher quality. Sure, it dosen't have Lolo in it, but weighing all the factors, I am for removing this image. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:49, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The only image in the article that depicts the entire family, including her husband. This is historically important. The photograph of Lolo Soetoro depicts him with his wife and children as a family in a section about and titled "Family life and marriages". The photo is explicitly used to illustrate the subject. Arguments for removal claim that the appearance of the husband are not enough, however, this photograph illustrates the family together in a manner conducive to helping the reader understand what life was like for Dunham and her family from 1965-1971, a significant period of time described by the text. Photo is not replaceable; no free use images are known to exist. Viriditas (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the reader meant to understand about the family from seeing this picture? This needs to be explained in the fair use rationale. I see a generic posed family picture, with nothing especially informative meeting the eye. --Avenue (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep At the most fundemental level, this shows what she looked like. Each and every image of a person shows something different. This one shows what she looked like at that time and in that setting, from mood, to clothing, to background. The list is very long. For visitors interested in the person, the more the better. Also, this shows her in a context: with her husband. That is important because plenty of details can be gleaned from such a photo as compared to a shot of her without her husband. A picture says a thousand words, and this one, although trivial to some, reveals a thousand bits of interesting information. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 06:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Using that argument, any image of the subject of the article would be fair game. We already have a non-free image of the subject of the article- you can't just load the article with as many free images as you like, vaguely claiming that each one offers "a thousand bits of interesting information". The fact you think this is a reason to "speedy keep" really makes me doubt your understanding of our non-free content guidelines and non-free content criteria. J Milburn (talk) 08:40, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - you can't just load the article with as many free images as you like - why not? If they add to the article, why not? --Insider201283 (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The use of non-free content is limited by our deliberately strict (and deliberately stricter than law) non-free content criteria. The use of non-free content needs to be kept to an absolute minimum- specifically, note the fact that multiple items are not used when one would suffice (so it's rare that multiple non-free images of a subject in a biography are going to be justified) and items need to have "significance", not just relevance- that is, they are used only if they (the images) add significantly to articles in question. So, in this case, merely discussing her husband does not mean that a non-free image of him is warranted- you would have to demonstrate that his appearance was significant enough to that article (that is, the article on Dunham) that readers would have to see a picture to fully understand it (the article on Dunham). This just simply does not seem to be the case here- this seems to be a fairly textbook case of an unwarranted non-free image. J Milburn (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - ...you can't just load the article with as many free images as you like...: Am I missing something here? The image only appears in Ann Dunham, right? The article only has three images and it's a big article. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - We don't judge the legitimacy of non-free content on the number in an article and the article's size, we judge it on its own merits. My comment was specifically in response to the argument, which seems to lead to the conclusion that close to any photo (and many photos) of the subject are all legit. There is a general consensus that a single image of the subject in a biography meets our NFCC if irreplaceable, but your view that "Each and every image of a person shows something different" (and so multiple images can be justified) is very much a fringe view. J Milburn (talk) 08:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- - The article is a little bald on images, that's all, from the point of view of visitors. That's what the project is supposed to be about, right? When I visit an article on a person, I want to see lots of pictures of them.

- - A fringe view would be saying that there is value in every picture of the same kitchen with a blowfly sitting here and then there. (That would also be a "fridge view".) But photos of a person, especially taken years apart, in different contexts, certainly show something different in each and has value. That is not a fringe view I am sure. Cheers, :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm talking about a fringe view with relation to our policy, which your argument is. Yes, from a reader and even an editor perspective, it'd be great if we could load articles with plenty of pictures. Sometimes we are able to, because we have access to free content. See, for instance, Elizabeth II, where we have images of the subject as an infant, child, young woman, middle aged woman and older woman. However, it is not always the case, and sometimes long articles must be left with only one (or sometimes not a single) image of the subject, simply because free content does not exist. This is regrettable, but it is part of our free content mission. J Milburn (talk) 09:38, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to read up a bit about these sorts of images, and I understand what you mean. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, then, you would like to strike your early comments suggesting this image should be speedily kept? J Milburn (talk) 16:30, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear significant encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you please be a little more specific? J Milburn (talk) 16:25, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and a lesson in what WP:NFCC is, and our m:Mission for those who want to keep this, the image in question is not critical to the understanding of the subject (Obama). Its inclusion does not pass WP:NFCC#8
Contextual significance. 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
this image is just there as eye candy. If someone can tell me how not having this specific file would be detrimental to that understanding of who the president of the U.S.A. is please do. But you cannot come up with a reason that holds water, because it is eye candy. ΔT _{^{The only constant}} 16:37, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Someone needs a lesson, that's for sure. You seem to have based your entire argument for deletion on your own misunderstanding of the topic, and as such, your opinion should be discarded by the closer. This has nothing to do with understanding "who the president" is as you claim. This image is used in an article about Ann Dunham in a section about her family. It is historically significant and irreplaceable. The image illustrates and depicts her marriage and is representative of her family life from the period described in the section. The image shows the reader what her family life was like and gives the reader insight into her husband and responsibilities with her children. It does not decorate anything nor does it have anything to do with Obama. Viriditas (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Decorative photograph that doesn't aid the reader's understanding of the topic, so fails WP:NFCC#8. Royal broil 04:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that there is nothing "decorative" about the photo and by all accounts contributes to the understanding of her family life during this period as outlined in the text. What was her family life like during this period of time? The photo clearly illustrates her marriage and parental responsibilities. It does not "decorate" anything. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's to stop us from describing "her marriage and parental responsibilities" in the text? Why precisely do we need a picture to say "she was married and had parental responsibilities"? J Milburn (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only a very weak rationale is given, that the photo does "depict Lolo Soetoro and Ann Dunham". Even if that were expanded to say that the photo depicts them together while they were married, it is still essentially only saying that the image is decorative. How does the image significantly improve the reader's understanding of the topic? The rationale doesn't say. I tend to agree with some of the arguments above that the image doesn't contribute significantly, and I don't see how to improve the rationale enough to meet our criteria, specifically WP:NFCC #8 on contextual significance. It needs to be greatly improved before this image can be kept. --Avenue (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The article on Ann Dunham was viewed 157,000 times in the last thirty days. While being parsimonious in our use of non-free images it would be better to economize elsewhere. This is a popular article, not everyone may read it top to bottom, and readers may quickly retain salient facts about her second marriage by viewing the image. (In this case the 'significantly increases readers' understanding' clause ought to be considered). It also helps to illustrate the relative ages of the family members at the time of the photo. In my opinion the NFCC #1 criterion 'Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text..' is met, since it is hard to imagine text that would replace the role of this image. EdJohnston (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that this is a highly viewed article is an argument in favour of making sure our NFCC are enforced strictly, not a reason to pass over it. Could you please explain why you feel that this image is necessary in this article in particular, or are you under the impression that a picture showing a husband and wife would be justified in any article on one of the partners? J Milburn (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2011 (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.