Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 August 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 20 August 22 >

August 21

[edit]

File:Ppm in ogwachukwu.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ppm in ogwachukwu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Orekelewa (notify | contribs | uploads).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SoundersUSOpenCup.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Skotywa (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Keep - Please read the FA review before jumping to this conclusion. This is the only picture of the actual event in the article covering this historical event. Given that there are no free images of the event available it was determined through consensus that a non-free image was appropriate and significantly added to the article. Indeed, the image was updated to ensure that there were no concerns regarding the fair use rationale. While I respect your opinion, the conclusion of the FA review was clear regarding this image. It would not be appropriate to delete this picture. --SkotyWATC 08:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another point that I brought up in the FA review that I'll repeat here is that, per WP:NFCI, this is a picture of "historical importance" and indeed is the subject of the comentary in the article. --SkotyWATC 08:05, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a historical event. Articles covering a historical event should have a picture depicting that historical event wherever possible (especially if they're to be FA quality articles). If only non-free images of the event are available then the number of non-free images should be limited to one. That is the case here. If we delete this picture, then there will be no pictures of the event coverend in the article despite the fact that a non-free image is available and has already been reviewed. Do you disagree that this was a historical event? None of the non-free content policies require that "controversy or discussion" are needed for inclusion of a picture of a historical event. Is there a question about how the picture fits into the context of either of these two articles (they both directly reference the event)? If we're going to start deleting pictures of historical events coverend in encyclopedic articles, then WP:NFCI needs to be updated. --SkotyWATC 08:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect you are misinterpreting WP:NFCI#8, Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary.. Note that it doesn't say "images of historical events", which is to say, merely showing a historical event doesn't mean it passes WP:NFCI. Rather, the image itself has to be iconic or historically important. And you seem to have missed the "subjects of commentary" part. I don't see anywhere in either article where the image is the subject of commentary. Also, I question whether the Sounders winning the '09 USOC is a "historical event" in the whole scheme of things. Sure, the first silverware in franchise history is a nice milestone. It's important for the club and its supporters for sure, but otherwise, it's just another sports team winning an annual tournament. I mean, someone has to win the trophy every year, right?
I can give you a couple of examples of images with "historical importance": the "Hand of God" photo in Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final), where the photograph itself was a key player in the controversy, or V-J Day in Times Square, where the whole article is about the famous photo. Mosmof (talk) 08:48, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your interpretation of "historical importance" and I believe the consensus from the FA review does as well. Controversy is not required. 1926 World Series is an example of an FA article which includes one picture of the historical event. I'm sure I can find others. Do you intend to delete all non-free pictures of historical events if there was no controversy or discussion related to the event/picture? --SkotyWATC 09:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of interpretation. "Images with iconic status or historical importance" means exactly what it says, not "images of historical events", and likewise for "As subjects of commentary". And keep in mind that WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and WP:TALKEDABOUTIT aren't very helpful arguments to use in deletion discussions. Remember that non-free content must meet ALL WP:NFCC. As things stand, the image fails critetria #2 (because the image is a commercial product of ISI Photos) and #8
I don't see how it fails WP:NFCC#2. Is ISI Photos special in some way? All non-free content is copyrighted by somebody. This represents fair use of a previously published work. It's low resolution and only one non-free image is used. This appears to be right in line with #2. You'll need to further explain how you think this fails #2.
It's humorous that you're now citing WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS when I provide examples, but your examples are somehow immune to it. The 1926 World Series was provided as an example of a non-controversial photo of a historic event in an article about the event. Without other examples, we can have no hope of consistency. Note that I didn't go out and find some crap article to point at. No, I've provided you with another FA level article which has gone through the same rigorous WP:FAC review process (a process this back-and-forth has zero respect for) which also has a non-free and non-controversial photo of the event. I believe you're being overly pedantic with your interpretation of WP:NFCI. However, even if I concede that WP:NFCI is being misinturpreted (which I don't believe that it is), I still don't think it's an immutible fact that it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#8 as you originally claimed. The picture significantly increases the readers understanding of a historical event by being the only picture in the article of the historical event. It shows the trophy in question, the team captain (at the time) and several key players in the match in the uniforms they played in, receiving the trophy and medals in the stadium it was won in (nearly empty as discussed and explained in the article). Removing the lone picture that shows all of this from the article about this exact event would be detrimental to the encyclopedic value of the article.
Furthermore, you quipped "whether the Sounders winning the '09 USOC is a 'historical event' in the whole scheme of things." If we're going to go down that road, is any sports championship a "historical event" in the "whole scheme of things"? The fact that you have no interest in Sounders FC or the oldest football (soccer) tournament in the US does not mean that this is insignificant to all people. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia for everyone, not just you (I know this is obvious, but your comments required pointing out the obvious). The article meets even the loosest interpretations of Wikipedia's notability requirments. Making it an encyclopedic article of the highest quality necessitates a picture of the event itself assuming one is available (and it is).
Finally, to quote WP:NFR, "Wikipedia's policy embodies a compromise between [being free] and another central part of our mission, production of a quality encyclopedia." Removing this picture significantly reduces the encyclopedic value of the article covering the event. --SkotyWATC 17:07, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Well, yes, ISI Photos and other photo agencies are special in some way. While all NFCs are copyrighted by somebody, not all NFCs serve the same purpose for the copyright holders. Specifically, photo agencies and commercial photographers receive extra protection under Wikipedia guidelines, because their businesses are based on licensing photographs. For example, the Nike Swoosh is copyrighted to Nike, but their primary business is selling sports equipment and apparel, so displaying their logo does not impede on commercial opportunities. But in the case of photo agencies, since their income is based on licensing their images to websites and print publications, displaying their image does interfere with commercial opportunities. Think of it this way - if Wikipedia were not a free content project and paid for content, ISI Photos would be paid for using the photo.
  2. It's not that humorous if you understood why I gave you those examples. You were basically using existence of other similar uses of NFC as a reason to keep the image. That is textbook WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. You were using the fact that the issues were once addressed in WP:FAC as a reason to keep. That's also textbook WP:TALKEDABOUTIT. I cited the examples of the Hand of God goal and VJ-Day photo to show what was meant by images that were "iconic or historically significant".
  3. As or the 1926 World Series image, I think it's inappropriate as an article top photo, but I think it would be fine within the article body because there's historical significance and encyclopedic value to the image itself. I couldn't say the same for the Sounders photo.
  4. You don't need a non-free image to know what the trophy looks like, who the captain was, who played, what color the uniform was, that the winning team received medals and a trophy, or the attendance of the match. These are things that can be easily described by citing news reports or using free content.
  5. I'm still puzzled as to how an image can pass WP:NFCC#8, which requires contextual significance, when the image isn't even mentioned in the article.
  6. I'd say most sports championships are not historically significant. Most tournament and championships are played on a regular interval. It would be truly historically significant if someone didn't win the '09 USOC. Like I said, someone had to win the damn thing, and it just happened be Seattle last year. But we're not talking about the article - we're talking about the historical importance of the image. Mosmof (talk) 00:06, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This new concern is easily addressed assuming it's actually policy and not just your own opinion/preference. Your explanation makes sense, but is it codified anywhere on Wikipedia (even an RFC would be something)? If it is policy, we can simply revert it back to the previous version of the image which was produced by the club. During the FA review, there was confusion about who actually held the copyright of that image, but I've since verified that it's from the club. I never switched it back because the current image is a nicer picture and was recommended by one of the FAC reviewers. To be frank, I'm frustrated that you didn't voice this concern in the beginning. Do you have other concerns you haven't raised yet that you intend to unveil in future comments? I'd like to get it all out now if we can.
  2. This is where I think you're out of line. Please read the third paragraph of WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. The example I have provided is of the highest quality by Wikipedia standards, and I have used it as a basis for consistancy accross the encyclopedia. I have not gone out and found a crap article to make a counter argument (#3, #4, and #5 below have more on this example). In contrast, neither of your examples have passed even a GA review. The "Hand of God" image has quite possibly the poorest FUR I've ever read (see this dispatch for pointers on correcting this) and the V-J day photo is probably not legitimatly encyclopedic in all 4 of the articles it's included in (I didn't review each one carefully though, has anyone?). So, therefore I have to disagree with you claiming WP:TALKEDABOUTIT willy nilly. Given that this image and both articles it appears in have already passed through FAC reviews (which includes a meticulous review of each image used in the article including licenses, FURs, alt-text, etc.), this is not the appropriate venue to bring up your concerns in this case. You're going to get limited exposure in comparison to the experienced eyes that reviewed it in the previous FAC reviews. I'd suggest you raise these concerns on WP:FAR rather than quietly trying to delete the image here and significantly detract from the encyclopedic value of the articles it's contained in.
  3. For starters, what you personally think about the World Series picture placement is only a small piece of the puzzle here, not the end all and certainly not the only way of looking at things. What the experienced reviewers at FA review thought is another piece of that puzzle (something we miss while we discuss it here rather than in WP:FAR). For historic sporting events, I think it makes sense to have the logo of the event in the infobox wherever possible, and absent that, a photo of the event. You're going to have to explain your comment: there's historical significance and encyclopedic value to the image itself. I couldn't say the same for the Sounders photo. I don't see the difference. How is the final out at the World Series more encyclopedic than the awarding of the USOC trophy? Both are championship events. Both had a winner. Both articles contain a picture of the finality of event itself in the infobox.
  4. A non-free image may not be needed for each individual item in that list, but getting them altogether to provide a complete context for the event, I believe, do necessitate a non-free image if no free alternative is available. The combined value of all of those points (and more I haven't bothered to list) being portrayed in a single image is what gives it historical and encyclopedic value.
  5. I am equally puzzled about how an article whose sole purpose is to cover a historical event does not provide enough context to make the necessity of a single picture of the event obvious. You seem to have no problem with the last out picture in the World Series article, but the trophy ceremony for the USOC is completely different to you. How is this possible? They're both pictures that express the finality of the championship event in articles which cover that event.
  6. Someone had to win the 1926 World Series. How is that any different than someone having to win USOC? You seem unwilling to recognize the need for consistency here. The sports are different and the years are different. Both are the highest level national championship in their sport. Despite the meta differences, from an encyclopedic sense, these pictures and articles couldn't be more similar.
Given my comments above, I move that we end this discussion and if User:Mosmof is still not satisfied, (s)he can open an WP:FAR for either/each of the articles where they can be effectively discussed with the appropriate, knowledgable audience (as they have been previously). --SkotyWATC 06:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've had two days of discussion between the nominator and the uploader, and another somewhat involved party. So you might be a wee bit hasty in your suggestion to move forums. --Mosmof (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was originally concerned about this image. Realistically, it is not needed. However: "WP:NFCI... 8. Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." The image keeps on popping up. There was even a massive tifo display from the Emerald City Supporters (who I think are annoying actually) featuring artwork derived from the image. Historical significance can be hard to judge but this one is not RECENTISM. I support removing it from Seattle Sounders FC since its significance is surpassed by others. I do support keeping it in 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final since an image helps and this particular image has been used to discuss the event off Wikipedia to the point that it has significance. It is the image in sources discussing the match. Not action shots surprisingly.Cptnono (talk) 08:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the image really is iconic, then surely we can find some reliable, independent sources discussing the photo, right? Right now, I don't see any discussion of the photo in the USOC article. Mosmof (talk) 09:14, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly the entire article is about the event depicted in the photo. The fact that the photo itself is not controversial does not make it less encyclopedic in nature when discussing the event that it depicts. --SkotyWATC 17:23, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as Cptnono states, here are some photos of artwork/tifos that have been derived from this iconic, historic photo and event. --SkotyWATC 17:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another example of the iconic nature of this photograph. --SkotyWATC 07:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now I'm confused. Why are you showing me pictures of Kasey Keller holding the USOC trophy? Mosmof (talk) 09:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. Now you're just being difficult for the sake of it. There's more than one picture of the same event. The moment depicted in the USOC photo we're discussing here depicts a historic moment for the team, the club, the fans, the league, the confederation, and the tournament. Several photographers were there and several pictures were taken. Many pieces of artwork have been made from pictures of that moment. I've provided you with two examples so far. This is no different than the "Hand of God" photo you referenced above. The one on Wikipedia is one of probably 30 pictures at 30 different angles of the "Hand of God" moment. The photo depicts an iconic event. The picture itself is not unique as more than one photographer was there. --SkotyWATC 17:44, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is yet another piece of art derived from the iconic event of the USOC trophy awarding (look toward the top of the painting). The description of the paiting even refers to the USOC trophy ceremony as an "iconic event". --SkotyWATC 01:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you seem to be discussing every other image but the image that's up for deletion. Whether the event is iconic is irrelevant. We're talking about the historic significance of the image that's listed for deletion, and you haven't cited a single source backing that assertion. Also, your latest edit to the article feels awfully like WP:OR. You're basically picking up random images and declaring the importance (except for that one montage, where the seller makes the claim of iconic-ness. If the images are really iconic, you should be able to find independent (as in, not Sounders supporters or people selling photos), 3rd party reliable sources supporting that claim. --Mosmof (talk) 02:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The event itself is iconic because the picture of the event has been used in so many news articles and adapted to works of art commemorating the success of the inaugural season. I'm going to need you to define "3rd party reliable sources" as you appear to have a different definition than wikipedia. If you're fishing for some newspaper from some city other than Seattle, I'm not going to be able to provide one, because no other city has an interest in commemorating the success of the Sounders. I'd really like for you to explain the double standard you're applying here in comparison to the merely historical (though not iconic) picture used in the 1926 World Series article. Please don't belabor this with another WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS diatribe. I'm providing a high quality example that's very similar to the USOC article in an encyclopedic sense, and I'm looking for some consistency (which is specifically sanctioned at the end of paragraph three of OTHERCRAPEXISTS). Frankly, I agree that the sentence I added to the article really doesn't add much to it. However, it's nothing close to WP:OR. It's got ample legitimate references if anyone were to challenge it. I added it more to appease you in your quest for proof of an iconic nature of the picture. Proof exists and I've provided it. Ironically, now that I read WP:NFCC#8 again, I don't see a requirement for a non-free image to be deemed "iconic" in order to be allowed. No, just that it be an aid to the reader's undersanding of the topic. I think I've proven it's importance in both articles by now (repeatedly). As I've stated in other comments, the problem with this review is that we're reviewing the picture rather than the picture's role in the featured articles it's included in. To give a mataphor, it's easy for you to say a leg or an arm is not important to the body and call for it's removal, but you're only reviewing the leg or the arm, and not the body as a whole. This is why I've called for the review of this image's inclusion in these articles to be moved to WP:FAR where a wise decision concerning the whole body can be made. Essentially, in proposing to delete this picture I'd say you're actually proposing to remove the head of the USOC article and the heart from the team article. Nevertheless, carry on with your rationalization and your scalple. Who am I to judge. --SkotyWATC 04:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I won't waste too much more of your time, but I wanted to explain that I only discussed whether the photo was "iconic" or "historically significant", because that was your rationale for keeping it. It's not iconic, and even if it was, it wouldn't affect this deletion debate, but again, I addressed it because you brought it up. And if you were including the edit to appease me, I'd take it out. It doesn't help, and it sticks out like a sore thumb in an otherwise excellent article. Mosmof (talk) 11:35, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence, while legitimately sourced and indeed accurate, felt unecessary. However I'm willing to leave it in order to avoid future misguided nominations like this. --SkotyWATC 06:41, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see your point about removing it from Seattle Sounders FC, but again, this wasn't a problem when it went through FA review. The picture was specifically discussed and the event has obvious historical significance for the club. --SkotyWATC 09:02, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nominators rationale is correct. It would be nice to have such images of important events, but we don't use them if there are no sources that discuss the photo itself. In this case I can't see that the image is iconic in itself and is discussed, not only just used, in reliable sources. That the article has been through FAC is not relevant. Rettetast (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've provided clear examples above of how the event depicted in this photo is indeed iconic. At this point, I've gathered enough links/references, that I'm thinking it's probably worth mentioning them in the post-match section of the article. Adding that sentence may be enoough to put this discussion to rest.
In general, I think this files-for-deletion process is a great thing as it formalizes the process of nominating non-free images for deletion, notifying the users who uploaded them, discussing them if necessary, and finally deleting them. For the vast majority of articles, it is probably the only way this type of cleanup/education happens. However, it focuses on photos and images (and maybe sound files) which are not independent pieces of an encyclopedia, rather they are support elements for articles. An encyclopedia is not a collection of pictures, it is a collection of articles. Pictures are used to support and enrich those articles. I think the reason I'm having such a hard time communicating with folks here is because I'm coming at this from that angle. This photo is part of two high quality articles. As part of the GA, peer, and FA reviews of these articles, the alt-text, resolution, FUR, and license of this image were scritinized by many experienced editors. If the articles that this image appeared in were just normal, run-of-the-mill articles, then this would be a discussion worthy of everyone's time and scrutiny. As it is, this is a redundant effort with what has already been done in numerous article quality reviews. This is why I argue that this is not even the correct venue for this discussion, WP:FAR is where concerns of this nature should be raised for images appearing in featured articles. So comments like "That the article has been through FAC is not relevant." really miss the point I think. Nevermind the fact that the administrator editor making that statement has never been through the process him(her)self (according to this list). --SkotyWATC 01:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now added a sentence to the article explaining how images of the trophy ceremony have become iconic of the success of the club's inaugural season. --SkotyWATC 02:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Image shows nothing that cannot be explained with free text. The image itself has zero historical significance. The image isn't important to the team. The fact that they won is. The added sentence is an attempt to bypass WP:NFCC#1, by a user who does not understand the policy. If free text is enough to get the information across, then non-free images are forbidden, no ifs, ands, or buts. The bureaucrats at FAC and FAR have stated more than once that FA status does not, and should not, serve as deletion protection. Jay32183 (talk) 06:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for commenting. This is facinating. I've searched high and low for a free image of the trophy awarding ceremony and have found none. I don't see how the addition of that sentence has anything to do with my inability to find a free version of the image. WP:NFCC#1 states that there is no free equivalent available. If you are aware of a free version that I have somehow overlooked, please elaborate. What exactly am I misunderstanding about this policy?
Unfortunately, the "historical significance" and "iconic" discussions above have been the result of the nominator nit-picking pieces of the justification comments I've provided rather than responding to the whole of them. This has distracted the discussion from simply determining whether the image meets the minimum requirements. The image itself does not need to have historical significance to meet WP:NFCC#8, it just needs to aid in the readers understanding of the topic. Given that the article covers a historical sporting event, an image of the final trophy ceremony depicting the stadium, the players involved, the trophy size, the tropey color, the medals, the uniforms used in the event, a player wearing the captain's armband on the winning team (I could go on, but I won't) has obvious value to the reader. A picture is indeed worth a thousand words and it would take more than that to replace it with "free text". In the end, if our goal is a quality encyclopedia, that's not a worthwhile tradeoff.
Can you point me to any one of those statements from the bureaucrats at FAC and/or FAR? Assuming that you're not making this up, that would put an obvious end to the concern. I've searched the archives of WT:FAC and have not found any statements like what you describe.
Lastly, as I've said above, I'd really like to understand how the inclusion of this image in 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final is any different (in an encyclopedic sense) from the picture in the infobox of 1926 World Series. Both are articles covering a major sporting championship event. Both events had a winner. Both are pictures depicting the finality of the event. We can debate whether they're "iconic", but as I said above, that's not necessary anyway. Pointing out this example is completely in-line with WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS when you carefully read paragraph 3. I'm providing a similar (in an encyclopedic sense) featured article in order to establish consistency. --SkotyWATC 08:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've completely missed the point. There doesn't have to be a free image. If there is any free means to convey the information then a non-free means cannot be used. Free text means no non-free image. The image shows a team being awarded a trophy. Any reader fully understands that without seeing an image. Again, the historic image argument is when the image itself is historic. The reason is that one cannot discuss an historic image without showing the image. However, one can discuss an historic event without an image. The event is fully understood with text alone, so no non-free images allowed. Non-free content is always a last resort. Allowing it at all is a compromise. I hate the "picture is worth a thousand words argument." Write those thousand words. There is no requirement for an encyclopedia to have images, but for Wikipedia to be free, it must avoid non-free content. Are you assuming I would not support deleting the other image? I don't really need a reason to support deleting a non-free image. If there isn't a convincing argument to keep it, I will always support deleting it. You haven't said anything meaningful; you just like pictures. Jay32183 (talk) 08:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting points. I like a quality encyclopedia. I'll keep my response brief and just quote WP:NFR, "Wikipedia's policy embodies a compromise between [being free] and another central part of our mission, production of a quality encyclopedia." Removing this picture significantly reduces the encyclopedic value of the article covering the event. --SkotyWATC 06:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Removing the picture has no impact on the quality of this article. The image is purely decorative and does not aide the understanding of the article. You're only making general claims about non-free content in general. You're failing to point out how this image meets WP:NFCC. Jay32183 (talk) 07:51, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quoting core tenets of Wikipidia's goal to produce a quality encyclopedia. I've already given a brief list (it can be expanded significantly, but I don't think that's necessary) of the types of things this image illustrates and how all of those together in one image improve the readers' understanding of the article. There was nothing "general" about the list, it was very specific. What you seem to be overlooking is that there has to be a balance between ridding the site of non-free images and producing a quality encyclopedia. Free text may get the job done in a sub-par encyclopedia, however Wikipedia aims higher and this picture clearly increases the encyclopedic value of the article. --SkotyWATC 19:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:MichaelErnestLewis.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MichaelErnestLewis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Duncanogi (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • orphaned Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 08:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not likely to be useful, and potential copyvio as well — it says that it's scanned from something, and it may be a scan from a non-free published image. Nyttend (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep HOLD ON: Possible OTRS on this. At first I may have tagged it with a di-no source because it is really vague what the source is and I am not 100% the "author" is the uploader. Based on the existing OTRS for like images and the conversation linked to below by Moonriddengirl I would say to keep it and make an attempt to secure OTRS for this as well. (NOTE:Original text of my post follows: However in looking over other uploads by the user I see several images that have been scanned by the user that were provided/taken by the subjects mother. I will have the OTRS Ticket number checked to see if it included this image as well.) Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I was asked to look at the OTRS ticket. First, how terribly sad. :( Second, no, the image is not mentioned. It's possible that permission could be obtained for it (and very unlikely that the uploader is the copyright holder in spite of the tag used, given this comment), but if it's found to be not useful there'd be no point to disturbing the family of the victim depicted. Frankly, I think it's more compassionate to judge the image on usefulness and, if it is deemed best to retain it, then clear up the copyright permission. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:GR58 St Veran - Refuge Agnel, France 1989 David Ogilvie.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GR58 St Veran - Refuge Agnel, France 1989 David Ogilvie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Duncanogi (notify | contribs | uploads).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:PlinthKarenOgilvie.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:PlinthKarenOgilvie.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Duncanogi (notify | contribs | uploads).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Alvis 4.3-litre Short Chassis Tourer.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:04, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alvis 4.3-litre Short Chassis Tourer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Automotivating (notify | contribs | uploads).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:ArticlesForCreationEntry2.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:ArticlesForCreationEntry2.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by MSGJ (notify | contribs | uploads).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Dtnm2010.png

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dtnm2010.png (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Politicalsavvy (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Orphan, no description 75.211.237.116 (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete HOLD ON - just to be safe lets run a check or the OTRS system to make sure something was not overlooked. This is an image of Doug Turner and according to a conversation from November 2009 the uploader said the photographer signed a release form. The conversation ended with another editor saying to note this on the image and to also note they were double-checking with the photographer. I don't see this noted on the image but perhaps somehting went to OTRS and was never mentioned. NOTE: OTRS turned up nothing and it appears the uploader has not been active since December 2009 so there is a high probability they would not see a message requesting a copy of that release be sent to OTRS. That, combined with a free image on Commons - File:Doug_Turner_Alamogordo_2010.jpg - makes it a "delete". Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_August_21&oldid=1304743430"