Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 5: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 06:19, 21 February 2023

< August 4	August 6 >

August 5

Image:Audioslave-beyourself-musicvideo.jpg

Image:Audioslave-beyourself-musicvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gocsa (notify | contribs).

Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a section of the article of the single is devoted to the style and substance of the video itself. An image of a video enhances the section. Tarc 05:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may enhance the section, but it's not required for reader understanding. howcheng {chat} 18:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BYLMphoto4.jpg

Image:BYLMphoto4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Max24 (notify | contribs).

Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a section of the article of the single is devoted to the style and substance of the video itself. An image of a video enhances the section. Max24 011:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One sentence is not a section. 17Drew 10:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HUN_005.jpg

Image:HUN_005.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Edwardx (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:47, 5 August 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.

Image:BadDayVideo.png

Image:BadDayVideo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 17Drew (notify | contribs).

~~Delete per WP:NFCC#8, decorative image that does not increase readers; understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Keep. Quickly shows the reader the concept of girl on left, boy on right, split screen story telling that is both an unusual device and central to the theme of the video. An excellent illustration of the video. Perhaps only aided by the addition of a second still frame showing the completed heart. --Knulclunk 01:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[edit conflict] How's that? It illustrates the video's use of splitscreen as well and the two characters discussed in the section about the music video. 17Drew 01:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a non-free image is needed to demonstrate the concept of split screen? Wouldn't words do this just as well? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:06, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should I as a reader, have to look up the film device splitscreen? The effectiveness of the device at displaying both separate and together relationships over time is conveyed much better with an illustration than with words. But, if the splitscreen is not used for the majority of the plot portions of the video, I will concede. --Knulclunk 02:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Splitscreen and parallelism are the two techniques used to show the lives of the two characters. Since illustrating the parallelism would require two different screenshots to be used, using one of the splitscreen requires the least copyrighted material to be used. Plus, the screenshot identifies the two characters being discussed in the section. 17Drew 02:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I see. (Plus I downloaded the video and checked it out.) Withdrawing nom, thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn. howcheng {chat} 17:57, 14 August 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Beetlebum_2.jpg

Image:Beetlebum_2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moochocoogle (notify | contribs).

Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RUMUN - 11-19-06 - CHURCHILL AND EBAY DID IT!!!!.JPG

Image:RUMUN - 11-19-06 - CHURCHILL AND EBAY DID IT!!!!.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Apfaq (notify | contribs).

Unused, unencyclopedic, apparent vanity. The photograph depicts some high school students who won something. — Postdlf 03:39, 5 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete - seems to spell name wrong, contradicts self with author=someone else. ALTON .ıl 02:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Yeti5.jpg

Image:Yeti5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lizard King (notify | contribs).

GFDL presumed, Orphaned MER-C 05:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Veldwezelt1.jpg

Image:Veldwezelt1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Patrick MMA Bringmans (notify | contribs).

GFDL presumed, Orphaned MER-C 06:02, 5 August 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.

Image:US_presidential_election_2004_results_by_county.jpg

Image:US_presidential_election_2004_results_by_county.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Diegofrieden (notify | contribs).

GFDL presumed, Orphaned MER-C 06:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Linked useful image into United States presidential election, 2004 --Knulclunk 15:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - more precise than the image below it on the linked page. ALTON .ıl 02:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - very questionable whether there is enough added creativity in this image to qualify for copyright at all. Jheald 09:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept and changed to {{PD-ineligible}}. howcheng {chat} 17:23, 14 August 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Joelmchale.jpg

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

Publicity image of living person replaceable with free use image — Ejfetters 06:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

Image:Cat cora.jpg

Image:Cat cora.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Crunch (notify | contribs).

Promotional fair use image for living person replaceable with free use image — Ejfetters 06:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

Image:Mark Dacascos.jpg

Image:Mark Dacascos.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pegasus1138 (notify | contribs).

Promotional fair use image for living person, replaceable with free use image — Ejfetters 06:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

Image:Kevin Brauch 001.jpg

Image:Kevin Brauch 001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Crypticfirefly (notify | contribs).

Promotional fair use image for living person, replaceable with free use image — Ejfetters 07:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

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:

Image:Duff Goldman of Charm City Cakes.jpg

Image:Duff Goldman of Charm City Cakes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Junglecat (notify | contribs).

Copyright tag says its usable for any purpose, but no proof has been given. Image is a fair use promo photo replaceable with a free use one — Ejfetters 07:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC).
Did not realize this was already a nom for deletion before, sorry. Ejfetters 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
This was resolved on Images and media for deletion/2007 July 13. Many thanks. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 17:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, my apologies again, I withdraw my nom. Ejfetters 04:08, 6 August 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.

Image:Pauladeen.jpg

Image:Pauladeen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Air.dance (notify | contribs).

Fair use image of living person, replaceable with a free use one — Ejfetters 07:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC).

Delete - fair use does not apply. ALTON .ıl 03:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:U.S._one_dollar_obverse.jpg

Image:U.S._one_dollar_obverse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Minesweeper (notify | contribs).

Unuesd, it like Image:United States one dollar bill, obverse.jpg OsamaK 08:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this version is clearer and cleaner, but the overwhelming popularity of the latter renders this unnecessary. ALTON .ıl 03:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gp14_sailmarking.png

Image:Gp14_sailmarking.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alexx.net (notify | contribs).

A vector version of this image is also available OsamaK 08:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:1348_LOR_ExpSym.jpg

Image:1348_LOR_ExpSym.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lifebaka (notify | contribs).

A vector version of this image is also available OsamaK 12:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I fully support the removal of this image, in that case. --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 20:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TRAŚh.PNG

Image:TRAŚh.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, orphaned image unusable in Wiki main space M0RD00R 12:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lwów.PNG

Image:Lwów.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, orphaned, inflammatory image unusable in Wiki main space M0RD00R 12:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ostpreußen.PNG

Image:Ostpreußen.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, orphaned image unusable in Wiki main space M0RD00R 12:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pure vanity, I vote delete for the whole gallery. ALTON .ıl 03:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elbing Westpreussen.PNG

Image:Elbing Westpreussen.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, orphaned image unusable in Wiki main spaceM0RD00R 12:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Keep Hands Off Polish Lands!.PNG

Image:Keep Hands Off Polish Lands!.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, orphaned image unusable in Wiki main space M0RD00R 12:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prussian Canadian.PNG

Image:Prussian Canadian.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space cadet (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, orphaned image unusable in Wiki main spaceM0RD00R 12:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nohelmets.PNG

Image:Nohelmets.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic orphaned image unusable in Wiki main space M0RD00R 12:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Prussian Crow.JPG

Image:Prussian Crow.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Space Cadet (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, low quality, orphaned image never to be used in Wiki main space M0RD00R 11:57, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:LandhisTea.PNG

Image:LandhisTea.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AshumsTheMoose (notify | contribs).

Claims to fall under fair use but has no fair use rationale, insufficient source information, uploader has been inactive since March 2007. — -- SilentAria ^talk 12:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Raistlindaughter.JPG

Image:Raistlindaughter.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ddcc (notify | contribs).

Claims to fall under fair use but has no fair use rationale. — -- SilentAria ^talk 12:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Raistvesterossa.jpg

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

Claims to fall under fair use but has no fair use rationale, insufficient source information. — -- SilentAria ^talk 12:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P raistlin3.jpg

Image:P raistlin3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vianna (notify | contribs).

Claims to fall under fair use but has no fair use rationale, insufficient source information. — -- SilentAria ^talk 12:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nostalgic Prussian.PNG

Image:Nostalgic Prussian.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Space Cadet (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, orphaned image never to be used in Wiki main space M0RD00R 12:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was Speedy delete, used only for repeatedly deleted vanity article. NawlinWiki 13:40, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Phoenix Vanessa at home.jpg

Image:Phoenix Vanessa at home.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by OhSoSofaay (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic, orphaned image. Onnaghar ^{tl | co | @} 13:25, 5 August 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:BuchloeWappen.jpg

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

it's like Image:Wappen Buchloe.png and it's jpg OsamaK 14:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If jpg is a problem, I can easily upload a png version for you. Also, you argue that the Cölbe coat of arms is no good because another file is "bigger and better", but the substitute that you've named here is certainly not bigger, and I would say that the mottling at the lower left lets it out as being better. Kelisi 16:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, You know PNG better for this image. and I know you can :). DELETE--OsamaK 21:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:De_tubingen_coat.png

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

A vector version of this image is also available OsamaK 14:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No source and Image:Wappen Ohrekreis.png is bigger. OsamaK 14:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've taken the liberty of changing the two. However, I do have suspicions that the 'bigger' one is not suitable since it's not as accurate. ALTON .ıl 03:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:De_muldental_coat.png

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

No source and Image:Wappen Muldentalkreis.svg is bigger and it's SVG. OsamaK 14:29, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:De_maintauber_coat.png

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

No source and Image:Wappen Main-Tauber-Kreis.png is bigger. OsamaK 14:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:De_ludwigslust_coat.png

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

No source and Image:Wappen Landkreis Ludwigslust.png is bigger and better. OsamaK 14:33, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:De_lippe_coat.png

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

No source and Image:Kreiswappen des Kreises Lippe.png is bigger and better. OsamaK 14:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CölbeWappen.png

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

~~No source~~ and Image:Wappen Cölbe.svg is bigger and better. OsamaK 14:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is untrue. The file says it was "created by me", and it was. Kelisi 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, There is better version, SVG.--OsamaK 09:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:De_borken_coat.png

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

No source and Image:Kreis Borken coa.svg is bigger and better. OsamaK 14:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aschersleben_stassfurt_coa.jpg

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

No source and Image:Wappen Landkreis Aschersleben-Stassfurt.png is bigger and better. OsamaK 14:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mainz.jpg

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

No source and Image:Wappen-Mainz.svg is bigger and better. OsamaK 14:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gerb_ir.jpg

Image:Gerb_ir.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Juliya2000 (notify | contribs).

Image:Coat of Arms of Irbit (Sverdlovsk oblast).png is PNG. OsamaK 14:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aumred.png

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

Image:Aumred.png superseded by SVG version Image:Aum red.svg — DoSiDo 14:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ The PNG version is currently placed/linked on over 200 articles, user pages, and user talk pages. What really needs to happen is for someone to replace it on article pages with the SVG version, which I fully support, but can't do. Then what about the user and talk pages that will have a broken image link? Is there a policy on that? Are we now removing all PNG files that have an SVG version? As the uploader/creator of the PNG version, I'm not attached to it staying or being deleted. Someone just needs to make sure that all the pages that currently have the image are taken care of. ॐ Priyanath talk 15:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like they were all replaced - good job. ॐ Priyanath talk 14:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. that's too easy using Bot, I'll talk to BAG to do this now.--OsamaK 07:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It uses in 7 pages only ;)--OsamaK 07:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused--OsamaK 08:15, 7 August 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 of the discussion was:

Image:EDSA_Revolution_pic1.jpg

Image:EDSA_Revolution_pic1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Seav (notify | contribs).

Impressive, but unnesary non-free image showing three million people protesting in the streets, used to illustrate the information that three million people protested in the streets. It doesn't help on the articles comprehension in a way that words alone can not. Abu badali ^(talk) 15:14, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The image satisfies all fair use criteria. --seav 01:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - No free equivalent. This picture was taken more than 20 years ago way back before the concept of free content was pervasive in Philippine society. You won't find any other image of the EDSA revolution that's not copyrighted.
  - Respect for commercial opportunities. and Resolution/fidelity. The image is of a very low resolution.
  - Previous publication. This image was published in People Power: The Philippine Revolution of 1986: An eyewitness history and other books.
  - Content and Media-specific policy. It's quite encyclopedic, of course. If you argue that it's not encyclopedic, then you really don't know about the EDSA Revolution.
  - One-article minimum and Restrictions on location. Used only in three important encyclopedia articles.
  - Significance. Again, if you don't think this image is significant, then you really don't know anything about the EDSA Revolution and should net make judgement on the image's significance.
  - Image description page. I've added an extensive fair-use rationale on the description page that essentially states what I said above.
    - This nomination only concerns Significance, and I'm afraid you're mistaking a "significant event" by a "significant copyrighted work". We don't need to see an image of people gathering to understand the discussion about this significant event. --Abu badali ^(talk) 02:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You probably don't care because you're not Filipino, but as a person that goes through this avenue everyday, this picture speaks volumes about the magnitude of an event that I couldn't remember because I was a kid back then. You might not need a picture that depicts "estimated one to three million people filled EDSA from Ortigas Avenue all the way to Cubao" but others, especially Filipinos do need to see it to understand the extreme significance of the event. How else can you depict People Power, which was popularized by the EDSA Revolution, than by showing the people that filled up EDSA despite the threat of military action against them? Have you even read the article? --seav 09:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        As I said in the nomination, this is an impressive image. But again, no, it's not necessary for the understanding of a discussion about the event. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        We can argue back and forth about the significance of the image with respect to the article in question but this is really a subjective thing. You're saying the picture's not significant and not needed, I'm saying it is. I'm very much opposed for this image to get deleted just because you think it's not needed. I'll say again: the picture depicts the event in question and provides a depth of understanding for Filipinos than just simply saying "one to three million filled up EDSA." You, on the other hand, have not given any convincing arguments as to why it's insignificant; you're just saying it isn't. --seav 15:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes I have. I say this image, although useful, is not necessary to the article because we can understand that there was an incredible volumes of people on the streets that day just by reading the article's text. This is not nearly as subjective as you say. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As the other guy has stated, the image is extremely significant as a snapshot of a historic event. The photograph is more-or-less synonymous with other classic photographs such as Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald, or the lone man standing against the tank in Tianenmen Square. The photograph is not simply there to illustrate that three million people protested, it is meant to show how the event occurred. One suggestion though. Change the image's tag to the {Non-free historic image} to avoid any further problems with such obviously locally-historic (hence most people not aware of the context of the image) images. Shrumster 20:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: User Shrumster has posted a comment on a noticeboard asking people to "add some weight" to this discussion (together with some personal attacks on me). Please, before commenting, remember that this is not a vote! No matter how many keeps or deletes we have, the closing admin will judge based on our policy. This nomination, for instance, concerns item #8 of our policy, that says that non-free images are only used when they "increase readers' understanding of the topic" in a way that words alone can't. Nobody doubts that the event depicted on this image is immeasurably significant. Repeating how important this event is doesn't makes a case for keeping the image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]; How can readers understand the significance of the topic when there is no photo? If you'd remove the photograph, the events in the article looks like an ordinary coup attempt, or worse, a protest rally. --Howard the Duck 02:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Abu badali, no one's saying that this is a vote; only you inferred that. Also, you are being paranoid if you consider Shrumster's comments to be a personal attack. Going back to the discussion: Of course the debate on whether a photo is significant is subjective. It's like saying whether a photo is beautiful or not. It's just your personal opinion when you say that you don't need to see a photo of a crowd of people filling up a street. I'm saying otherwise: seeing the photo increases the reader's understanding of how important the event is than mere words and that makes the photo significant. It's a cliché, but the saying that "a picture is worth a thousand words" is very applicable in this case. --Seav 04:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
NOTICE: User Abu badali had a RfC and a RfA regarding his activities in tagging fair-use images for deletion. (Just to be transparent.); That ended on July 31, just several days ago. --Howard the Duck 05:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Historic, irreproducible, a picture says a thousand words, falls under fair use. This would be one of the last pictures needed to be deleted by deletionists. There are a lot of other nonsense fair use images that do not contribute to the betterment of an article that should be hunted down. For all intents and purposes, this IfD is a farce. Berserkerz Crit 16:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I suggest Abu badali target other images, like those crazy TV screenshots on episode lists or fair use images of living people (since those has a chance of having freer alternatives). Deleting historically images such as this one is ludicrous and, promotes hate and dissention, and is a waste on Wikipedia servers. --Howard the Duck 06:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have strengthened the fair use rationale section of the image's description page, and paid particular attention to FUC#8, which seems to be the only point of contention regarding the image's fair use in Wikipedia. --seav 18:44, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, I don't think that rationale changes the situation. The rationale repeats the mistake of most comments above and in the Philippines talk: It explains the Significance of the event, instead of the significance of the image. And it goes on to say that the image is necessary because "readers generally have trouble comprehending or visualizing such a large gathering...", which is something I simply can't agree with. --Abu badali ^(talk) 21:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The significance of the event rubs off to the image; the image is significant since it refers to a significant moment in a nation's history; if the image's subject was a robbery in a downtown eatery then I'm all for deleting it. --Howard the Duck 03:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seav, I changed the fair use rationale for the Significance part. Hell would freeze first before this image would be deleted. The image is non-reproducible, depicts a once in a lifetime event, and speaks volume than words can do. This IfD is just plain wrong. SPEEDY KEEP. Berserkerz Crit 11:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Fair use can allow an otherwise infringing use of a photo where it is the photo itself -- not what is depicted in the photo -- that is news." (David Tomlin, Associate General Counsel of The Associated Press) [1]. howcheng {chat} 17:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- But there are other types of fair uses. Just because the photo itself is not the subject of the article does not automatically mean that the infringing use is not fair use. Your "delete" reason is a logical fallacy. --seav 05:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh?? The photo itself is the news? Maybe for other photos, but not this one. The news is what the photo depicts, and that is millions of Filipinos gathering in the streets! And there is no infringement here because it is a low resolution and small sized picture. For god's sake. Someone close this AfD already. Berserkerz Crit 09:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - The photo itself was news. It's used in countless elementary and high school textbooks. The photo may have been published in underground newspapers prior to its mainstream debut in a book, hence more people turned up. But don't expect sources for that statement though, unless you can prove the internet existed in the Philippines on 1986. --Howard the Duck 16:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's non-descript. People Power 1 was one of the most amazing events of the 20th century. It set the stage for the peaceful end to the Cold War and the democratic revolution of SE Asia, Latin America and beyond. But THIS picture is nothing spectacular To those who are very familiar with the area - EDSA- it is spectacular, but for the majority of English speakers it is an indestinquishable mob of people. How many? Could be thousands; could be millions. Philippines? Could be. Most noticeable part of the picture - the guys on the lamposts and THAT says nothing about EDSA. It reminds me of the rallies in Boston after the Boston Celtics (basketball team) won the championship. This picture is that non-descript. This picture does not capture the uniqueness of the event in any way. Now, if it was the more famous photo of the nuns and the tanks, that would be a keeper. That picture that was seen around the world. (By the way, the "you're not a Filipino" is not an argument for or against the picture. It is a statement of racial classification. Be careful of racist thinking.)--Bruce Hall 16:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Image kept. Seeing the mob of people shoulder to shoulder across this wide avenue for as far as you can see adds significance to the size of the protest. It is hard for me to visualize what three million people might look like. That is a big number, but to see the density helps with the understanding. -Nv8200p talk 04:49, 25 August 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.

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:

Image:Shot_Dead_on_Arrival.JPG

Image:Shot_Dead_on_Arrival.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stalmannen (notify | contribs).

Non-free image showing a dead man used (in 4 artciles) to illustrate information about his assassination and about the concept of assassination. Unnecessary for the article's comprehension (and replaceable in some articles). Abu badali ^(talk) 15:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Irreplaceable news image similar to Image:Kent State massacre.jpg for articles History of the Philippines and Benigno Aquino, Jr.. As per existing fair use rationale. --Knulclunk 01:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- At least, it fails WP:FUC#1 in Assassination and WP:FUC#8 in History of the Philippines, Benigno Aquino, Jr. and History of assassination. --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Image absolutely passes WP:FUC#8 in History of the Philippines and Benigno Aquino, Jr.. The televised assassination of a major political opponent in front of reporters and 2000 soldiers? It changed the face of the country. Picture easily as valid as Image:JFKmotorcade.jpg or any of the fair use claims I have listed at User:Knulclunk/Sandbox photos. --Knulclunk 15:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we need to show a non-free screenshot to explain the assassination was televised. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a great image, especially for the articles it is in. It shows the subject with decent clarity and captures the moment. ALTON .ıl 02:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree it's convenient for us use this image. But this is not only an editorial decision. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per this image. Images of historic events have a precedent of being on WP and other encyclopedias for that matter. Shrumster 08:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per my comments on Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_5#Image:EDSA_Revolution_pic1.jpg. Berserkerz Crit 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not necessary for understanding the text. It may be a historic moment, but the image itself is not historic (although it's certainly historical). howcheng {chat} 17:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you know that this image, the video especially, is replayed a countless times since Aquino's assasination on national TV? --Howard the Duck 04:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Considering that information is not in the article, I don't see how I'm supposed to automatically know that. Still, my objection stands. There's no need for us to infringe on copyright in order to show the man lying in the street. If you remove the image, the reader still gets the same understanding that he was assassinated. Thus, WP:NFCC #8 is not satisfied. howcheng {chat} 16:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - The man wasn't just like, "lying on the street", he was assassinated, live on national TV, in broad daylight, replayed several times since 1981, and wasn't just any homeless fellow. Tell me how is that not historical. --Howard the Duck 10:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're completely missing the point. Nobody is saying the the assassination wasn't historical. We're disputing the assertion that the readers needs to see this screegrab to understand the text about the assassination. You may not like it, but it's a requirement from our policy. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        You're missing the point, too. The video of this is replayed perhaps a thousand times since 1981, on any TV network, and certainly so within the next few days (August 21 is Benigno Aquino day). That alone makes this video, and this screenshot in particular, makes it historical. Also, being RPN 9 is a state-sequestered TV network (compare it to PBS or BBC), making all contents PD, but with certain restrictions (see {{PhilippinesGov with fair use}}), and additions of fair use rationales would be enough, since the Philippine national government content are uncopyrightable.
        
        With that said, if you can make this image deleted, then you may go ahead and delete images such as this one. --Howard the Duck 14:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Reading this discussion, I have an idea. How about making an article about the video clip itself? Seeing as it has been replayed countless times on TV, some movies, used as evidence in several court cases and governmental investigations, documentaries, etc. Seems like a pretty notable video on its own even without the context. Shrumster 08:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment added hidden comment (info + ref) on the article as it is almost impossible to create article based on online citations alone. However, the added info should keep deletionists at bay for a little while and should borrow you time in case you find some citations from books. Can somebody blend it to the article for me? I'm little stressed out during weekdays but I think the IfD is here for a long time so I put some info there just in case they're planning to delete it. I'll try to find refs for the other images if my mind permits me. --Lenticel ^(talk) 09:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is in Benigno Aquino, Jr., forgot to put the article's name--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the article is completely sourced and contains no original research, (and considering the article will be more than just a description of the videoclip), keeping the image could be considered. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:22, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - please keep the image. that image changed the the destiny of our country. that might be gross or what, but that scene awakened the consciousness of the filipinos at that time and they started to fight for their freedom.
Comment Just realized something. From the appearance/format of the time on the pic and the logo on the upper right, this is a still from RPN-9. At the time (and currently), the station was owned/controlled by the Philippine Government. This was more than ten years prior to June 1997 when the Intellectual Property Code (R.A. 8293) of the Philippines was first officialized. This means that the photo/video is most probably in the public domain as the IPC isn't retroactive. Shrumster 16:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image kept. Aruguments for significance of image are convincing. There could be more commentary in the article pertaining to the images impact on Filipinos. Reduced use of the image to the main subject - Benigno Aquino, Jr.. -Nv8200p talk 05:04, 25 August 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.

}

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:

Image:Sin2001.jpg

Image:Sin2001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bustria (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free image showing a politician taking her oath as President. It doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali ^(talk) 15:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Public Domain Image as per Philippine copyright law for works created by the Philippine Government. No reason to delete. --Knulclunk 02:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute what the Philippine government calls "Public domain" is actually a non-commercial licensing ("...prior approval is needed if a government work will be used for making a profit"). --Abu badali ^(talk) 13:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete --Knulclunk 04:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How is this picture insignificant that it can only be described with text? It is Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo taking her oath as the 14th President of the Philippines, the pinnacle of the 2001 EDSA Revolution. At least the Philippine government recognizes its significance (of both the event, which it conveys, and the picture itself): it's on the back of every 200-peso bill. If I were to compare this to the more famous 1986 EDSA Revolution, this would be tantamount to the oath-taking of Corazon Aquino. --Sky Harbor 02:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale for use of historic images. Said politician is not simply "taking an oath as President." The event depicted herein is not a simple procedural taking of office but an unprecedented move in which a vice president was sworn in as president after the president seemingly left the position but recanted/reinterpreted his statement as not actually stepping down from the position after. Point is, it is a significant point in the history of the relevant country and this picture is more-or-less one of the iconic images of that said event. Shrumster 08:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep one of the last appearance of Jaime Cardinal Sin and is also found in our 200 peso bill. I believe that means it is neccessary.--Lenticel ^(talk) 09:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per my comments on Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_5#Image:EDSA_Revolution_pic1.jpg. Berserkerz Crit 16:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. For all the Philippines images so far that I've seen in today's log, this is the most egregious. This is so not necessary to understanding the text. It adds nothing to the article and the reader's comprehension would not be hampered one bit if it were to be removed. howcheng {chat} 18:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh really? How would a reader understand the significance of EDSA 2 when without the picture, the reader won't see that the Cardinal and Chief Justice of the Philippines went out of their way along with of course then Vice-President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to give her the oath to be the President in EDSA avenue, not the usual place where would-be Presidents should be swearing the oath. Berserkerz Crit 09:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - When you ask "...how would a reader understand...", are you seriously arguing that this information can only be conveyed graphically? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But along those lines, can anything only be conveyed graphically? I see a lot of fair-use historical photos on a lot of WP articles. Are they to be removed as well? Shrumster 08:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - The act was historic, not the photo. I don't see how anyone needs a photo to understand that Arroyo was sworn in as president. howcheng {chat} 16:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's just the thing. She wasn't simply just "sworn in as president." To say so would be simplifying the event. I believe that the source of your misconception would be the weakness of the article text rather than the supposed irrelevance of the image. If the image were to be deleted now, then the article sufficiently bulked up in order to establish the significance of the image in the article and then the image reuploaded, would you have any objections to that? Shrumster 08:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you believe the article can really be "bulked up" to establish the significance of the image? Are you sure you don't mean establishing the significance of the event depicted? Can you do that without violating Wikipedia:No original research? To put it simple, do you know about any reliable source that discussed about this image (the image itself, not the event)? --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Most probably. Local print media who have little-to-no-presence online so will only be available to WP editors in Metro Manila. Shrumster 10:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Image fails WP:NFCC #8. The swearing in can be adequately conveyed by words. -Nv8200p talk 04:32, 25 August 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.

Image:007Brosnan.jpg

Image:007Brosnan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K1Bond007 (notify | contribs).

No evidence that this was released as a promotional photo. Delete per WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#3, replaceable by screenshot for encyclopedic purposes. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Well I'm sure if you scoured Archive.org for the page where the source was originally you'd find it. The source is now gone due to a revamp of the official website. This is most definitely a promotional photo though. Same as 007Connery and 007Lazenby that are also up for deletion below. Whatever works though. K1Bond007 02:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:007Connery.jpg

Image:007Connery.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K1Bond007 (notify | contribs).

No evidence that this was released as a promotional photo. Delete per WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#3, replaceable by screenshot for encyclopedic purposes. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:03, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And screenshot is also replaceable with a promotional image. Keep. Alientraveller 20:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that a screenshot is a tiny percentage of a copyrighted film, as opposed to 100% of a copyrighted photo. See WP:NFCC#3. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:-BB48BC80-4A6D-4ACB-938C-04A377D67DF0-.jpg

Image:-BB48BC80-4A6D-4ACB-938C-04A377D67DF0-.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Willy turner (notify | contribs).

Delete per WP:NFCC#10a, unknown copyright holder. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - weak rationale. Image name is a waste. ALTON .ıl 03:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Full size version of the image [2] from the official website of the Swedish Football Association has the legend "WSP Arkitektur / Berg Arkitektkontor / HOK Sport / Roman Wozniak Arkitekter". Copyright in the image is likely owned either by the architects or the Swedish F.A. Either way, use of a low-res version is not likely to be a problem for NFCC #2. Rationale provided by the uploader is entirely appropriate -- how else are you supposed to show what a stadium not due to be built until 2010-2011 looks like, except from the architects' drawings? Jheald 10:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fair use as valid as: Image:New wtc.jpg --Knulclunk 15:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Image deleted. No copyright holder provided as required by WP:NFCC 10a. -Nv8200p talk 02:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:007Lazenby.jpg

Image:007Lazenby.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K1Bond007 (notify | contribs).

No evidence that this was released as a promotional photo. Delete per WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#3, replaceable by screenshot for encyclopedic purposes. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And screenshot is also replaceable with a promotional image. Keep. Alientraveller 20:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that a screenshot is a tiny percentage of a copyrighted film, as opposed to 100% of a copyrighted photo. See WP:NFCC#3. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Angelo Coniglio.jpg

Image:Angelo Coniglio.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SoxrockProjects (notify | contribs).

CV - Labeled as GFDL but it's an image from the New York Times so that is not possible here. — cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 16:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BigGirlsDon'tCryCap.jpg

Image:BigGirlsDon'tCryCap.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ScoobyDoo01 (notify | contribs).

Delete per WP:NFCC#8, does not increase readers' understanding in a way words cannot. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:44, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Used commentary as permitted by WP:NFC#Examples of acceptable use: Film and television screen shots:"For critical commentary and discussion of the cinema and television." Keep for video commentary only. --Knulclunk 03:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mack_Brown_with_the_Golden_Hat.jpg

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

Nonfree image showing a team holding a trophy, I don't see how this significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This nomination concerns WP:NFCC#8, so, please let's avoid unrelated keep votes.

"The image depicts a unrepeatable event"
- Yes, but still we don't need to show an image to discuss this unrepeatable event.
"The event was very very important for the team in question because [insert your reason here]."
- I'm not saying the event shouldn't be discussed in the article. I'm saying the discussion can be understood without an image.
"One image is worth a thousand words"
- Per NFCC#8, we prefer a thousand freely licensed words to one non-free image. And, lucky enough, the noteworthy encyclopedic information contained in this image can be conveyed with far less than a thousand words.
"NFCC#8 is bogus, as any image can be replaced by text."
- No. Some subjects are difficult or impossible to be adequately discussed in a educational context without the help of imagery. The event depicted on this image is not one for those cases.
"This is copyright paranoia"
- This has nothing to do with either or not this image's use is legal. It's about either this image can be replaced by text that serves a similar function.
"The nominator has an RFC and Arb case against him, he's a stalker"
- Per WP:NPA, comment on content, not on the contributor.

Thanks, --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The two uses it claims fair use for are ancillary topics - one is for the team, which is extant and therefore invalid for fair use, and the other is for, again, an existing trophy. ALTON .ıl 03:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Augsburg_district_coa.png

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

No source, Image:Wappen Landkreis Augsburg.png is better and bigger OsamaK 17:10, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Breitscheid_Wappen.gif

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

superseded by Image:Wappen Breitscheid (Hessen).png better and bigger. OsamaK 17:19, 5 August 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.

Image:Example.jpg

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

As the default image in the toolbar has been changed to Example.png, I see no reason to keep this image. _→AzaToth 18:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you propose to do with the 200 talk pages that link to this image? I don't see the point of deleting it, and as noted below it is still used by the interface. —Centrx→talk • 02:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters, but I'm not the uploader of the current image (much better than the one I had uploaded). I don't see much of a point of deleting the image, it's helpful to have a such sample image.
BTW the gallery button still uses "Image:Example.jpg|Caption1" for samples. -- User:Docu
- DeleteBut what's the point of sampling? First, it is causing many cases of vandalisms. Second, we dont need this image, if we need an image and it's not avaliable, just use Image:Placeholder.png. It should be deleted, as well as Example.ogg. --JackLau 05:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  The vandalism will be there if the image exists or not. Anyone could click on all the buttons. — H92 (t · c · no) 11:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Why was the default image changed in the toolbar? The fact that this image used to be the image that resulted from clicking the "embedded image" or "insert a picture gallery" in the toolbar enabled us to find dozens of test and vandalism edits that RC patrollers missed daily by looking at the "file links" section at Image:Example.jpg. This possibility is lost if the image is replaced with Image:Example.png as the default toolbar image as Image:Example.png is used on so many pages legitimately (the JPG version is not supposed to appear on any page, actually). --KFP (talk | contribs) 09:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep KFP proves a good point, therefore it should be kept. The toolbar button should be changed back too. — H92 (t · c · no) 11:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete!, this image has always caused more harm than good. It's used 90% of the time as a test edit or vandalism, really really no need for it. Wizardman 17:12, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that deleting this will *not* result in less vandalism in any way. The amount of vandalism and test edits will be unaffected but they will be more difficult to catch when the example image is one that also has legit uses. --KFP (talk | contribs) 18:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and put Image:Example.jpg back in the interface. I think KFP got a good point, an edit with "image.jpg" was a good way to find a vandal (just reverted) or a user struggling with our image procedures. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I Agree with KFP, so lets keep it. I think the toolbar button needs to be changed back. As "image.jpg" was a good way to check for vandalism Brian | (Talk) 10:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC) .[reply]
Note - I have restored this JPG version as the sample image at MediaWiki:Image sample. --KFP (talk | contribs) 10:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Per KFP and lucasbfr. –Animum 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 14 August 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Encephalon.png

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

Obsolete Image:EmbryonicBrain.png
Deleted, Commons image showing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GreatRiverRoad.gif

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

Poor quality GIF replaced with a higher quality SVG. In addition, this GIF is fair use while the SVG is PD by the state of Minnesota.- —Scott5114 ↗ 20:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I second the deletion. This is MAYBE windows icon-quality....and that's a stretch :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Greater-Ceres-Dam wiki.jpg

Image:Greater-Ceres-Dam wiki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tojo en (notify | contribs).

Claimed GFDL but uploader stated that Owner: Kolo Veidekke a.s., can be used for non commercial purposes. Source: www.asphaltcoredams.com. Hence - fair use. But we have a lot of photos of dams, we don't really need this one (only used in gallery at Dam, which I am not transferring to Commons. — _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 21:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AMAZO JLA-Z.gif

Image:AMAZO JLA-Z.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shsh (notify | contribs).

The image runs counter to the information here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Images which cannot be "fair use" and the underlying principle of not using material copied from existing encyclopedias and encyclopedia-like works. The image was created and used in such a context where originally published in JLA-Z #1. — J Greb 21:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Light from Death Note.jpg

Claims to fall under fair use but has no fair use rationale. Greg Jones II 22:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Webdings font.svg

Image:Webdings font.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by seanqtx (notify | contribs).

Possible copyright problems (See summaries of Image:Wingdings_font.png, Image:Wingdings_2_font.png and Image:Wingdings_3_font.png); Realised this shortly after uploading. Seanqtx 22:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - you can use {{db}} since you are the author. ALTON .ıl 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]