Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 April 16

< April 15	April 17 >

April 16

File:Simon and Marcy title card.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: No consensus. Based on this and other discussions throughout Wikipedia, I'm not sure there is consensus that screenshots/title cards are inappropriate to meet the "identification" prong of NFCC #8. (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails NFCC#8. Title card with no commentary on significance, used only to decorate the article. Gen. Quon (Talk) 00:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It helps identify the subject of the page by using the main image associated with it: it's title card. How is this any different than using DVD box art or posters? Or even main title cards for an overall series? The season 3 page even managed to become a good article while using this image which offers far less commentary. --DocNox (talk) 03:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no blanket allowance for pictures in the infobox of an episode article. It doesn't matter if the picture identifies and episode; it has to be *crucial* to the understanding of the episode. Season 3, however, is using the DVD image to identify the product; this is different and is like comparing apples to oranges. Because the title card is NOT critically commented upon (for instance, there was no controversy, production info, or explanation for what it means in the body of the article) and it does not add anything (it can be adequately explained in words and does not explore a key part of the plot... heck Hambo isn't involved in anything in this episode), it is superfluous and not necessary. NFCC#8 reads: "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 does not "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" because it has really nothing to do with the episode, and by removing/deleting it, it would not be "detrimental to that understanding", because it's only tangentially related.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:01, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apples and oranges? Seriously? There is no difference. I'm not too invested in this but that is a nonsensical rule. --DocNox (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are completely different. One identifies the product. This is just an image from an episode. Honestly, you could argue that any screenshot "identifies" the episode, but that's now how these things work. It needs to have a pretty hefty fair-use rationale.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 14:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not a screenshot from the episode, it's a title card from the credits sequence. Cartoon Network didn't even show the sequence during the original airing since they tried the make it and "I Remember You" seem like a 30 minute special. Title cards identify the episode by design, just like posters. There is a major difference between that and just any old screenshot. --DocNox (talk) 16:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And also it's not actually about whether Hambo plays a major part in the episode or not. He is instead meant to be symbolic of the bond between the two titular characters, which is the main theme of the episode. It just relies on the viewers knowledge of their past the get that across. Significant commentary could easily be created based on that, in my opinion. --DocNox (talk) 09:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Having to know about the past of the series to understand why a picture is important is not very helpful to the average reader. In fact, I feel that the weakens the rationale to keep it. It requires background info to understand something that has zero critical commentary in the article.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 17:13, 19 April 2013 (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:Oberlin OSCA Logo.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vector version now on Commons. – 29611670.x (talk) 00:58, 16 April 2013 (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:Nick-Arcade-GS-Play.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC #8; we don't need an image to show that a game show has contestants and scores. Also, contrary to the NFUR provided, the image does not depict the "essence of the show." RJaguar3 | u | t 03:28, 16 April 2013 (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:Guttmacher Abortion Restrictions.gif

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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image replaced by better quality File:Guttmacher Abortion Restrictions.SVG -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:47, 16 April 2013 (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:Guttmacher Abortion Restrictions.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image replaced by better quality File:Guttmacher Abortion Restrictions.SVG -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:47, 16 April 2013 (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:Mickael Alexander..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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan personal photo with no encyclopedic value -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 04:48, 16 April 2013 (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:Sir hugh clifford.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. Likely public domain for some reason, but without more information about the source it's impossible to know.

Insufficient evidence that the uploader is the copyright holder of the photograph and entitled to release it into the public domain. The photograph shows the subject as a youth, and so must have been taken at the end of the 19th century. — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If, given the age of the subject, it can be confirmed that it was taken before 1923, it's certainly public domain in the USA at the very minimum. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not correct. It is in the public domain in the United States if it was published before 1923. However, if it was first published much later, the copyright situation may be different. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - It looks like it might be a scan from a book (and thus not an original work by the uploader), but regrettably the uploader provided no source information at all. I note that the photograph also appears at [1] with the caption "Seventeen year old Hugh Clifford, shortly after his arrival in Malaya, in 1883", but no source is stated there either. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - At this point, adding that info and {{PD-1996]}} seems like a better idea than deletion.--Elvey (talk) 22:03, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - {{PD-URAA}} requires that it was published before 1 March 1989, that it was first published outside the United States and that it was in the public domain in the country of first publication on 1 January 1996, as well as certain other things. There is no evidence for any of those things. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It seems to me that this work is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice and it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries) based on the info at hand - very old, looks like its a scan from an old (pre-'78) book, that was probably published in the UK.--Elvey (talk) 01:05, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Oh, and surprise, surprise. {{PD-URAA}} ACTUALLY says:

This image is in the public domain in the United States because it was first published outside the United States (and not published in the U.S. within 30 days) and
it was first published before 1978 without complying with U.S. copyright formalities or after 1978 without copyright notice and
it was in the public domain in its home country on the URAA date (January 1, 1996 for most countries).

- - - - So what's this about 1 March 1989? --Elvey (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2013 (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:GOT Bolton Dark Wings Dark Words.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Merely shows one actor in an otherwise indiscernible scene; no reason to think the image contributes anything crucial that couldn't be understood without it. The scene is not otherwise analysed or even mentioned in the text in any way that would depend on knowing its visual particulars. Evidently just another instance of a random image chosen for the purely decorative purpose of routine "identification" of an episode. Fails NFCC#8 like so many others. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 16 April 2013 (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:Shilo.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan image, lacking description, without further information re-use potential is small. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 16 April 2013 (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:Bonnie Tyler Live Ingolstadt 2March2013.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The file should only be on English local Wikipedia, not Commons, in accoredance with the agreement with the copyright holder. Bonnietylersave (talk) 10:48, 16 April 2013 (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:Deathwaltz making of the music video.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: not discussed critically. Stefan2 (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2013 (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:2012 Packers Seahawks Final Play.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: Keep. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Um, sorry, what purpose is this image supposed to serve? You can barely see what it shows or what it has to do with the controversy, so I fail to see how it would pass WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 13:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image illustrates the play that resulted in the 2012 Packers–Seahawks officiating controversy. The image has a valid non-free use rationale. See Tuck Rule Game for an example of a similar application (and yes, I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFF.) SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 13:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But it tells absolutely nothing about the controversy! Non-free images have to assist with the understanding of the article, and an image which doesn't tell anything about the controversy simply doesn't do this. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:40, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does it say "nothing about the controversy" - it helps show the reader the actual situation. I think it's good an actual picture of the event. Having said that, I'm not sure that this picture is the best - it's quite far away thus hard to make out. One where it's zoomed in closer would probably be better. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I expanded the article, particularly on the confusion regarding the controversial catch - which is what the image illustrates - so the image is perhaps more relevant now. It seems to meet the other NFCC criteria. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 01:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Mbinebri. Dwscomet (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2013 (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:Office 2008.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: No consensus on whether cropped version is acceptable or not. Nthep (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

This image is essentially a gallery of six non-free images. As such, it violates WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but crop: Hi. I think since the article discusses the apps shown in this screenshot set, an image of all apps should appear in the article. However, I think only the top four out of the included six is enough. As for its resolution, after seeing the public log, I wouldn't bother it. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - KEEP. Current resolution is entirely reasonable. Fair use. 0 risk. 0 NFC violations. It's even licensed (w/ {{Microsoft screenshot}}) use. --Elvey (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hi. Just a notice: I performed the crop. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 13:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - The purpose of the image is to display 300×199 pixels in an article, so it should be OK to reduce it to that resolution... --Stefan2 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hi. There seems to have been a consensus involving four users, two of which are admins. I really don't feel comfortable going against that consensus. Besides, I think they are right. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 05:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Do you have the ability to retake the screenshots? Can you resize your window for each product to maybe 640x480 or so and take the screenshot at that resolution? That way, some detail of the interface can actually be seen, as opposed to the bulk of the image in each screenshot being the document you are working on. --B (talk) 12:41, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Hello, B. I don't know whether "you" refers to me or everyone else here, but nevertheless I have access neither to a Mac nor to an Office 2008. At least, not at the moment. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:23, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, I didn't look closely ... I saw that you uploaded the cropped version, but didn't look closely to see that someone else uploaded the original. In an ideal world, we would get these redone as I described. It's really not useful to the reader to make two-thirds of the screenshot be some document and not let them see any of the interface. --B (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2013 (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:Mark eden bust developer.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 as there's no way this is a minimal use; it's literally an entire page of text copy. Quote from the ad in the article text if needed to make the point of your commentary, but this is like putting an entire CNN article inline to an article and claiming to justify by saying we need to understand the media's coverage of an event. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:21, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NFCC#8: the advertisement is ignored in the article.

Violates WP:NFCC#3b: the image includes an entire work (every single word) and lots of the words would have to be removed to satisfy WP:NFCC#3b. Stefan2 (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from uploader. The language of the advertisements is in fact referenced in the article. (The product was widely marketed in women's magazines during the 1960s and 1970s, making claims such as, "For thousands, Mark Eden has transformed flat bustlines into firm, shapely fullness." ... The product consisted of a regimen of exercises using a clamshell-like device with a spring to provide resistance. The device and the regimen were never illustrated or described in the advertisements, which instead usually contained pictures of women showing their breasts. My understanding is that the point of WP:NFCC#3 is that "(n)on-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." This is an advertisement for a product that will never be marketed again. The full use of all its text would actually serve the original commercial purpose, were the product to exist any more. I don't expect this to make a difference, though. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- It is better to quote any relevant text in the article. The text is too small to read in the image which appears in the article (https:/upwiki/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/42/Mark_eden_bust_developer.jpg/220px-Mark_eden_bust_developer.jpg) and blind people probably can't read the text in that image as I presume that tools for blind people normally don't include OCR scanners. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are quoting WP:NFCC#2, not WP:NFCC#3. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - That formatting is rather confusing. So it goes. :) - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:57, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - For shame! The propositions - that one can understand a deceptive ad without being able to view it, and that it's not central to the article - are preposterous. No NFC violations. --Elvey (talk) 16:18, 30 April 2013 (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:Paul J. Achtemeier.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:22, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incredibly tiny photo of a person who died in 2013 being used under a claim of fair use. If we absolutely must use a "fair use" image, I'd rather we use http://www.upsem.edu/Obituaries/paul_j_achtemeier_1927_2013/, which is actually from the seminary where he taught ... the one we are using is not of encyclopedic quality. B (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

upload other fair use image, then replace, until then keep. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 18:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my job to replace it. I don't actually consider either image to be a legitimate exercise for a free content encyclopedia to use. In fact, if you look at the EXIF data for this image, it gives the photographer's name and googling him easily finds him. You could email him and ask if he would be willing to publish an enlarged and cropped photo under a free license. (It never hurts to ask.) As long as we are using this photo without permission, I would bet there's exactly zero chance he says yes. But if you remove this photo and then ask, there's at least a chance. But regardless of what you do, this little tiny photo is unencyclopedic and should be deleted for that reason. --B (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

you expressed a preference for one photo over another. perhaps you might be moved to action? you email him. there is no policy requiring emailing. are you imposing your own policy by deletion requests? Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 02:13, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The death of an individual is not carte blanche to appropriate a nonfree image after a cursory and unreliable Google search. Fails WMF requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2013 (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:Arlene Ackerman.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:23, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image of a recently deceased person uploaded under a claim of fair use. There are copyrighted photos of her on flickr at http://www.flickr.com/photos/mdorn/3253447063/, http://www.flickr.com/photos/39321361@N03/4691013082/, and http://www.flickr.com/photos/phillyeducation/5354448203/. Unless or until someone contacts these flickr users and asks if any of them would be willing to change their license, we have no way of knowing whether or not this image is replaceable. Simply declaring "she's dead, Jim" and uploading a fair use photo eliminates any possibility of obtaining a free one. Were I to contact one of these flickr users while we are using this one, how do you think that conversation will go? Why would anyone agree to help us if we already have a photo that we're perfectly content to use? B (talk) 16:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when they do, then replace, until then keep. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 18:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not what Wikimedia foundation says. If we "can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose" then we are not permitted to accept a fair use image. The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't change the fact that we can reasonably expect a free image. Quite the contrary, the existence of the fair use image most likely PREVENTS a free image from being obtained. In any event, WP:NFCCE says " it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it for non-compliance with criterion 10c are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." If there is a legitimate shot at obtaining a free image than you have failed in your burden to show that the image is irreplaceable. You seem to want it the other way. --B (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i have absolutely zero expectation, that someone will upload a free image. certainly you won't do it; not even to prove me wrong. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 02:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy doesn't say "where Slowking4 expects someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". How many of your images do I need to replace with free ones today to demonstrate that your expectations do not jive with what is reasonable? --B (talk) 02:40, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i hear a lot of talk; i would be shocked if you could do one. saying you email people, is different from having a commons upload history of doing it. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 02:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just got a free photo of Larry Fedora today, for example. I found a very nice, high quality copyrighted photo on flickr. I emailed the flickr user. He changed his licensing to accommodate us. I am not going to email any of these people regarding this image for the same reason I have repeatedly said - the answer is going to be no. It's going to be "why should I do this for you when you're content to use some other image without me changing my licensing". Having a fair use photo prevents us from trying, with a straight face, to obtain a free one. --B (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The death of an individual is not carte blanche to appropriate a nonfree image after a cursory and unreliable Google search. Fails WMF requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2013 (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:Blaster Al Ackerman.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have two problems with this photo of a person who died last month being used under a claim of fair use. (1) It is from a newspaper. It's not legitimate fair use to take a professional photographer's photograph without paying them royalties - if this were legitimate fair use, nobody would ever pay royalties for a photo ever again - they would just claim fair use. (2) There are a handful of copyrighted photos of this person on flickr - http://www.flickr.com/search/?w=all&q=Blaster+Al+Ackerman&m=text - until the flickr users are contacted and asked to change their permission, we have no way of knowing whether this image is replaceable. Were I to contact one of these flickr users while we are using this one, how do you think that conversation will go? Why would anyone agree to help us if we already have a photo that we're perfectly content to use? Either one of these reasons individually would justify deletion. B (talk) 16:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is legitimate, the small thumbnail in no way replaces the high resolution the pro owns. in fact drives traffic to their site. commercial reusers will have to go there. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 18:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to violate WP:NFCC#2. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, nobody is getting traffic driven to their site just by being mentioned on an image description page. And even if they were, that doesn't make it fair use. Can I use a pirated copy of Windows if I promise to link to microsoft.com from my blog? The argument is silly. --B (talk) 18:46, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no sillier than delete it's in a newspaper. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 02:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The death of an individual is not carte blanche to appropriate a nonfree image after a cursory and unreliable Google search. Fails WMF requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2013 (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:Neil Adcock.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:27, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

News media photo of a person who died in January 2013 being used under a claim of fair use. It's not legitimate fair use to take a professional photographer's photograph without paying them royalties - if this were legitimate fair use, nobody would ever pay royalties for a photo ever again - they would just claim fair use. B (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yes it is legitimate, the small thumbnail in no way replaces the high resolution that the pro owns, in fact driving traffic to his site. actually people will have to pay roaylities for commercial reuse, profound misunderstanding of fair use. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 18:09, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are commercial downstream uses of Wikipedia content. Hiding behind "we're non-commercial so we can do anything" is not sufficient. Nor is our using their photo without paying royalties somehow driving traffic to their site. --B (talk) 18:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

never said that. you sound like the MPAA. it is proven that linking to the source of material drives traffic to the source site giving them increased pageviews of their source material. this increases the value of the source material. doesn't decrease the value. makes it easier for commercial re-users to find the source. had there been a creative commons photographer around (like me) then we wouldn't need fair use, until then use it. how many photos have you uploaded? any? or do you just delete things. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 19:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've uploaded plenty of my own photos (on Commons, I am UserB) but that isn't the point and has nothing to do with this. We delete things that don't comply with our policies. Taking a professional photographer's photo is not fair use - if it were, no professional photographer would exist. --B (talk) 19:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it is legitimate "fair use" to use professional photographer work. it complies with policy. "fair use" exists and photographers exist; but then this "pay me or you're a pirate" is a common theme of the rent seeker. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 02:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i see your uploads to commons here, and there are two of 501 photos of living or dead people, there are lots of book illustrations and diagrams. this tends to undermine your credibility on the matter of effort to get said images. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭

I am not B on Commons. That is some German guy named Balu. I am UserB on Commons. Thanks for not reading, though. --B (talk) 02:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The death of an individual is not carte blanche to appropriate a nonfree image after a cursory and unreliable Google search. Fails WMF requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:52, 17 April 2013 (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:Qazi Hussain Ahmad.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:28, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image of a recently deceased person uploaded under a claim of fair use. There are copyrighted photos of him on flickr and numerous photos of him throughout the internet - he was a very public figure. Unless or until someone contacts these flickr users and asks if any of them would be willing to change their license or someone who speaks the local language seeks a free photo of him from an Afghan source, we have no way of knowing whether or not this image is replaceable. Simply declaring "he's dead, Jim" and uploading a fair use photo eliminates any possibility of obtaining a free one. Were I to contact one of these flickr users while we are using this one, how do you think that conversation will go? Why would anyone agree to help us if we already have a photo that we're perfectly content to use? B (talk) 16:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when they do, then replace, until then keep. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 18:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that's not what Wikimedia foundation says. If we "can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose" then we are not permitted to accept a fair use image. The fact that it hasn't happened yet doesn't change the fact that we can reasonably expect a free image. Quite the contrary, the existence of the fair use image most likely PREVENTS a free image from being obtained. In any event, WP:NFCCE says " it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it for non-compliance with criterion 10c are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." If there is a legitimate shot at obtaining a free image than you have failed in your burden to show that the image is irreplaceable. You seem to want it the other way. --B (talk) 18:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i can have no reasonable expectation that people will bestir themselves to use creative commons. no, fair use does not deter creative commons, it merely supplements it. i provided a valid rationale, in strict accordance with policy. your assumption that heroic measures must be taken before fair use can be allowed is not what the policy says. how can you take a picture of a dead person? it is not reasonable to expect archives and photo owners will accept creative commons. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 19:20, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "heroic" to email a few people. There was a discussion linked above where Jimbo became sufficiently fed up with the idea of us using a fair use photo of a dead famous wrestler that he took started emailing people and 30 minutes later had a free photo from a Commons user. This is not a "heroic" measure. And whether you are successful or not isn't the point - the point is that you are claiming these photos are irreplaceable. But you didn't even try to replace them. How can you make that claim if you don't even try? --B (talk) 19:34, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

it's not policy either. there is no try. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 02:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The death of an individual is not carte blanche to appropriate a nonfree image after a cursory and unreliable Google search. Fails WMF requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:53, 17 April 2013 (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:Armen Alchian.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a person who died in February 2013 being used under a claim of fair use. There is a photo of him at http://www.flickr.com/photos/49734369@N00/2239487474/ ... someone could contact the flickr user and ask them to change their license. He was a professor at UCLA since 1946, so we have reasonable expectation that a free (copyright not renewed or no notice) photo might exist from an old UCLA yearbook. Until these avenues are exhausted, we have no basis for declaring that the fair use photo is not replaceable and therefore it is facially invalid. B (talk) 19:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when they do, then replace, until then keep.Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 19:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just realized that all of these are uploaded by you. I'm going through Category:2013 deaths nominating those photos that are patently invalid fair use. The fact that they all come from the same uploader ought to say something. "When they do, replace" is not what the policy says. The policy says that proving an image is not replaceable is on you. If nobody makes any effort whatsoever to find a free image, then it has not been shown to be replaceable. Also, please note that "replaceable" does not mean "replaceable in 30 seconds or less sitting at my computer". We have plenty of Wikipedians in LA and I would bet we even have UCLA students. We have a reasonable expectation that someone could go to the UCLA library, inquire about old yearbooks, and look to see if there is a copyright notice. We have a reasonable expectation that someone could email the flickr user and ask them to change their license. You apparently are just engaging in a mass upload of copyvio photos of recently dead people(under the guise of shaky fair use claims) rather than making any effort to find free ones. Also, there's no emergency - just because he's dead doesn't mean we immediately have to have a photo. We can wait for a photo until such time as someone does the research to see if one exists or could be obtained. --B (talk) 19:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

contacting flickr users is not policy. the fact that the same person is mass nominating for deletion fair use images is instructive. "We have a reasonable expectation that someone could go to the UCLA library, inquire about old yearbooks" what drugs are you smoking? can i have some? don't bogart that joint. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 02:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What is unreasonable about that? The policy doesn't say, "a reasonable expectation that sitting in front of your computer googling you can find a free image". --B (talk) 03:04, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It says that the person was publishing research documents in the era when copyright renewal was required. Certainly there would be some photos in newspapers or other publications which weren't renewed, right? --Stefan2 (talk) 09:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The death of an individual is not carte blanche to appropriate a nonfree image after a cursory and unreliable Google search. Fails WMF requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:14, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Use of this file is supported by WP:NFCI #10. Hurdles such as combing through old yearbooks at the UCLA Library and contacting every Flickr user that has an image labelled 'All Rights Reserved' to see if they might please change the licensing are onerous, arbitrary, and not based in policy. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 21:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, WP:NFCI §10 only allows images like this provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. If it is "reasonably likely" that PD images exist in old yearbooks, then a fair use image can't be used. The problem is that no page defines how strictly the words "reasonably likely" are meant to be interpreted here. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:16, 21 April 2013 (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:Bill Albright.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:30, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a person who died in 2013 being used under a claim of fair use. The photo is from his football-playing days in the 1950s. He played college football at the University of Wisconsin until 1951 and there's a darned good chance that someone could go to the University of Wisconsin library, review their archives, and find a free yearbook photo of the football team (by virtue of it having been published with no copyright notice or the copyright not being renewed). Until that avenue of research is exhausted, there is no basis for claiming this photo to be irreplaceable and thus the fair use rationale is facially invalid. B (talk) 19:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

when they do, then replace, until then keep. darn good chance is not good enough. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 19:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"When they do, replace" is not what the policy says. The policy says that proving an image is not replaceable is on you. If nobody makes any effort whatsoever to find a free image, then it has not been shown to be replaceable. Please note that "replaceable" does not mean "replaceable in 30 seconds or less sitting at my computer". I would bet that we have some Wisconsin students on Wikipedia. We have a reasonable expectation that someone could go to the UW library, inquire about old yearbooks, and look to see if there is a copyright notice. Only once other avenues are exhausted can an image be uploaded under a claim of fair use in a manner consistent with our policies. --B (talk) 19:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

i've proved that there are no free images available on the internet. you go to the library. until then the policy allows fair use, for deceased persons. if you don't want it to, then change the policy. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 20:37, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Replaceable" doesn't mean "replaceable in 30 seconds of googling". Policy allows for limited fair use only when it can be demonstrated that no free equivalent could be obtained. Until someone goes to the library and tries, it hasn't been proven. There is no emergency to have a photo just because someone dies and your process of uploading "fair use" photos in bulk for articles in Category:2013 deaths is counter-productive and contrary to our goal of being a free content encyclopedia. It's one thing if you're writing an article about some guy who died 20 years ago and in the course of researching and writing that article, you upload a fair use photo. It's another thing when you do a mass process circumventing the intent of the policy. The policy is intended to be restrictive, not to be an open invitation to bulk uploads of non-free content. --B (talk) 20:51, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

replaceable during their lifetime. nobody did it. no-one is doing it. i have zero expectations it will occur. i am strictly following policy. you attempt to dictate your "intent" upon the policy, is an epic fail. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 02:24, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The death of an individual is not carte blanche to appropriate a nonfree image after a cursory and unreliable Google search. Fails WMF requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2013 (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:Peter Barnes.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 as F7 by Alexf (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a person who died in January 2013 being used under a claim of fair use. Both http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4786121/Funeral-of-Vauxhall-helicopter-crash-pilot.html and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2263369/Vauxhall-helicopter-crash-Pilot-Pete-Barnes-50-10-500-hours-air-time-experience.html credit this photo to "Caters News Agency" - a service that licenses photos. Photos from press agencies are explicitly forbidden in WP:NFC#UUI #7. B (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These should really just be tagged with {{db-f7}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The death of an individual is not carte blanche to appropriate a nonfree image after a cursory and unreliable Google search. Fails WMF requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:15, 17 April 2013 (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:Kevin Ash working on a BMW R100RS motorcycle.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; this discussion provides several possible starting points for locating a free image. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:34, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(please read my statement below before closing) --B (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC) Photo of a British journalist who died in January 2013 being used under a claim of fair use. There is no basis for saying that the image is not replaceable if nobody even tries. The source website (the official website for his company) even has an invitation at the bottom, "Copying entire features or images for your own site is theft - get in touch instead, maybe I can help." Rather than simply declare, "he's dead, Jim", copy an image, and slap a fair use tag on it, maybe an actual effort to demonstrate that the image is not replaceable could be undertaken. Until such time as someone has contacted this website and requested a free image, it should not be permitted to upload one under a claim of fair use. As long as we have the fair use image, (1) nobody is going to waste their time contacting anyone and (2) even if they did, the most likely response would be "why should I do this licensing stuff I don't really understand when you're perfectly content to use one without it?" B (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

if no free images are on the internet, it is not reasonable to expect they will magically appear because you will them to. fair use is not theft. on the contrary, i for one am very active taking creative commons photos of people, and i use fair use. until you take one creative commons photo you have no credibility on the the matter of photographer motivation. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 20:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Replaceable" doesn't mean "replaceable in 30 seconds of googling". --B (talk) 20:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You do me a disservice by a) assuming that I didn't google for more than 30 seconds and b) implying that I misunderstand Wikipedia and Wikimedia licensing and when/where fair use images can be used. --Biker Biker (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that comment was directed at Slowking4 and impeaching his claim about magic - not at you. However, I will ask the question directly - did you contact the website and ask if they had a photo that they owned the copyright to and if they were willing to license such a photo under the GFDL or an acceptable Creative Commons license? --B (talk) 21:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The person who wrote "get in touch instead, maybe I can help" at ashonbikes.com was Kevin Ash. He is no longer in a position to be contacted, or to help with copyright. His daughters posted tributes to him on the site back in January, and the site has not been active since. There's no reason to assume his daughters are administering the copyright on these photos, and from what I've read I believe they prefer not to be bothered with this sort of thing. Keep. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I will concede that you know more about this subject than I do. Are there biking message boards and the like where someone might have taken a photo of him and one could be sought? Is there a popular photo upload site other than flickr that might be worth checking? I really don't like the notion of "he's dead - time for fair use". We don't have to harass grieving families, but it seems like a reasonable effort involves more than a Google search. --B (talk) 23:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I use tineye.com often, and generally I get a hit if the image has been posted anywhere else before. In this case there's nothing. The Telegraph had two different photos [2][3] from the same series, making me think the three photos are in the Telegraph's files. We could ask them, though newspapers generally keep all the intellectual property they can. It seems fine to me to keep the photo and if another image, or the same image with a freer license, can be found, it can be deleted then. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with settling with a fair use image is once we do it, our chances of getting a free one go to nil. Imagine the conversation: "Hi, I'm B, an editor at Wikipedia. I see your nice photo of person XYZ and would like to use it here. Would you be willing to license it to us under the terms of the GFDL or a free content Creative Commons license such as the attribution or attribution-sharealike licenses?" "It looks like you already have a photo - what's wrong with that one?" "Well, the photo we have is non-free - we want a free one." "What does that even mean? You're willing to use the photo you have now - why should I do this licensing stuff when you already have a photo?" "We believe in free content - free as in speech, not as in soda. So we try to replace photos used under a claim of fair use with ones where the copyright holder publishes the image under a free content license." "I don't understand a word you're saying to me. I'm going to stop talking now - you have a photo and sound like some kind of geek with too much time on your hands." For someone who died 30 years ago, okay, fine, we're not getting a free photo. But for someone who was alive in the age of digital cameras? Declaring failure the moment they are dead doesn't sit well with me. --B (talk) 23:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The death of an individual is not carte blanche to appropriate a nonfree image after a cursory and unreliable Google search. Fails WMF requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nobody here acted as if we had carte blanche. This lack of AGF is getting offensive. You are addressing experienced Wikipedians who have made much more effort than a cursory Google search. The comments above make that clear. Keeping in mind that you not addressing newcomers (not that biting newbies would be acceptable either, but whatever), and that we are familiar with the source materials on Keven Ash and his body of work, can anybody point out what it would take to meet the criteria of WP:NFCI #11? User:B above says we have to wait 30 years. Is that a fact? Is there a 30 year minimum? Would 29 years suffice? Or is there some other list of criteria that we can look at? This seems entirely arbitrary to me -- "the photo meets fair use for non-free images provided enough editors like it." Even if I can get get one or two editors to like it, what happens when the next one doesn't like it? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's no particular rule on a minimum. 30 years was an arbitrary number. My opinion (not policy - just my opinion) is that we ought not to have fair use photos of people who were reasonably public figures in an industrialized country in the digital camera age, barring some extraordinary circumstance. This is not "you have to wait 30 years". The Wikimedia Foundation says that we cannot use fair use "where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". So my question to you is this: can we reasonably expect a hypothetical person in the UK of ordinary skill, ability, and access, should he or she set out to obtain a free content photo, that he or she would be able to? If you're saying that this person did not appear at public events and that the only photos of him are either in copyrighted publications or would involve harassing his wife, then the answer to my question is no. This is not an inquisition. This is not an assumption of anything - I'm sure you uploaded it in good faith. But just doing something in good faith doesn't make it free from examination for compliance with our standards. The standard for fair use is (and ought to be) very high - this is a free content encyclopedia and we only use fair use when we have no other choice. --B (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To whoever reviews this, of all of the "he's dead, Jim" photos listed here on this page, this is the one that I find least objectionable and based on this discussion, were there not another delete !vote, I would consider withdrawing this request. The explanation for this photo, unlike the other nominations, shows that some thought was put into uploading it and the potential for obtaining a replacement. This is not one of the ones uploaded by Slowking4 - it was merely unfortunate enough to be located in the same part of the alphabet. --B (talk) 00:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting exchange. This seems to be against policy and ignores Kevin's warning shown above in opening para. Does the image give 'addded value'? Yes, marginally. Is the image necessary for the bio? No. Quote from Dennis Bratland (talk, Feb 2013): There is a minor issue in that being the subject of an image doesn't make you the copyright owner. The copyright is owned by the photographer. You assume it's Kevin self/timer? Does copyright end with death or does it pass to the estate of the deceased? How do you know it's not copyright to A N Other? Or Telegraph? I have decided against uploading even small historic logos to illustrate text due to the copyright passing-on through subsequent publishers' buy-outs. Biker Biker and Dennis Bratland buddying-up is unsurprising but it's either breaching policy or not, no cop-outs or grey areas. Quote from Dennis Bratland (above): ..the (ashonbikes) site has not been active since January. The site was seemingly active 28th Feb and/or later, as was their eBay presence in mid-March. Telegraph clearly quotes daughter Laurien: I'm patrolling the web and checking his forum as we used to watch him do. Quote from Dennis Bratland (above): ..from what I've read I believe they prefer not to be bothered with this sort of thing. Can we have a pointer to this reading, please? Despite concerns over the family's grief, considering the now-elapsed time, I feel it would be courteous to offer the option of involvement. I would happily attempt initial contact via eBay messaging - they may or may not respond and it might provide a solution, but it will not address the overall ethical dilemma.--Rocknrollmancer (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:47, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Unfamiliarity with dating)Rocknrollmancer (talk) 01:54, 28 April 2013 (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:Edelmiro Amante.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. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:40, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photo of a politician who died a month ago. He was in office until 2010. We have a reasonable expectation of receiving a free photo of someone who was a public figure in 2010 and, in any event, this fair use one isn't even a very good photo. B (talk) 20:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what reasonable expectation? we had 50 years to get a creative commons photo of him. get better photo, then replace, until then keep. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 20:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The death of an individual is not carte blanche to appropriate a nonfree image after a cursory and unreliable Google search. Fails WMF requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:16, 17 April 2013 (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:Citric acid cycle noi.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete, both replaced by File:Citric_acid_cycle_with_aconitate_2.svg, a higher quality vector image in Commons. Fuebar (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2013 (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:SACCOSmile.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.} (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:29, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, bigger, but lower-quality copy of File:Senator Nicholas J. Sacco.jpg. Super Mario Man 21:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The files have different licences. Also, there is no OTRS ticket, so I would guess that both should be deleted unless an OTRS ticket is provided. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:26, 16 April 2013 (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.