The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Image of Che, dead. Uploader says its PD, but doesn't say why he thinks it is. Che died in 1967. – Quadell(talk) (random) 01:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The CIA admits this photo was taken by one of their operatives in recently declassified documents[1]. I have updated licensing to reflect PD-USGov-CIA. -Nard 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Non-free image with no relevance to either article it is being used in. Already have an image of him, and this one is no more notable than that one. One will suffice. Ejfetters (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Shatner's appearance in ST6 was very different than in TOS, and it makes sense to portray him at both extremes.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 18:19, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn as the image has been removed from Captain (Star Trek) and seems to be sufficient in the James T. Kirk article per SarekOfVulcan's statement. Ejfetters (talk) 06:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy deletion contested, so bringing here. We already have a free image of this performer, no non-free image is needed. Videmus OmniaTalk 02:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This was the reason given against speedy deletion - "The rationale and purpose have now been outlined. Permission and license were granted to me directly from subjects record label for use.The tag has been changed and I now believe we can keep the image as it is.Junebug52 15:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Videmus Omnia (talk • contribs) [reply]
I am unsure as to what to do about this image. It is of a low quality so it is not capable of being duplicated and I was given expressed permission to use the image by the management company for Mr. Cook. Junebug52 05:08, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This image is now tagged {{GFDL}}, but I believe that's incorrect. It should be {{Permission}}, but as VO said, we already have a free image. – Quadell(talk) (random) 18:28, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For all intents and purposes, image being used solely to illustrate subject., failing WP:NFCCThe Evil Spartan (talk) 02:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This image was apparently uploaded to accompany now-deleted article Ibad Ul islam. The subjects of this photo are non-notable, so this image will probably never be used in an article. Note also that this photo originally had an identical redundant copy, which I deleted per CSD I1. Danaman5 (talk) 05:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted without prejudice - that big watermark that takes up 1/4 of the image makes it unusable, regardless of whether or not this image meets our fair use criteria (which I take no position on). --B (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons Behnam (talk) 12:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced by Image:IRNIC_Logo Behnam (talk) 12:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Replaceable fair use. Rettetast (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have e-mailed David Hughes personally and asked if he gives permission for the image to be used on his wikipedia page, and brought that page and the image page to his attention. I request that the deletion of the image be held back until I hear a response or he logs in and takes action personally. SheffGruff (talk) 23:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
David Hughes has e-mailed me today to say that the use of the image is fine (and suggested some better ones). I may replace the image with a more flattering one if he sends me them as the current image is rather boring. SheffGruff (talk) 13:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Permission isn't the problem. Images of living people are considered inherently replaceable with rare exceptions. (The rare exceptions are people like Osama bin Laden, who are unavailable to make a photograph available.) Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for more information. Wikipedia will only accept an image provided under an acceptable free license, such as the GFDL. --B (talk) 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
---
Image deleted. When clear written permission is provided (with contact info for verification) to release image under an acceptable free license, the image could be restored or re-uploaded. -Nv8200ptalk 13:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Tagged {{GFDL-self}}, which is extremely unlikely. The link provided in the "Source" field is broken; the other link on the image description page is just to a copy of the image itself, with no copyright or licensing information. This is far more likely to be a still from a video, but without information on the copyright holder, this image couldn't even be used under a fair use claim. —AngrIf you've written a quality article... 13:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These were previously only used in an article about the band, which was deleted for being non-notable. Now orphans, not useful. – Quadell(talk) (random) 15:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free book cover claimed under fair use, but not used to illustrate book (it doesn't even mention the book's title), but to illustrate living person for which a free image could be created/used instead. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I did first, but the uploader just removed that tag, so I thought this would probably be a better way. --Fritz S. (Talk) 18:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since he was completely unjustified in doing that, I've restored the speedy tag and put the image on my watchlist. —AngrIf you've written a quality article... 19:45, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This photograph is a derivative work of the movie poster. The permission of the copyright holder of the poster would be required for this to be released into the public domain. Jeremy (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see nothing wrong with this image. It is an open air scene and the main focus is not the copyrighted image. -Nard 18:30, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly would this photo be used to illustrate other than the copyrighted movie poster? —Jeremy (talk) 13:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I know I'm biased because I uploaded the thing, but the purpose I added it to the article was to accompany the "International Broadcasters" table. I thought it would go well with another couple of images to show foreign HSM exposure. Realising that multiple images wouldn't relate to Fair Use, I thought it'd be best to just upload the one and leave it there. Plus, I like this image because I had a particularly good day when I took it. Haha. I guess it's probably not enough though. - ǀ Mikay ǀ 19:38, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Copyvio, no freedom of panorama in Italy, cannot be licensed as a free image as it contains a derivative work and it is the main focus of the image. ViperSnake151 21:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Insufficient sourcing on image plus does not qualify as fair use. This is not one of the actual images in the Mohammed cartoon controversy. -Nard 19:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with sourcing problems but disagree on fair use qualification. Image, while not actually one of the original published cartoons, was widely shown in the media (incorrectly) as such and thus noteworthy as contributing to the controversy. Kelvinc (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree that the sourcing should be better, but this image was indeed part of the Akkari dossier used by the Danish imams in the Middle East, it was shown as such on Danish tv, and it was included in the official version of the dossier available for download. I can't remember ever having seen a copy of the dossier without this image. What is interesting about the photo is that it was not part of the images published by Jyllands-Posten, but it and two other offensive images were included in the dossier by the imams touring the Middle East, as an attempt to document that Danes generally mistreated the image of the Prophet. The other POV on this story (the one, you'll typically hear from a Dane) is that the imams probably didn't find the cartoons offensive enough, so they found something somewhere on the web and added it to the J-P cartoons to fan the flames. Due to this inclusion, this image was widely seen in the Middle East as proof that Danes generally ridiculed Muhammad, and no doubt millions of people in the Middle East must have believed that it was one of the actual Jyllands-Posten images. ValentinianT / C 21:31, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see why this shouldn't qualify as fair use. It is included in an article that specifically discusses this image. It is sourced, and the poor quality means that the Associated Press is certainly not loosing any revenue. --PeR (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image deleted. Fair use image is not significant to article. -Nv8200ptalk 13:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, and object to deletion and lack of information at Talk:Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. Isn't it normal procedure that when an image is nominated for deletion that a message be posted on the article's talk page?
This image is important as documentation of the deceitful manipulating done by the "Danish imams", and can even be considered to be indirectly responsible for the deaths of many demonstrators, not to mention the demonstrations, product boycotts, flag burnings, etc. It is therefore very "significant to article". --RenniePet (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reopening IFD on a technicality of the process - ifdc tag not added to articles image is used in. Moving discussion to Dec. 23. -Nv8200ptalk 00:03, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
An non-zipped version has been uploaded to Image:USA Counties.svg so there is no need to keep a zipped version Lokal_Profil 20:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
