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 debate was:

renamed, moved to commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Merlin on fence.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zatoichi26 ( | contribs).

• Another user identified that this is not a merlin. It looked like one in the Field Guide! What can I say, I'm no ornithologist. Zatoichi26 (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: But it sure is a fine photograph. Did they tell you what species it is, if it's not a merlin? You could move it to a better-named file, or better yet, to commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Hang on, perhaps someone will be able identify it soon, as it is currently being discussed on the WP:Bird talk page. Keep on commons. It can be put in an unidentified birds category (perhaps with a less exact name) on commons, until identified. Snowman (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Merely needs to be properly identified. A simple mistake is not a reason for deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Now on commons as Image:Accipiter on fence.jpg. This copy can be deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:48, 4 September 2008 (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. Fails NFCC8. The text gives one line to the TV series this image was taken from.

Image:LiveRayPalmer.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by J Greb ( | contribs).

• Fails NFCC8, not significant, only passing mention in a "popular culture" section on two articles about the comic book character. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• As with the Flash image below, citing 8 here is a slight stretch. Yes, the sections in the two articles are sparse, however, the image is use to chow how the character was visually modified for the adaptation to live-action television. In general, it would not be unreasonable to keep the image and fix the wording of the FUR. - J Greb (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2008 (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. The articles have a couple of sentences about the live action show this image was taken from. -Nv8200p talk 22:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KennyJohnstonFlash.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ryan4314 ( | contribs).

• Fails NFCC 3a, plentiful nonfree media already included in article and this image is unnecessary (per NFCC8) to illustrate anything significant about this character. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I added this so long ago! Look how badly filled out the fair use rationale is! Out of curiosity, have u gone through all my image uploads, due to my commenting at Fut Perf's RFC? It's just that Fut Perf already did that the last time I made a comment about him, although he didn't attempt to delete the Clayton image. Ryan4314 (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If the sole use of the image was "And the Flash looks like..." I would agree with citing 3a. However, that's not how it's used with in Flash (Barry Allen), nor really in Flash (Barry Allen). Even citing 8 is a bit of a stretch. No, it doesn't add/support anything new about the character specifically, but it is used to support and clarify how the character's appearance was modified for a particular adaptation to another media, live-action television in this case. In general, it would not be unreasonable to keep the image and fix the wording of the FUR. - J Greb (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2008 (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 debate was:

- Keep - Lots of too-and-fro basically covering WP:NFC, unacceptable use, images#12. Consensus in this case is that the use is acceptable and it stays. I do invite participants, however, to consider that he served for 23 years after the war, and that an image of his as a ship's commander/admiral may serve better - Peripitus (Talk) 12:18, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lt Clayton.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ryan4314 ( | contribs).

• Nonfree image of a living person. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 21:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with this? I'm still a little new to "fair use" Ryan4314 (talk) 23:53, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's a nonfree image of a living person, which is against policy. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:27, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not quite 100% accurate. In most cases, when the subject of an article is a living person, it is preferable that the main image, normally the one in the infobox, be a free one. However, there are situations where a non-free image can be used. These include:
    • Cases where it is unlikely or impossible to obtain a free image — the person is reclusive or does not allow for pictures to be taken.
    • Cases where the notability of the person is tied to a specific time in their life of which there are no free images. An example would be a child star where the notability, bulk of the article, and what the image is used to convey all ties to that short period when the person was a child in front of the camera. A free image of that person as an adult, or senior, would not work unless the person is known for, and article fully covers, more than being a "child star".

I believe there is also a little latitude for "uniformed professionals" — soldiers among them — but not much.

In this case, an argument would have to be put forward that obtaining a free image is unlikely or impossible.

That aside, it's poor pick for the infobox since it really isn't descriptive of the person.

Also something to chew on. If the image were useful in helping to understand the person's carrier, or British activities in the Falklands, it could be used as a spot image in sections of his bio or the article on the war. And that is without any concern that the non-free image contains one or more living persons.

- J Greb (talk) 14:42, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, thanks for filling me in JGreb, I've had a look around and I believe I found the rule the nominator has claimed a violation of. The exception to this rule states; "for some retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable."

Clayton has since retired now and he is only notable (in encyclopaedic terms) because of his naval career. Any free image taken now would be of him retired, and in civilian clothing. This is my best argument for a Keep :) Ryan4314 (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That addition to that part of the policy does not enjoy wide consensus. This is still a nonfree image of a living person and I would argue it still fails that part of the policy. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you don't like the policy, get it changed. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're well aware of why I haven't attempted to change that policy and have not discussed it before now. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nope. Don't know why. — BQZip01 — ^talk 23:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, to clear that up for you: you were engaged in the discussion on the talk page for that policy the last time I edited it. I have absolutely no interest in starting another edit war with you over petty differences in the rules. So, I did what I thought was best for the situation and I walked away. I still strongly disagree with the policy changes and I don't believe they fulfill the aims of free content on this encyclopedia. I also can't figure a way that they mesh with the NFCC on their face, but again I'm not going to debate this because I know where that leads and I don't want to go there. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You reverted my attempts to make the policy more clear (I'm not saying it's right or wrong that you reverted it, though) and reverted it back to the version you cited. I'm confused. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I entirely follow the argument here. You didn't like the policy and wanted to change it but couldn't achieve a consensus to do so - is that correct? Now having failed to achieve a change in policy, you would appear (to an outside observer) to apply WP:IDONTLIKE. If you fail to overturn consensus policy, it remains consensus policy; the statement that part of the policy does not enjoy wide consensus does not reflect reality. Policy is policy, we don't get to pick and choose which policies we like or dislike and apply accordingly. Justin talk 09:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Image meets criteria in policy as highlighted above. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep according to the information presented by Ryan. DGG (talk) 21:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep given the discussion from J Greb, although agree that it's not a desperately good image it does provide some support for the article which couldn't be replicated. ALR (talk) 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, image tells us nothing about this person. "He once stood alone in a field wearing a uniform and looking somewhere" is not a piece of crucial encyclopedic information, and, pardon me, that's the full extent of what this image tells me. Also, where did J Greb get his policy summary from? Last time I looked, the relevant policy bit was saying: "for some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." The important thing here is: "notability rests on appearance". His notabiliy as a soldier rested on what he did as a soldier, not what he looked like as a soldier. This clause is for actors or models or rock stars. (In fact, this person's notabiliy doesn't seem to have rested on his actions in the Falklands war at all; he's only notable for the career he made later.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notability can take many forms, in the case of this individual it does relate to his service in the Falklands War; being mentioned in dispatches is a big deal. And I would also point out that the image relates to a significant event in the Falklands War, the surrender of Argentine forces on West Falkland. In most cases the nominator would be correct, I don't think so in this case for the reasons outlined above. I am therefore supporting keep. If people want to quote policy in justifying delete, then please provide a link to the element of policy to allow others to read and judge for themselves. Selective quotes from policy don't help in the slightest. Justin talk 10:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Has anybody even tried doing the obvious thing: write to the gentleman and ask for a free image? I'm sure he has one on his mantlepiece, in his a gala uniform. – Really, we ought to make it a rule that nobody is allowed to invoke "irreplaceability" for a non-free image unless they can demonstrate they've exhausted these entirely obvious alternatives first. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know his address? Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why would I? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because you state "the obvious thing" is to "write to the gentleman and ask for a free image". Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The task of doing the research obviously rests with those who want an image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification Actually in this case Ryan has been in touch with members of the ships company (HMS Cardiff) and tried to get a free image. Justin talk 18:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is acceptable "fair usage". Axl ¤ [Talk] 06:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you care to explain how? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I refer to section 2.2.3, part 12 here: "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable". Clayton is notable (partly) because of his actions at the Falklands, hence the importance of this image. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read more closely. I'll repeat: his notability did not rest on his visual appearance at the time. He wasn't an actor or model or rock star, who was known for his looks. Unlike with an actor or rock star, the image tells us nothing about what he did and how he did it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any mileage in the fact that his visual appearance in that photograph says quite a lot, Navy Officer, wearing Lieutenants rank slides and wearing a flying suit with a combat smock and lifejacket? I suppose one could argue that it depends on one knowing when the photo was taken to turn that into meaningful information, but the same principle could quite easily apply to any time sensitive image, which this aspect of the guidance seems to imply.

ALR (talk) 16:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there is a specific comment on "uniformed professionals", an analogy with an actor or rock star is singularly inappropriate in this case. Justin talk 16:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To ALR: All the details about what uniform he's wearing could be covered in text – if it were at all of relevance to the article, which it doesn't seem to be, since the article isn't talking about it. Does the sentence "When Port Stanley was captured, Clayton was once seen standing in a field, wearing a lieutenant's uniform with a combat smock and lifejacket" sound a tiny bit silly in an encyclopedic article? I bet it does. Because it's trivial. If it's trivial, why waste an image on conveying just that information? – To Justin: Where is that bit about "uniformed professionals"? To the best of my knowledge, that's not Wikipedia policy, it was just J Greb's personal opinion he expressed above. The actual policy/guideline text (at WP:NFC) says just what I told you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, had to just chip in. This picture wasn't taken at Stanley, it was taken at Port Howard on another island, the day after the official surrender (When the Howard garrison surrendered). Ryan4314 (talk) 21:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the article in question were about Operation CORPORATE then I'd agree with you, the details of one pilot aren't all that important. However, the article in question is about the individual and I'd characterise it as Clayton saw service, as a Lieutenant, on CORPORATE and was employed as aircrew. One cannot determine from the image whether he was pilot or observer. None of that is trivial in the context of his career.

I'm unclear on why you see use of an image as a waste, although that's potentially down to differing backgrounds. Images convey information, some of which can be elicited reasonably easily, some needs metadata to really bring out the value. The main information which can be elicited from that image is quite germane to the article, although it does need metadata to contextualise it. I'd dispute any suggestion that some images need no metadata to convey information, but that appears to be the interpretation applied to many of these discussions. I'm not an imagery analyst, but I've yet to meet one who doesn't wax lyrical about imagery metadata.

ALR (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is just that it's a non-free image, and we can use those only if (a) we have an absolutely watertight legal claim to fair use under US law, and (b) the image fulfills some absolutely essential function. Being nice and interesting and useful is simply not enough. It has to be indispensable. It isn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm trying to avoid trivialising this debate and using an analytical position, so frankly I have no interest in whether the image is 'nice or interesting. Useful is a slightly different issue and again it would be useful to understand why you take the position that an images usefulness isn't appropriate in the discussion, particularly when indispensable is just one end of the continuum of usefulness.

The image as it stands conveys information which cannot be recreated; Clayton is no longer a Lieutenant and as far as I'm aware Op Corporate finished some 26 years ago. I suppose one could argue that no article needs an image, since everything could be conveyed in text. In many cases that text would get horrendously clunky, but readability need not be an issue I suppose.

ALR (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK once again I've read the image policy from beginning to end. So regarding policy, the image fits NFCC criteria 1-10. It might have been seen to have fallen foul of "Pictures of people still alive" provision but the exemption for retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance seems appropriate. Clayton is in part noted for his service as a helicopter pilot during the Falklands War, the article is focused on Clayton, he is a notable individual both for his Falklands service and his post-conflict career. Personally, I'd say the image is pretty much indispensable for conveying at least part of that service, Clayton in uniform taking part in a significant event during the war, all of which is discussed in the article. Would the article be significantly worse if the image were removed? Well, yes, it would not convey the same encyclopedic content. So a) the image complies with Wikipedia policy, which is significantly more restrictive than US law ergo one might reasonably conclude there is a legal claim to fair use under US law and b) the use of the image is pretty much indispensable for a good encyclopedic article. In addition, I would point out that Ryan is an enthusiastic editor focused on creating good quality articles, this is still a work in progress and can expect to be developed further. In addition, I happen to know that Ryan has made extensive efforts to obtain a free image and knowing how tenacious he can be I don't imagine he will stop trying just because he has a fair use image for now. However, unlike a lot of editors he has first tried to obtain a suitable free image but has been unable to find one. I have to say that on this occasion this is one of those images where policy can be interpreted differently by individuals and the only way to decide if it follows policy is through community debate and achieving a consensus. Justin talk 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a non-free image of a living individual. Period. Those have always been prohibited, and will remain so. The exception that has been quoted so often here is (a) not covered by a strong consensus in the first place, and (b) quite blatantly doesn't apply here. He is not an individual whose notability "rested on his visual appearance". This is a run-of-the-mill case of a speedy deletion candidate like all others, and no amount of talk will change that. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its a non-free image of a living person, permitted by exemptions to image policy. Policy is policy, the moment I hear you trying to undermine it by claiming consensus is not strong, your argument is on thin ice. So no it is not a speedy deletion candidate and to use that would be an abuse of process. Justin talk 22:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The "exemption" in policy you claim doesn't exist. You invented that exemption out of thin air. What exactly about "notability rests on visual appearance" do you not understand? Look up: "notability". "rest (on)". "visual". "appearance". In a dictionary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is an exemption in policy, for retired individuals whose notability rests on their appearance. I didn't invent that and there is no need to be abusive whatsoever. The image shows Clayton in uniform in an early part of his career and his notability depends on events wearing that uniform - ergo his visual appearance. Notably I haven't heard a single comment that it fails NFCC 1 through 10 (because it doesn't) and the deletion nomination solely rests on the fact he is a living person. However, as he is now retired it would no longer be possible to obtain an appropriate free image, significant effort has been expended to try and obtain a free image but ultimately that has been unsuccessful. Now having put forward my arguments for its retention, I'm going to leave it to the wisdom of the closing admin to decide. Justin talk 08:38, 10 September 2008 (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 debate was:

- Keep - uploader has been blocked for two months - not banned - no real reason to delete this Peripitus (Talk) 07:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Holy_mass.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Weissmann ( | contribs).

• I doubt this is really "own work". -Nard 21:37, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - unsure why nominator does not believe claim. The image does seem like a candid shot and based on the colouring of the image that it is from the time frame given in the description. The image is also in use on uploader's page. More rational needs to be provided as to the reason.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay...how about...why should we host personal photos of a sockpuppeteer? -Nard 21:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I now have no interest in either outcome -- just a point though, a more thought out and detailed nomination would have been better; something like, "Banned sockpuppet account, history of copyright violations". Your main issue is not with the image per se, but the uploader -- you could have been clearer in your nomination.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see no valid reason to delete this image. It's on a user page and no evidence it is copyrighted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 18:36, 31 August 2008 (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.