Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 July 22

< July 21	July 23 >

July 22[edit]

File:Orwell Signature.png[edit]

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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by Vector. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:49, 22 July 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:Xlrecordingslogo.jpg[edit]

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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by vector, seemingly unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:07, 22 July 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:Cache,basic.png[edit]

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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by vector, seemingly unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:11, 22 July 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:Cache,associative-read.png[edit]

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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted by vector, seemingly unused. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:19, 22 July 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:Gold Mining at K.G.F., India.jpg[edit]

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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this 1980 Indian postage stamp is copyright for 60 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain#India and fails WP:NFCC#8 as there is no critical commentary about the stamps itself. The fact that the stamp was issued to commemorate this topic can easily be explained by prose alone without the need for a non-free image. It also fails WP:NFCI #3. ww2censor (talk) 09:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When the picture is copyrighted, we may delete the image, eventhough this is a low resolution image. Rayabhari (talk) 13:23, 24 July 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:2005 USPostal ChaChaCha Stamp.jpg[edit]

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This 2005 USPS issued stamp is still in copyright and clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 because there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. The fact that it was issued is already well explained in the prose and is not necessary for the reader to understand it. If there were sourced critical commentary about the stamp to justify it inclusion, it might pass NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only example of an artist's art used in the article. It's generally accepted that this is acceptable fair use. (It just so happens that it's depicted on a stamp.) --B (talk) 23:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the artist is still alive, therefore any artwork is still protected. This is used to illustrate the style of the artist, and therefore is important to the understanding of the topic. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, decorative. Stifle (talk) 18:40, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- How is showing the style of an artist on the artist's bio article "decorative"? Isn't the style of the artwork, the most important thing in the article, more important that even the text? -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 76.65.128.222 and Wikipedia:NFCI#3 and #7, illustrating the technique is a common accepted case, therefore identified by the guideline as contextually valid under WP:NFCC#8. Diego (talk) 20:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illustrations of an artists technique requires some prose about that style to justify an illustration that shows the style, but there is no commentary about his style that is illustrated by the use of this non-free stamp image. WP:NFCI #3 is normally considered to apply to stamps used in stamp articles and not elsewhere and #7 very specifically states that critical commentary is necessary; these is none. If there were such additional prose to support the use of this image I will certainly consider such addition favourably. ww2censor (talk) 09:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that #3 should be applied only to stamps articles? The guideline has no such restrictions, and it would be silly to include them; an encyclopedia describes a topic at each place that topic is relevant. As for critical commentary, you have plenty of it at Edel Rodriguez, where the artist's style, art movement and influences are described. There's more than enough of them to provide enough context for the image, and vice-versa. Diego (talk) 10:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a difficult case, and I think the fact that it's a stamp is causing undue confusion. This should be treated like any other reproduction of a non-free piece of art, as used in an article about that artist. It is certainly legitimate to use a non-free image in this case, so long as the content of the image is the subject of sourced commentary in the article. A good example is the way File:Mellor From Rite to Ritual.jpg is used in the Danie Mellor Featured Article. Unfortunately, I can find no reliable online sources that mention this stamp except to say that Rodriguez painted it, so until the available sources improve we can't justify the use of this image. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:22, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, the stamp is not the subject of commentary in the article, and is thus purely decorative. Jujutacular (talk) 22:01, 6 September 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:Boy and Girl Scouting begins Celebrate the Century stamp.jpg[edit]

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 – Quadell ^(talk) 18:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free image removed from Scouting in popular culture and replaced with a free image File:Australianstamp 1590.jpg from the commons as this one failed WP:NFCC#1 (it was replaceable) and WP:NFCC#8 (there was no critical commentary that would justify its inclusion). There are several free images available even though not many have been uploaded. ww2censor (talk) 09:31, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the free replacement provides the same value as the non-free image. Diego (talk) 20:37, 28 July 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:NYC Public Library Lion Stamp (US Postage).png[edit]

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This 2000 USPS issued stamp is still in copyright and clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 because there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself and is used just as a decorative illustration. The fact that it was issued could easily be explained in the prose and the non-free stamp image not necessary for the reader to understand that fact. If there were sourced critical commentary about the stamp to justify it inclusion, it might pass NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While the uploader has rewritten the fair-use rationale there is still no critical commentary about the stamp of any kind and no sources of any kind to show that this was indicative of the artist's work. Everything I wrote above still applies. The purpose now being an example of the kind of work the artist does is just not enough to justify its use. You have to do much better or find a freely licenced piece of her work to replace this one. ww2censor (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As with one above, this is the only example of an artist's work in an article about the artist. That's generally considered to be acceptable, as it obviously increases a reader's understanding of an artist to see something that artist created. --B (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is used to illustrate the style of the artist, therefore is of importance in understanding the topic (the artist), and the artist is still alive, so all works by the artist are protected. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we generally accept one nonfree work of art for a notable artist (provided no free works exist from them) to demonstrate the artist's style. Such an image appreciably increases the reader's understanding, as artistic style cannot be described in text to the same effect as actually seeing it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Critical commentary is not a requirement for an image to be relevant to the topic; displaying an artist's style is an accepted criterion. Diego (talk) 20:39, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually per WP:NFCI #7 critical commentary is a requirement. ww2censor (talk) 09:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's critical commentary of the artist's style at Nancy Stahl, which this image illustrates. The article includes thses references [1] and [2] specifically about her work with stamps. Diego (talk) 10:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no actual commentary about her artistic style in the article just a statement that she has developed a "poster style." Regarding the two references you refer to: one is an interview with the artist and the USPS citation provides a bio of the artist. Neither can be considered independent third party sources that comment on her style. Give us something better. ww2censor (talk) 12:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless the article is improved to add sourced commentary about the content of this image and style displayed. Currently nothing in this image is described in the article except the fact of its existence, which is clearly insufficient to pass our NFCC. If the article were expanded to include sourced commentary about the stamp itself (e.g. from this source) or about her style in general, as depicted in the stamp (e.g. from the "Society of Illustrators Hall of Fame" link in the article), then this would be a keep. Alternately, a different stamp, such as this, has excellent commentary about both the subject and the style in a reliable source, and that could be used instead. If anyone wants to actually improve the article in one of these ways, then the image could pass our NFCC. But as it is, it clearly fails our NFCC under any interpretation, and would have to be deleted according to policy no matter how many "keep" votes are given. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:29, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough critical commentary on this in order to pass our NFCC. Jujutacular (talk) 22:06, 6 September 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:Steiner postage stamp.gif[edit]

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 – Quadell ^(talk) 13:51, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This 1999 USPS issued stamp is still in copyright and clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 because there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. The fact that it was issued is already well explained in the prose and the use of a non-free image is not necessary for the reader to understand that. It also fails WP:NFC#UUI #3 because it is used to illustrate the subject of the stamp and is not used in a stamp article about that stamp. ww2censor (talk) 09:46, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Revise and keep: Suggest changing the non-free license to "a historically significant fair use image," being that there are no free images of him yet. The copyright of a postage stamp is no different than any other copyrighted artwork.--Light show (talk) 04:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment subject is dead, so no new free photo can be created of this person -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 09:03, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The stamp is not a historically significant image of Steiner, though one of these might be and one may even be freely licenced. Besides which stamp illustrations are not reliably accurate representations of the subjects; they are interpretations most often from more than one image of the person. A photo of a dead person could be justified easier under NFCC then a postage stamp beside which there is still no critical commentary about the stamp itself which is required to justify its inclusion under NFCC. ww2censor (talk) 08:27, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, thanks. --Light show (talk) 02:52, 27 July 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:US Postage Stamp Monitor & Virginia.jpg[edit]

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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:59, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This 1995 USPS issued stamp is still in copyright and clearly fails WP:NFCC#8 because there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. The fact that it was issued could be well explained in the prose and is not necessary for the reader to understand that fact. It is just used a decoration and also fails WP:NFC#UUI #3 as it is used to illustrate the subject of the image. If there were sourced critical commentary about the stamp itself to justify its inclusion, it might pass NFCC though I feel that is unlikely. ww2censor (talk) 09:56, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The image of the stamp on the USS Monitor page is included simply to show that the US Postal Service issued the stamp in commemoration of the two ships depicted thereon. No one's interests, including the USPS, has been compromised and the fair use rationale for the image has been completed. The claim "It is just used [as] a decoration" is a personal opinion. The reason the stamp was issued and why its image exists on the page is self explanatory, given the section title, and is explained in the caption. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may wish to read Wikipedia's fair use policy, which requires that images used under a claim of fair use substantially increase a reader's understanding of a topic. Though there is no question that we could LEGALLY use the image under US law, we intentionally restrict ourselves from using fair use images in most cases. --B (talk) 00:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The topic is Memorials, per the section title, and the stamp was issued, nationwide, in memory of the ship. The ship has been honored and celebrated by numerous organizations. Not including the U.S. Postage stamp issued in its memory and honor would be leaving a rather big void in this topic. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:32, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Gwillhickers, but without critical commentary of any kind it cannot pass NFCC. The fact the stamp was issued can be well stated in prose without the need to show the non-free stamp; that fact alone is not enough to justify its inclusion. All stamps are supposed to be issued nationwide so what does that prove, nothing. There is no void by omitting the image when prose will do just fine to explain everything you stated above. ww2censor (talk) 08:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we can easily note in the article's text that a stamp was issued to commemorate the ship. An actual image of such a stamp is not needed to convey that point clearly, nor does the image appreciably increase understanding of that fact over such text. Therefore, the image is decorative and replaceable with text. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ww2censor, I mentioned the commemorative stamp was issued nationwide simply to demonstrate the significance of this particular commemoration, that it wasn't some picture depicted on a private plaque hanging in someone's office, but a memorial shared by the nation. While we can always 'talk' about the commemorative stamp, its image does much more to convey this idea to the readers. Not including the image and just 'talking' about it is like talking about a particular sunset, rather than presenting a picture of that particular sunset. 'Talk' does little to convey the idea here. Without an image the reader would only know that a memorial, or sunset, exists -- and that's it. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are just clutching at straws Gwill. All commemorative stamps are shared by all of the issuing nation, so there is nothing new in that claim and it makes no impression on NFCC. The image just does not pass the non-free requirements and that's all there is no matter your protestations. I know you like to include non-free US stamps into article that are not stamp article but until there was some sourced critical commentary about the stamp itself it just won't pass and just showing the stamp to prove it was issued is not enough. Your sunset argument is a red herring. These same arguments have been done to death on many stamp deletion nominations and only a very few are ever kept. If you really want to read them I can link to many such nominations over the years. ww2censor (talk) 09:14, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your opinion, and I'm sure other stamps have been deleted for reasons that may resemble your claim while at the same time I could link to others that still exist here at WP. The argument for deletion, "lacks critical commentary", is opinionated and academic at best as the caption explains the reason for inclusion of the image on the page. Since it clearly meets all other NFCC requirements, is not offensive and doesn't threaten anyone's interest I am left wondering why anyone would engage other editors and spend time pursuing the deletion of such images in the first place. Academic urgency? Since mine seems to be the lone opinion here, I'll just remove the image and be done with it. I am busy writing and researching history articles and don't have time to deal with such petty and opinionated issues any further. Without the image posted on the page you will have a clear reason to have the image deleted instead. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image is clearly relevant to the section where it's used, describing memorials of the ship. What should be is whether seeing the image increases reader's understanding of the topic. In what way does the pictoric representation improves learning relevant features of either the ship or the memorials? If there's something to be learned from the image, then it passes WP:NFCC#8, otherwise it should be deleted. Diego (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is what we've gone over already. One opinion says all we need to do is say a stamp was issued commemorating the USS Monitor, period -- while the other opinion (mine) maintains that showing what the stamp, with picture of ships, etc, gives the reader much more understanding about this commemoration. IOW, the opinion with the most representation in this discussion gets to have their way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nothing in the image is described in the article, beyond the fact of the stamp's existence, and that is clearly not enough to pass our non-free content criteria. Further, I don't think it would be appropriate in the article to expand the discussion of the stamp to the level that would be required to keep the image. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:32, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The image passes all ten items in NFCC Policy, including NFCC#8. We don't have to write about all the details of the stamp itself, as the stamp image is presented as a memorial only, which is the theme of that section. This idea is conveyed in that section in so many few words, which is appropriate. The image shows the reader that the stamp depicts a scene of the Battle of Hampton Roads, the one and only ship to ship battle that made the USS Monitor world famous. This is all presented to the reader without having to write about these further details while giving that reader a better understanding of the entire theme of this memorial. Without the image all we're doing is telling the reader that a stamp was issued, leaving the reader wondering. With the image, all we have to say is that a memorial stamp was issued in 1995 and the image does all the rest. If I had read that a stamp was issued as a memorial to some famous person, place or thing, I would most certainly want to see it to get a better idea of the item, as I'm sure most readers would. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same argument over again. The memorial was that a stamp was issued. So what? The stamp image itself, and what it stand for, is not a substitute for sourced critical commentary that might justify using such a non-free image. The reader does not have to wonder because the prose will explain it quite well. What makes this stamp different, or notable, or special from the other 10,000 stamps issued every year worldwide? Explain that in the article and to us. Just plonking a non-free image in an article and suggesting it speaks for itself does not work. When will you stop trying to justify the use of non-free images of stamps that clearly fail WP:NFCC, but not in your opinion, which you appear to like wherever you can possibly insert them? Get with the program, provide sourced critical commentary to justify their use and all should be well. It really is that easy if you try. ww2censor (talk) 22:15, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A stamp doesn't have to be "special from the other 10,000 stamps" to be a NFC image, it simply has to tie in with the topic in a way that helps the reader better know about the topic -- and you're simply repeating your same opinionated comments, refusing to see the image gives the reader a better idea of the actual stamp and memorial. In your opinion simply saying the stamp was released is enough. Fine. At least I can see we're both offering opinion here, such that NFCC#8 entails. I was all set to concede the deletion since mine seems to be the only opinion to keep. I even removed it from the page to get this over with, but was told not to. So why don't you give it a rest, and this stamp will be deleted in due course and then you can line up another 10 images and go after them next. -- Gwillhickers 22:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please get this over with? It's been more than a month now and we would like to nominate the USS Monitor page for FA, but can't do so while this image is in dispute. -- Gwillhickers 11:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I agree with Gwillhickers in that the image is contextually relevant and enhances understanding of the topic. As the section where it's placed deals with memorials, the image illustrates the style how war ships engaged in battle are depicted in US Postal Service memorials. Diego Moya (talk) 17:06, 27 August 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:Chetniks trampling the Nazi German flag.jpeg[edit]

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 is a tricky one, because as Diego points out an image of historical significance might be usable even if the image itself isn't explicitly discussed in the article. But, as explained at NFCI 8, that argument relies on the image meeting other criteria, particularly contextual significance. In this case, the contextual significance hasn't been clearly established as far as I can tell, because the image is depicting an event that is not even discussed in the article. If the image is returned, its significance in the context of the article should be made clearer (in the article text itself). rʨanaɢ (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure this was uploaded in good faith. However, it's a presumably non-free photo with no author or source information available, and it's used in an article in a decorative way. Violation of WP:NFCC#8 and #10. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:51, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep: I uploaded this image. This book is the source. The image is used to illustrate position of some Chetniks toward Wermacht, not for decoration.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 15:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That book is the immediate source, but the author of the book does not hold the copyright to the photograph, and I don't think we know who does. By "decorative", what I mean is, you could easily say in text "Many Chetniks opposed and fought against Nazi Germany", and that information would be presented without violating anyone's copyright. What information is portrayed by the photo that cannot be conveyed with text? – Quadell ^(talk) 18:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't completely agree because I think that images like this are much more informative than text.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Some editors made such a major effort in bringing pictures about the aspect of Chetnik collaboration with Nazis, that there is a major need here on en.wiki to find pictures that show their resistance position (after all, they were a resistance moviment). Calling this "decorative" is out of context and wrong. FkpCascais (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe that many Chetniks resisted the Nazis. We should clearly convey a NPOV description of the situation in text. But that is not a valid reason to use a non-free image in Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:08, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I fail to see how this non-free photograph of five males standing on a Nazi flag "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" or how "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" per NFCC#8. No author or copyright information has been provided on the description page, nor have any verifiable information on the location in which it was taken, the date (or year) it was taken, or a year it was originally published (all per NFCC#10). The resistance activities of Chetniks are already presented in the article using reliable sources, as is the collaboration of Chetniks with the Axis occupation forces and their local allies. There is little if any evidentiary value of "resistance" provided by a photograph of five males standing on a flag without any context in terms of place, date or participants. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 04:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. You misinterpreted the context of this flag. This photo is not what you say ("five males standing on a Nazi flag") I explained at article's talk page who are males standing on flag (Kondor and his associates) and when it was taken (September 1943) and sources of the photo. Chetnik commander of Zlatibor corp and commanders of 1st and 2nd brigade of Rača trampling German flag they captured in Bajina Bašta in September 1943. Taking in consideration the sourced context this photo indeed can "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic".--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to differ. You have provided new information here that you did not provide on the talk page. And I also explained what "trample" means in English, and they clearly are not "trampling" anything. They are standing on it. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I already provided translation (on the file's talkpage) of the text from the source (book which has this photo on itc covers which clearly says "газе немачку заставу") which supports trampling verb. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peacemaker67. The image is not really necessary to understand the topic of the section or the article it is used in. Even more, it is funny to use this image in the same section as "British intercepts (Ultra) of German message traffic confirmed Chetnik timidity". It is possible that the image is free, however as long as the year of creation and the year of the original publication are not known, it must be presumed non-free. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 06:41, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I explained the year of the creation of this photo (1943) together with details of book which published it on its covers at talkpage of this file.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This book is fairly recent, however per [3] (Article 141), the publisher of a public domain work has the same material rights as the creator of the work, which last for 70 years. Can you prove that the image is free? Otherwise, in my opinion, it is redundant and doesn't meet the criteria for the non-free content. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can not prove the image is free but I provided arguments why it meets criteria for non-free image use.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What effort has been made to find free alternatives? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 07:37, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I uploaded this photo I explained that "I have made a reasonable effort to locate a free portrait of the subject bearing information about where and when it was published, including searching online sources and books" --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:08, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ad's initial explanation consisted of unsupported assertions that he had "read somewhere" about the year of the photo and someone in it, all of which is unverifiable. He also used Serbian Cyrillic to list the sources used in the book. What is anyone expected to make of that? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. At your request I explained at file's talkpage exactly where I got information about this photo and I also explained on English what is the list of sources. All of those assertions can be verified online because I provided links together with translations. Don't be afraid to apologize, and remember to apologize with sincerity. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have now provided some of the information requested, although it remains vague and imprecise in respect of this particular image. I should not have had to repeatedly ask for further information. You are the one that uploaded the file, and you should have provided all of the information about the photograph from the beginning, in fact from when you uploaded it. Feel free to apologise to everyone involved here for not doing your job as uploader in the first place. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:55, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided those information before you wrote your comment accusing me for presenting Serbian Cyrillic list of the sources and non-verifiability of the year of the photo. Let me remind you that you said you will help me with providing fair use rationale for this photo (diff) after I explained that I have never uploaded non-free file and have no experience with FUR and asked you for help (diff). --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but given you are well aware from our previous interactions that I have clearly stated I do not understand any Yugoslav language, why would you provide any response to any request I make using Cyrillic (of all things)? I previously pointed you to the non-free rationales, and to an example I have used previously, but surely you cannot reasonably expect me to help you justify an image the source for which I cannot read (assuming it was available where I live or online), especially when you are making claims for it that are completely unsupportable. I stated what it shows to the uneducated eye (and attempted to edit the image description to that effect), and now you have stated what a purported WP:RS states it shows. No more, no less. I say to the untutored eye it shows some males standing on a Nazi flag. You say (without any evidence whatsoever) it shows something about the attitude of "some" Chetniks. It doesn't. You have now stated what the source (assuming he and his book are reliable) says it shows. That is what the image description should say, not something you dreamed up. You need to add all the material you have produced about the source of this photograph and what it shows to the image description. Now. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You wanting to "help" Peacemaker? From our past discussions I know you are clearly unable to ucknolledge any resistance activities to Chetniks and you allways presented double-standards (a pic showing Chetniks along Germans for you equals all Chetnk collaboration; a pic showing Chetniks trumping a Nazi flag, yes trumping don´t make me laught not wanting to uncknolledge that, oh, now it´s only "some" Chetniks doing that. You are clerly too involved in this and you are unable to mantain a POV regarding Chetnks issue. Sorry but that is the trouth and your disguised agressivness shows it. This file is very usefull having in mind that some editors made an effort to bring all available pics portraying them negatively, while there are only few editors with time to do the opposite. FkpCascais (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67, please don't continue to accuse me for "Serbian Cyrillic" issue over and over again although I provided a translation before you wrote your first comment about it. This 1943 photo is probably not free so I uploaded it using a fair use rationale. I identified its source, provided copyright tag and named an article in which this photo would be used. I also explained the contextual significance so I believe that nominator has not presented valid arguments for deletion. This is my first upload of non-free content so I apologize if I am wrong. Yes, I believe this photo would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic because of what it illustrates while its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. That is what I think, not what I have "dreamed up". Although almost every single comment you write to me (probably hundreds until now) is unnecessary harsh it is additionally inappropriate here because you actually promised to help me in this case. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Fkp, those that live in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. I merely include what reliable sources say about Chetnik collaboration and resistance. That is all. @Ad, the issue on this page is whether the non-free rationale for this image meets criteria 8 and 10. If it doesn't it will get deleted. Please try to focus on addressing those issues. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:21, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your "living in glasshouses" comment is not constructive neither is your continuous refusal to accept what source says (trampling) and what picture actually illustrate (trampling the flag has always been action of flag desecration and "such action is intended to make a political point against a country or its policies" (link)).
I think I addressed WP:NFCC#8 and #10 issues and I explained how ("I uploaded it using a fair use rationale. I identified its source, provided copyright tag...."). Will you please point to issues which you think are not addressed so I could fix them?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 06:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No attempt to slap down Fkp for not making constructive comments then? Now that would be a cold day in hell. Quadell pointed out that "That book is the immediate source, but the author of the book does not hold the copyright to the photograph, and I don't think we know who does." and all you have done to address concerns about whether it "significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic" or how "its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" is just to assert that "it does!" (ie not how). Eleassar has made other points. You can read the non-free criteria to see where you might have not met the mark. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks that identifying the copyright holder is not a request of WP:NFCCP which says that this information should be supplemented "where possible". I wish there were free alternative photos which would be so illustrative, but I could not find any. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 08:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else made attempt at ANI to "slap down" FkpCascais because of the comment he wrote to you here. There was no need to discuss it here like there was no need for another unnecessary harsh comment ("a cold day in hell") you wrote to me.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peacemaker67. Clearly fails to meet the necessary NFCC requirements. The image does nothing to further the reader's knowledge in any way that the text alone could not. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 01:52, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please present a list of NFCC requirements which are not met here?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 07:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC 8 says that the image should "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". I cannot see how a bunch of men standing on a flag does that nor how your current description addresses that. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 20:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As long as we're claiming an image as fair use, the copyright holder isn't particularly relevant, since we're using it in what we say to be a legal defiance of the copyright holder. We can also take nonfree images from republishers and claim them as fair use without the republication weakening our argument. As far as I can see, the argument here should be based on factors such as replaceability and contextual significance; I have no opinion on those questions. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clarification. I will now change my Comment into Keep !vote because I believe the contextual significance and repleceability factors are met. This photo shows high rank Chetnik military officers (commanders of Chetnik corp and brigades) trampling Nazi German flag captured in the battle of previous day and brought to supreme Chetnik headquarter in Brestovac on Tornik to be shown to Draža Mihailović. That act is a Flag desecration which is "intended to make a political point against a country or its policies". I don't think it is possible to find better illustration of the topic.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Obviously significant for its usage, per Antidiscriminator`s comment, per Nfcc 8.--WhiteWriter^speaks 12:39, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Nyttend, above, says that the NFCC#10 requirements are met for this image, and I bow to his experience with NFCC#10. I do not believe that this image in inaccurate or misleading, and I do not believe that the image is replaceable. The only remaining objection is that it does not fulfill NFCC#8, that it does not give information necessary to fully understanding the topic that cannot be conveyed by text. There is room for legitimate disagreement on this, but I believe most of the votes (pro and con) above are based more on the political implications than on an intention to uphold our policies. I pity the closing admin that has to go through and make a determination based on all this. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No need to pity anybody.

Whether the only remaining objection stands or not depends on the subjective perception which, of course, can be influenced by political implications. In this case two perceptions of this photo are presented here:

"a bunch of men/some males standing on a (Nazi) flag"
Nazi German Flag desecration performed by high rank Chetnik military officers in their headquarters on Zlatibor.

Everything is in the eye of beholder. I think that this photo would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic because of what it illustrates, especially if supplied with appropriate caption. This is my first upload of non-free content so I apologize if I am wrong.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everything is not in the eye of the beholder. If the source says they are trampling on the flag, then that is what they are doing. If it says they are desecrating the flag, then that is what they are doing. You have said that the source describes it as trampling, so the image shows them trampling it, not desecrating it. To say they are desecrating it without an explicit source for that statement is blatant WP:OR. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:55, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trampling the flag is act of flag desacration.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is OR unless a reliable source says that what is depicted in this image is "flag desecration". That is NOT what you have said the source says, so guess what? It is NOT flag desecration, because describing it as "desecration" when a reliable source does not say that is WP:OR. Plain and simple. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 12:26, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is not as simple as "five males standing on a Nazi flag", but an image that speaks far more than is described by some users in this discussion; higher Chetnik commanders are trampling (a desecrative action) on a Nazi flag - illustrating the fact that the collaborationism was not that simple; Chetniks would have used the Nazis for the sake of their own goals. The image can further complement the surroundings of the Axis-Chetnik relations.--Zoupan 13:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for closing admin This discussion has coalesced around WP:NFCC#8 - Contextual significance. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Central to this issue is the "purpose" field of the image file page. The uploader has stated that this image "illustrates the political position of Chetniks towards the Germans", and therefore the compliance of this non-free image with NFCC#8 must be based on whether a. this is actually what the image shows, and then b. whether if that is the case, whether showing this image in the Chetniks article would significantly increase reader's understanding of the topic, AND whether not having this image in the Chetniks article would be detrimental to reader's understanding of the topic. My submission is that this image fails at a., because the purpose stated by the uploader is not what the image shows. The description of the file, drawn from the source from which the image was taken, indicates what this image shows, ie a group of Chetnik commanders trampling a Nazi flag that was captured by them during fighting with the Germans, and that this image was taken at Supreme Chetnik headquarters on 30 September 1943 following fighting on 29 September. So, the image "illustrates that some units of the Chetnik movement in the Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia were fighting the Germans in September 1943". To say it shows more than what is actually shows is WP:OR. Given there is no comparable reliably sourced and free photograph of Chetniks that I am aware of that illustrates Chetniks fighting the Germans in this area in September 1943, I would have no objection to the file on the grounds of NFCC#8 if that was the stated purpose of the file. If the uploader and his supporters continue to claim the file shows something it clearly does not, then I continue to object to it on the grounds that the purpose of the file is far too broad and unsupported by the source from which the image is drawn. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFCI#8, historical images are accepted as valid images under NFCC ("historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously"). The image allows us to see several officers members of the Chetnik Zlatibor Corps and 1st and 2nd Rača Brigades, and therefore increases the reader's understanding of how those troops were equipped (quality of their uniforms, weapon, warm clothing, shoes) and also some ethnic characteristics (age, ethnicity) - i.e. the typical attributes for what historical photography is studied, and that the guideline commonly list as valid. Diego (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly accept that is an appropriate purpose under NFCC#8. Thanks for commenting, Diego. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Peacemaker67. -- Director (talk) 00:43, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Zoupan and Diego. 23 editor (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Peacemaker67. This non-free image has no major role in improving the article's quality. Reh man 01:20, 22 September 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:Dead Man Walking (Body of Proof).jpg[edit]

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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I love Body of Proof and hate it that it's being canceled. But I don't see how seeing this screenshot could possibly improve a user's understanding of a particular episode. It's an infobox photo for the sake of having an infobox photo. B (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the screenshot's content is not meaningfully discussed in the article body. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:05, 25 July 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.