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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shadows 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gibmetal77 ( | contribs).

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shadows 3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gibmetal77 ( | contribs).

• Procedural nomination: images are tagged as disputed fair-use rationale because there are too many non-free images being used on the same article (Shadows (Breed 77 song)). As I'm not at all familiar with this sort of article, I'm not sure whether we need all these images or not, so bringing it here to get a wider input. Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both, excessive use of non-free content in violation of WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: - All resolved - Peripitus (Talk) 11:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC) Deletions below proposed by User:Damiens.rf are the subject of an Administrators' Noticeboard for Incidents discussion thread Wikipedia:ANI#Deletion nominations of images valid within articles. There has been some discussion that they are possibly disruptive but no consensus to remove them or box the sections below as yet. Interested parties are recommended to discuss meta-implications there and only comment on specific nominations below. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 08:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. non-admin closure notice — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gabrielle Scroll.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NeilEvans ( | contribs).

• Decorative screenshot. Damiens.rf 00:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This illustrates Gabrielle's role as a bard.
• Delete Uh.... image does not add much to understand the role that Gabrille is playing as a bard.... it's a hand writing on a scroll, no bard-specific stuff, no commentary of what alphabet she is using, or on why she uses that pencil and not something else.... --Enric Naval (talk) 18:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Enric. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Does not pass NFCC#3. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:42, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Protector-Niven.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tuttt ( | contribs).

• Second and undiscussed book cover in article. Only decorative non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 06:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It depicts an adult Pak protector. Those are the pivotal characters of this serie, and they are described on the text that is right besides the photo. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• That description of course was not there when I nominated the image for deletion. Plus the image still fails wp:nfcc. Garion96 (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dj-ash.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stormchaser ( | contribs).

• Useless, you can barely see the subject. ViperSnake151  Talk  12:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The FUR says "Purpose of use: To illustrate the band's concept and member.". It clearly fails to do so in any manner. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:50, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It clearly does not help in illustrating the band. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted as a derivative work of a copyrighted sculpture. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:21, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Longo Sleep 84.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Billwhittaker ( | contribs).

• Derivative work of a copyrighted artwork. No release by the artist is given. There is no Panoramafreiheit in the USA allowing the reuse of copyrighted artworks on public display, see WP:FOP.  Sandstein  14:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a work of art owned by the U.S. Federal government, and as such it is public domain. Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Not so. Per Wikipedia:Copyrights#U.S. government photographs, "Works produced by civilian and military employees of the United States federal government in the scope of their employment are public domain by statute in the United States". It does not seem that Robert Longo created this artwork while in the employment of the federal government. Rather it is likely that he was commissioned to do so, which is not the same thing; this means he retains the copyright even though the government owns the sculpture.  Sandstein  14:20, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree. U.S. law makes no distinction between commissioned work and work by employees. Having worked for the feds as a contractor I can assure you that they own all copyrights to work produced under commission. The page you cite is a red herring, it makes no distinction about commissioned work. Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• But if the U.S. government does own the copyright as a result of the commissioning contract, then the work is not in the public domain and cannot be used by us unless the government releases it under a free licence. This follows from USC 17 §105: "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." In other words, the issue is whether this is a "work of the United States Government", i.e., the work of a government employee, which it is not.  Sandstein  14:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What you cited refers to registered copyrights. Can you name a single instance when the feds invoked a copyright on a federally-owned work of art other than postage stamps? If you are correct in your broad interpretation, that we should assume that all Federal images and works are copyrighted (unless proven otherwise), Wikipedia should remove all Federal images and works; good luck with that. Bill Whittaker (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not a copyright expert, but as far as I can tell that provision refers to all copyright, registered or otherwise. I am not aware of the problems other categories of government works may pose, but they are not discussed here. The application of pertinent law to this case seems straightforward enough.  Sandstein  15:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems that you agree that the U.S. Government owns the copyright. The question is now does this fall under public domain? There is widespread agreement that federal works and images are public domain with very, very few exceptions. These exceptions do not include public sculpture. This should, therefore, be the end of the discussion. All the best, Bill Whittaker (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If it's owned by the US Gov't, it's public domain. Even if the artist was commissioned by the gov't, his rights, along with the work itself, become the property of the gov't when transfer of the work is made to the gov't. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That isn't true. If it were, every book in the Library of Congress would be PD...they aren't. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What? Is it even possible to assert copyright over the photos made to a sculpture that is publically exhibited in a public place?. The only copyright should be that of the photographer, and he has given it up. This should be labelled as Public Domain, period. Well, in the US you can do that commons:Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#United_States. Anyways, the sculptor transferred the work to the US federal government. From Work_of_the_United_States_Government#Works_produced_by_contractors it seems that all the copyright goes to the government unless there was a special clause in the contract. Looking at the Smithsonian entry on the sculpture I don't see any indication that there exists any such clause. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- per Naval's research on the Smithsonian's classification of the artwork, the exhibition in public space, the work for gov't, and the granting of the rights by the photographer. It seems at this point the burden of proof is on showing that someone believes that this photograph could abuse a copyright
• Delete. I agree with Enric Naval's interpretation of the FAR regulations, but I disagree with his conclusion. This much seems clear: the sculpture is almost certainly under copyright, whether the copyright is owned by the United States Government, the United States Post Office or Robert Longo. Because there is no freedom of panorama for sculpture in the United States, a photograph of the statue is an infringing work. It gives me great pain but I do not see any way around that. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it has been demonstrated that the Feds have not established copyright on this item. If you believe that all Federal works are copyrighted unless proven otherwise, then get busy deleting the hundreds of thousands of maps in Wikipedia derived from Federal USGS sources. Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot tell who currently owns the copyright on this piece based on the information that has been presented here, but it appears to be quite likely that it is not in the public domain, contrary to your claims. Tim Pierce (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refer again to the Smithsonian entry on the sculpture, no mention of copyright there. If you are going to assume that all Federal works are copyrighted, even when a good faith effort finds no evidence of copyright, then, by this logic, all Federal works are copyrighted. My point about the maps is urgent- almost every US map on wikipedia is derived from USGS sources, much of this data is from contractors. Are you proposing that every USGS map used as a basis for a Wikipedia map requires iron-clad proof that it is not copyrighted? Bill Whittaker (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very familiar with the Smithsonian database, but I can't find any database entry which explains the copyright status for a work of art. Can you point me to an example of a Smithsonian database entry which describes a work as being under copyright protection, so I understand what to look for?

The rule of thumb for identifying public domain works by the U.S. government are pretty clear-cut in most cases. USGS maps are in the public domain because they are produced by Federal employees in the course of their official duties for the government. That clearly does not apply to this work. I'm disappointed by your disingenuousness, Bill. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Items produced by a Federal Agency are public domain, so the USGS maps/charts/photos are PD. This was produced by an individual under contract with the US government. There is no indication he ever released those rights. — BQZip01 — ^talk 00:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The US Government can't create copyrights, but it can own them. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read ALL the discussion before chiming in. It has been established that the feds have made no copyright claim on this item. Bill Whittaker (talk) 17:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since Longo created the work, Longo holds the copyright unless he has explicitly transfered the copyright to another entity. I don't see any evidence that he transfered the work the U.S. Government, but even if he did, the U.S. Government is capable of holding copyrights that were transferred to them. Here I quote from "The Public Domain" by attorney Stephen Fishman: "Works created for the federal government by independent contractors--meaning people who are neither U.S. government officers nor employees--can be protected by copyright.... The copyright could be owned either (1) by the contractor who created it, or (2) by the U.S. government if it required the contractor to assign his or her copyright to it." – Quadell ^(talk) 00:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep...but... Delete Pretty clear-cut case, though I understand the confusion. A sculpture created at the behest of the U.S. Government is not automatically PD unless it was created by a Government employee in line with his/her duties. A perfect example of this is any U.S. military plane. Just because the government owns the plane, the design is still copyrighted by the company that created it. Other entities cannot reproduce the aircraft (without getting a license) without violating the copyright. The same goes for software: just because the company produces it for the military doesn't make it PD. That said, this image could certainly be included at a lower resolution in Longo's article and replaced with an appropriate tag/FUR. It should be removed from the rest of the articles as a violation of WP:NFCC#3. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm gonna retract this one a little since Longo isn't primarily known for this work (as a matter of fact, it's pretty obscure), so I don't think this is the appropriate image to include. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Quadell. Garion96 (talk) 06:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, it seems likely to be deleted in its current form (but you can't say I didn't put up a good fight!). However, if I follow User:BQZip01's advice and reduce the dpi (to screen resolution, I assume) and remove it from all other articles and tag it properly, is it likely to survive another (inevitable)copyright challenge? If so, what is the proper copyright tag to put on this reduced image? Thank you, Bill Whittaker (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Such an image would need a {{Non-free 3D art}} tag with an appropriate {{FUR}} (Fair Use Rationale) added to it. Please realize this is not one his prominent works and, IMHO, shouldn't be on this encyclopedia. But if it is going to be included, it is required to have this tag. Best Wishes... — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted for excessive use of non-free media. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VK cover May 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ramashray ( | contribs).

• We don't need this extra non-free magazine cover. The article already uses one. Let's keep a minimal usage. Damiens.rf 15:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—The Cover Photo is of great significance to the tradition, and helps to illustrate the link between the Monastic order. The Siva temple at Rameswaram cover page is also important to illustrate the "cultural heritage" aspect.
• Delete There is no need to have these images to say that the magazine covers those topics, and there is already one cover in the infobox. Those are decorative images. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:White Dwarf 2nd issue.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quantockgoblin ( | contribs).

• Non-free magazine cover used in a decorative non-free image gallery. Damiens.rf 15:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A gallery of non-free images with no commentary at all? That's a plain violation of the "Significance" point of WP:NFCC, they bring nothing to the user that can't already be seen in the two images that remain un-nominated at White_Dwarf_(magazine). --Enric Naval (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:White dwarf issue 67.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RJHall ( | contribs).

• Non-free magazine cover used in a decorative non-free image gallery. Damiens.rf 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same rationale as White Dwarf 2nd issue.png above. Non-free gallery and no significance. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted, fails NFCC#8

File:Wigan v Bath 1996 match programme.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jeff79 ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 15:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the illustration is for the discussion of the match adjacent to it which is important in the context of an article comparing the two sports. Not mere decoration at all.--Jeff79 (talk) 23:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how does this cover image increases the understanding of that discussion? --Damiens.rf 22:20, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:White dwarf 237.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gracefool ( | contribs).

• Non-free magazine cover used in a decorative non-free image gallery. Damiens.rf 15:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Same rationale as White Dwarf 2nd issue.png above. Non-free gallery and no significance. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this one. The other images you discuss above are higher resolution and therefore more dubious, but this one is very low-res (a thumbnail) and for that reason, when used to illustrate a point (I have moved the image back out of the gallery), it is clearly within Wikipedia style and policy. In other words, the debatibility of it's significance combined with a good fair use rationale shows it is not a clear case for deletion. Wikipedia is not a democracy. ··gracefool☺ 16:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Either delete or keep this one and delete the other two covers in the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• What Quadell said is spot on: WP:NFCC#3. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted. There are way too many non-free images in the article to pass WP:NFCC#3. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willie Gillis at the U.S.O..jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger ( | contribs).

• Non-free magazine cover used in a decorative non-free image gallery. Damiens.rf 15:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The whole article is analysis or criticism of the cover series.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Overuse of non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all except a couple representative ones and a few with commentary Gallery of non-free images. You don't need eleven pictures in the infobox to understand what it was about, so it's overuse. (Tony is totally right in that this article needs to have many images so that the reader can understand what the posters represented, but 11 paintings in the infobox is overkill).

I ask to keep the representative images at the infobox, in order to illustrate the subject, since there are no free alternatives:

• File:Willie Gillis at the U.S.O..jpg
• File:Willie_Gillis_Food_Package.jpg

and to keep also these ones at relevant places in the article, they are already in the correct places with a caption explaining the commentary, they just need to be removed from the infobox:

• File:Willie_Gillis_New_Year's_Eve.JPG there is a whole paragraph going over the different elements of the picture
• File:Willie Gillis in Convoy.jpg there is commentary about the picture itself, but the illustration does not help to understand it better, however it shows the contrast of the wartime pictures with the later peacetime picture that I placed below, so it might be worth keeping.
• File:Willie_Gillis_in_College.jpg there is commentary on how the peacetime style of this picture broke with the style of former pictures
• File:Willie Gillis on K.P..jpg there is commentary on how it cemented indentification with families (under the name "Hometown News")

I think that the others should be removed. Someone should upload and add the "Willie Gillis: Hometown News" painting, since there is probably enough commentary to justify adding it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing the important commentary on File:Willie Gillis Generations.jpg. Also, "Willie Gillis: Hometown News" is also known as Willie Gillis on K.P..jpg.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the comment, I'm not sure that we need to keep every single poster. If they were free images I would agree, but we are restricted by fair use, so we should keep only those that really help to understand important points. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:21, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted for NFCC#3 violation. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willie Gillis on K.P..jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger ( | contribs).

• Non-free magazine cover used in a decorative non-free image gallery. Damiens.rf 15:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The whole article is analysis or criticism of the cover series.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Overuse of non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep see rationale at Willie Gillis at the U.S.O..jpg --Enric Naval (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted for NFCC#3 violation. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:What a catch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LukeTheSpook ( | contribs).

• Image of a non-free magazine cover used in an article that does not talk about the cover image. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Damiens.rf 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The whole article is analysis or criticism of the cover series.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Overuse of non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per above. Wknight94 ^talk 21:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see rationale at Willie Gillis at the U.S.O..jpg --Enric Naval (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted for NFCC#3 violation. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willie Gillis in a Blackout.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger ( | contribs).

• Non-free magazine cover used in a decorative non-free image gallery. Damiens.rf 15:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The whole article is analysis or criticism of the cover series.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Overuse of non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see rationale at Willie Gillis at the U.S.O..jpg --Enric Naval (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted for NFCC#3 violation. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willie Gillis in Church.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger ( | contribs).

• Non-free magazine cover used in a decorative non-free image gallery. Damiens.rf 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The whole article is analysis or criticism of the cover series.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Overuse of non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see rationale at Willie Gillis at the U.S.O..jpg --Enric Naval (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted for NFCC#3 violation. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:07, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Double Trouble for Willie Gillis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger ( | contribs).

• Non-free magazine cover used in a decorative non-free image gallery. Damiens.rf 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The whole article is analysis or criticism of the cover series.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Overuse of non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see rationale at Willie Gillis at the U.S.O..jpg --Enric Naval (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willie's Rope Trick.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger ( | contribs).

• Non-free magazine cover used in a decorative non-free image gallery. Damiens.rf 15:30, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The whole article is analysis or criticism of the cover series.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Overuse of non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see rationale at Willie Gillis at the U.S.O..jpg --Enric Naval (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willie Gillis New Year's Eve.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger ( | contribs).

• Non-free magazine cover used in a decorative non-free image gallery. Damiens.rf 15:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The whole article is analysis or criticism of the cover series.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Overuse of non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep see rationale at Willie Gillis at the U.S.O..jpg --Enric Naval (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Willie Gillis Generations.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyTheTiger ( | contribs).

• Non-free magazine cover used in a decorative non-free image gallery. Damiens.rf 15:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The whole article is analysis or criticism of the cover series.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Overuse of non-free content. Garion96 (talk) 16:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete see rationale at Willie Gillis at the U.S.O..jpg --Enric Naval (talk) 04:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:International_university_International_Group.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ainswiki ( | contribs).

• Unused image, uploader removed it from the International University in Germany article him/herself. Sherool (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as orphaned image. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here @} 06:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Utrazlogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Con101193 ( | contribs).

• No reasonable use for this file, uploaded over 2 weeks ago and not used in any articles. Is a company logo and would not otherwise be useful in any other articles. Terrillja _talk 16:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Megamix(BritneySpearsVideo).gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Enanoj1111 ( | contribs).

• This animation is excessive an not-necessary use of non-free content. The visual aspect of the Brinry Spear's videoclip it was extracted from is not discussed anywhere in the encyclopedia (and possibly in any reliable sources). Damiens.rf 18:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As nom says, it's excessive, and it has no commentary at all about why it's significant to see those specific parts of the video. I can understand showing a clip that was controversial because of what it depicted and how it was criticized at RS, but this is not the case here. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:24, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:JET cover 1952-02-14.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emerson7 ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 18:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article already has File:JET cover 2008-06-02 .jpg with a black person in the cover, which represents better that it covered afroamerican issues. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shae-marks-venus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MutterErde ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 18:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Decorative. No significance assigned in article text. A free image should be obtained. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:13, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shamrockfujitapridemag.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nyquistx3 ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 18:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete invalid rationale. You don't need a cover image to say that it appeared in the cover of an important magazine. The article, Ken Shamrock does not have special commentary about this cover or its content, and it's just a photo composition of images of the two fighters. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sienna Guillory Esquire.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lindsey8417 ( | contribs).

• We don't need to see this non-free cover magazine to understand the girl was on the cover. Damiens.rf 18:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In actor articles there is no reason for having a non-free photo since a free photo can be reasonably obtained. Also, the article already has two photos that depict her well, one free and one un-free. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SlyFamilyStone RScover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan56 ( | contribs).

• We don't need to see this non-free cover magazine to understand the family was on the cover. Damiens.rf 18:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete decorative image (just look at the other rationales I made for other covers in this page) --Enric Naval (talk) 21:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Source-1-.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hvbvvv ( | contribs).

• The reader doesn't need to see this non-free magazine cover to understand a discussion about a story published by the magazine. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Damiens.rf 18:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Better than other covers here, but still has the same problem. The cover adds nothing to the knowledge that the magazine made that issue. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sports Illustrated 02SEP1968.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Steven Andrew Miller ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 18:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, decorative. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SopranosVanityFair.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bbsrock ( | contribs).

• Fails WP:NFCC#8: Seing this non-free magazine cover does not improve the readers understanding of the phrase "It has been called "perhaps the greatest pop-culture masterpiece of its day" by Vanity Fair". Damiens.rf 18:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as Damiens says. See my rational in similar covers in this page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Symington-usaf.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Americasroof ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 18:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete decorative, no significance so fails WP:NFCC#8. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFCC#8. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Symington-1960.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Americasroof ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 18:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wellll, this image can be related to how he was in equal footing with Kennedy and other candidates and some point in time. Howeeeeever, there is no commentary on the articles about how or why it's significant so delete per WP:NFCC#8 unless someone can write up something about the image that improves the understanding of the reader, so it can rescued from deletion. Unsure if there is actually some significant commentary that can be done about this image. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Templer time.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mr impossible ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 18:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Decorative, no explanation about significance, fails WP:NFCC#8, there is already a public domain image of him on the infobox. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Time 11-26-1951.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Exec8 ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 18:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Time New York Blackout.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Halgin ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. We don't have to see Time's cover just to make sure the event was covered by the press. Damiens.rf 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a non-free image of the blackout that shows the looting. Not sure that we can get a comparable free image that also shows looting. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Our convenience doesn't make for a very strong fair use argument. --17:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep -- Disagree w/ Damiens's second comment -- our convenience isn't a good argument if that translates to "it's easier for us," but irreplaceability does. It is the reason why we allow Fair Use images to illustrated deceased people (I would expand to people far beyond the period they're famous for, but that's not here nor there), so I would think extremely difficult to find images of irreplaceable events would count for Fair Use as well. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. We simply can't freely use Time's professional copyright-protected work just because "we can't find anything better". --Damiens.rf 22:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think that showing the blackout and/or the accompanying looting is very important in an article on the blackout, so NFCC#8 is no problem. There are no free photos known to exist or that could be created, so NFCC#1 is fine. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Should another photo be found that is free/better, it should be replaced. Until then, it is the only image we have of the notable event. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:56, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But I prefer this one http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2007/07/09/nyregion/blackout.span_cityroom.jpg if we could get that instead? The TIME one is so small... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.114.97 (talk) 08:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheMagsaysayStory.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kraxler ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free book cover. Damiens.rf 18:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, delete it then. Kraxler (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same rationale as other Time covers above in this page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for lack of rationale as to irreplaceability, etc. but if the user wants, I would give time to do a copyright renewal search -- it's 1956 copyright, so it's in the period where (1) there's not automatic copyright renewal, and (2) the renewal data is available online, so the image may well be out of copyright. I've found quite a number of late 1950s books are PD in the U.S. for lack of renewal. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Time cover-Joseph Hazelwood Exxon Valdez July 24 1989.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dual Freq ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. We don't need to replicate a non-free Time's magazine cover just to make the point the event depicted was covered by the press. Damiens.rf 18:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete same rationale as other Time covers above in this page. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted as an NFCC#8 violation. Neither this cover, nor Time Magazine, nor inaccurate visual depictions are mentioned in the article at all outside the caption. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Time magazine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bert Schlossberg ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. We don't need to replicate a non-free Time's magazine cover just to make the point the event depicted was covered by the press. Damiens.rf 18:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I believe the point being depicted here is the inaccurate coverage by the press. Socrates2008 (Talk) 23:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This image should not be deleted. It should be retained with original caption. The reasons for non deletion, are sufficiently provided by the info which has now been added to the file photo http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Time_magazine.jpg Bert Schlossberg (talk) 06:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep this cover. I'll check now the other dozen of covers on this page. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- note that the nominator in adding the deletion tag (I hope, unintentionally) removed the display of the caption which explained why the image was being referenced in the article. I have readded it. It explains that the cover itself became part of the story. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Still decorative, since the article does not discusses the "inaccuracy". --Damiens.rf 22:27, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TimeJimMoran.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mgreason ( | contribs).

• It's not fair use do duplicate a drawing commissioned by Time to illustrate an article by ours. If we're going to use a drawing to show how the man looked like, a Wikipedian should make a new drawing. If the point is to show the man was famous enough to be on Time's cover, we should simply point to verifiable sources that confirm that. Damiens.rf 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- per Damiens's reasoning. I think that the time magazine story and cover might be important enough in the subject's life to reference in the article and thus qualify for Fair Use protection, but the current article does not come close.

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TimeCover-May31-1954.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ted Wilkes ( | contribs).

• It's not fair use do duplicate a drawing commissioned by Time to illustrate an article by ours. If we're going to use a drawing to show how the horse looked like, a Wikipedian should make a new drawing. If the point is to show the horse was famous enough to be on Time's cover, we should simply point to verifiable sources that confirm that. Damiens.rf 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:02, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Time-melott.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Never been to spain ( | contribs).

• It's not fair use do duplicate a drawing commissioned by Time to illustrate an article by ours. If we're going to use a drawing to show how the man looked like, a Wikipedian should make a new drawing. If the point is to show the man was famous enough to be on Time's cover, we should simply point to verifiable sources that confirm that. Damiens.rf 18:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ToscaniniTime1948.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emerson7 ( | contribs).

• It's not fair use do duplicate a drawing commissioned by Time to illustrate an article by ours. If we're going to use a drawing to show how the man looked like, a Wikipedian should make a new drawing. If the point is to show the man was famous enough to be on Time's cover, we should simply point to verifiable sources that confirm that. Damiens.rf 18:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the image appears in a section discussing critical reception and media coverage of Toscanini's life. The image is not attempting to do what the nominator accuses it of doing. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 12:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete To me it seems to fail WP:NFCC#8, I don't see how that cover "significantly increase[s] readers' understanding of the topic" in any manner, there is no comment about that specific cover. The article says that he appeared three times in the Time cover, but depicting that covers adds nothing to that fact. Removing the picture does not deteriorate the understanding of the topic either, it just removes a pretty picture. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted, fails WP:NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 01:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Trevor hoffman si cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mscuthbert ( | contribs).

• We don't need to see this Sports Illustrated cover to understand that the guy was famous enough to be on the cover. Damiens.rf 18:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- the cover is there specifically to show evidence for the fact that at one time Sports Illustrated devoted their cover story, not to the idea that he was famous enough to be on the cover, but to the idea that he was considered the best closer ever. As such, it is a discussion of the cover itself, not an illustration of the subject. It is an important piece of evidence, discussed on the talk page of the article in some depth; several times the line "considered one of the best closers ever and even, in important secondary sources, the best closer ever" has had the second part of the line removed, and reinstated only by reference to the S.I. cover story. The nominator does not give a rationale for deletion and does not discuss any of the points in the Fair Use rationale for the image. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 00:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Looking at Talk:Trevor Hoffman it seems that the fair use is justified. It seems that people really didn't really believe that he was called "the greatest ever", and the cover makes sure to show that he really was, and in the cover of a notable magazine. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• We don't use non-free images as "evidence". Verifiable sources should suffice.--Damiens.rf 22:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tyson Vega Video.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GBataille ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free poster. Damiens.rf 18:55, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tyson Cane.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GBataille ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 18:55, 19 May 2009 (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.

• What discussion?? I see only one entry. The image was by no means "decorative," but illustrated a fact discussed in the article.GBataille (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:X360halowars.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blackwatch21 ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, make into the main example, and nominate File:X360cover.jpg instead. –xeno ^talk 19:12, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A sole example to show the cover layout is appropriate. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Deleted, does not pass NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yott.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. We don't have to see the cover to understand the band was on the cover. Damiens.rf 19:04, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The magazine cover proved to be a critical junction in the band's career - without it the band is unlikely to have had the critical success that it had. It is an important illustration and adds to the overall article. Dan arndt (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Simply stating they were featured on the cover and that it led to further success is enough. We don't need to have the picture to show that information, but citing it is apropos. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Consider WP:FUC #8 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. My reading of the article is significantly increased because I can see with my own eyes that NME declared 1985 was the year of The Triffids, the visual impact is far more effective than reading text claiming the same. I believe any casual reader would have their understanding of The Triffids enhanced by keeping the NME cover. Without the image the NME declaration is lost in the article's content: its importance would be significantly blunted and understanding would be lost.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 08:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails wp:nfcc. Garion96 (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dan arndt. This cover was highly significant in the band's history, thus is an important item to feature in the article - David Gerard (talk) 10:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, decorative fair use and replaceable by free text. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:William Levitt TIME cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mrdthree ( | contribs).

• It's not fair use do duplicate a drawing commissioned by Time to illustrate an article of ours. If we're going to use a drawing to show how the man looked like, a Wikipedian should make a new drawing. If the point is to show the man was famous enough to be on Time's cover, we should simply point to verifiable sources that confirm that. Damiens.rf 19:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

who are you and what makes you an expert on fair use?Mrdthree (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desmond Tutu and Brad Pitt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cazo3788 ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 19:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Desmond Tutu Quilt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cazo3788 ( | contribs).

• Decorative non-free illustration. Damiens.rf 19:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eagle Medallion.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LSX ( | contribs).

• Replaceable non-free image of a car. Damiens.rf 19:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rare Vehicle, Free image not found at time of publication will look in creative commons but doubt to find better representative of the model.Yours (talk) 01:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:EastEndersAreHere1985.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Trampikey ( | contribs).

• This non-free magazine cover is repetitive and decorative in both articles is currently used. Damiens.rf 19:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As Damiens says. In Radio_Times#Covers I can't see any relevant commentary that needs this cover. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete all. non-admin closure notice — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fangoria1.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LetsDoThisRight ( | contribs).

• Fangoria1.gif
• Fangoria2.gif
• Fangoria3.gif
• Fangoria4.gif
• Fangoria5.gif
• Fangoria6.gif
• Fangoria7.gif
• Fangoria8.gif
• Fangoria9.gif
• Fangoria10.gif
• Fangoria11.gif
• Fangoria12.gif

• Non-free magazine cover used to decorate a gallery. Damiens.rf 19:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all of them, they are all in a gallery of non-free images, in Fangoria#Image_Gallery. No significance assigned, fails WP:NFCC big time. No need to vote separatedly on each image, they are all in the same identical situation and they should have been grouped together. I refactored all the nominations into a group nomination. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All Fails WP:NFCC - especially the gallery they are displayed in. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 23:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all textbook example of what not to do with copyrighted images on Wikipedia. Fails WP:NFCC. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Giant Palouse Earthworm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ceejayoz ( | contribs).

• NFCC2. Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - Terrible copyright violation. Invalid claim of fair use: We can't freely use images from Associated Press just because they are useful. --Damiens.rf 20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Napalestinian.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rune X2 ( | contribs).

• NFCC2. Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete - Terrible copyright violation. Invalid claim of fair use: We can't freely use images from Associated Press just because they are useful. --Damiens.rf 20:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Stifle (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corralesx.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by East718 ( | contribs).

• NFCC2. Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Has been reduced and does not impact the creator's ability to sell the work. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MZMcBride. Reduced quality of deceased subject. لennavecia 20:38, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It is a news agency photo. We can only use news agency photos as the subject of commentary of the image itself. This is not the case. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This person is dead, it's unlikely that we can get now a free image of him. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Enric. We can use press photos in a limited capacity. This is one of those exceptions. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MartinezNearPerfection.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DCGeist ( | contribs).

• NFCC2. Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image. Also possibly NFCC8. Does not add to the understanding of the perfect game ViperSnake151  Talk  20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Wknight94 ^talk 21:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mike Holovak.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jayron32 ( | contribs).

• NFCC2. Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Thompson.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by VolatileChemical ( | contribs).

• NFCC2. Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antoine_Bussy.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rbraunwa ( | contribs).

• Low quality, replaced by File:Antoine AB Bussy.jpg. howcheng {chat} 20:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:060405 prehistoric dentistry vlg9a hmedium.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JSR ( | contribs).

• NFCC2. Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pat Dobson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Captain Phoebus ( | contribs).

• NFCC2. Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus--Aervanath (talk) 09:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nicole Brown Simpson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FotoPhest ( | contribs).

• NFCC2. Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Again, press agency photos CAN be fair use under some circumstances. In this case, Nicole Brown Simpson is dead, so no free use images can be produced. Sf46 (talk) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep what sf46 said. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See also #Corralesx.jpg — BQZip01 — ^talk 13:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#2. Stifle (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because of NFCC#2. We may not be able to find a free image, but we can certainly find an image whose copyright is not held by a company (such as the AP) whose entire business model is based on selling the rights to reprint their photos. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete clearly fails wp:nfcc#2. Garion96 (talk) 18:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How is this image "used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." This image (or the larger image it's excerpted from) is already in use all over the place in non-AP venues. This is not to say that we shouldn't respect their copyright, but this is a dead person who cannot have another photo taken. If there are no free images, there never will be any and, consequently, this encyclopedia entry will be incomplete in perpetuity. Now, should a free image be found, I !vote here and now (and feel free to place my vote if I am not available) that this image should be removed from Wikipedia as soon as possible. Until such a time as an image is discovered/released, keep. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:29, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See also #Time New York Blackout.png — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The AP collects photos that they hold the copyright to, and they lease these images. That's how they make all their money. If you run the New York Post, and you wanted to use this photo, you'd have to pay the AP a certain fee to use the image. And you, the New York Post, might wonder why Wikipedia gets to use the image for free and you don't. That's what's meant by "replacing the market value". In contrast, TIME Magazine does not make money by leasing the rights to use its cover images; they make their money selling magazines and advertising therein. That's why using a TIME magazine cover has few NFCC#2 concerns, but an AP photo is only allowed in the rarest of circumstances. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Time makes money from its high quality news coverages that are sometimes accompanied of valuable journalistic pictures that magazines of lesser quality don't produce. Using their pictures, even their covers, to make our coverage more valuable IS to spoil them. The usual talk about free-publicity is bullshit. --Damiens.rf 19:54, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Respectfully, please be respectful. Calling someone else's opinion B.S. doesn't really help the discussion. The AP makes the vast majority of its money on news ARTICLES; significantly more than pictures (so they don't make "all" their money on photos) I concur that, if you are a news organization, you certainly would have to be charged to use this photo, but that isn't what "fair use" entails. Legally speaking, Wikipedia is allowed to use this photo, but the sticking point on this one is our own WP:NFCC, specifically number 2 (no pun intended). As I stated above, others outside the AP use this photo and, should a free one become available, this photo should be removed as soon as is physically possible, but since no free alternative is available, and it would be impossible to get a new photo since she was killed, we should use a single identifying photograph. This doesn't prevent media outlets from still being required to pay royalties on such a photo (since they are making money off the picture and have a contract with the AP). Additionally, this doesn't prevent the AP from functioning in its own capacity in relation to this photo. I'm not arguing for every single AP photo to be free game, but the image has to be of such importance that not having a photo (that cannot be replaced) would be more detrimental than having the photo. We are trying to build a quality encyclopedia as well as a generally free one. This balance isn't easy and I welcome supporting and opposing opinions. :-) — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bernardini.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mkyanksfan ( | contribs).

• Non-free picture of a living horse. Also fails WP:NFCC#2 for being shamelessly copied from a news source. Damiens.rf 20:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Spectacular Bid Kentucky Derby.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Handicapper ( | contribs).

• This non-free magazine cover helps nothing in the understanding of the article. (Is it supposed to show what that black horse looked like?) No point in abusing Sports Illustrated copyright this way. They spend money to produce quality photographs that give the publication its unique status. Damiens.rf 20:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:18art2.337.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( | contribs).

• NFCC2. Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image. Unclear rationale ViperSnake151  Talk  20:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep. Stifle (talk) 10:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:USSLasalleAP-102.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sf46 ( | contribs).

• Claimed to be AP photo, but with PD-USGov tag. If it is an AP photo, NFCC2. Press agency photo cannot be fair use. Market role is to sell the right to use this image. ViperSnake151  Talk  20:57, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - LIcense tag does not claim to be US Government photo. License tag states that image IS in public domain due to age of photo. Image description is also consistent with this information. Please re-read image description and license tag and see that this is correct, and that press agency photos CAN be public domain because of age considerations. Sf46 (talk) 01:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as viper points out, this image os out of copyright, and that's independent of its origin. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AP photos aren't copyrighted in perpetuity and need to be appropriately labeled from this era to retain such protections. This one isn't, ergo, it lost its copyrighted status=PD. The tags are appropriate. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:06, 25 May 2009 (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.