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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mitchell Stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Prairiegrl ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: Use non-free stamp image used as decoration in the article Gone with the Wind which is not even about the subject of the stamp clearly fails WP:NFC#Images #3. More importantly it fails WP:NFCC#8 because the use a this non-free stamp is unnecessary for the readers' understanding of the article it is used in. The fact that the USPS produced a stamp to honour the subject of the stamp can easily be explained in prose but seems completely unnecessary for this article use. Beside which there is no critical commentary about the stamp itself. ww2censor (talk) 02:48, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and mark as PD Since it was "first published between 1978 and 1 March 1989...without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years...[it is in the public domain due to failure to comply with required formalities]. Struck because the stamp copyrights are not listed on the stamp, but in the margin of the booklets in which they come in. Buffs (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• No, PD does not apply because all post-1877 US stamps are copyright. Read the {{Non-free USGov-USPS stamp}} template and commons:Commons:Stamps#Unites States. ww2censor (talk) 17:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean post-1977 US stamps, right? If so then you are correct. Either way, this stamp is copyrighted. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Struck accordingly. Buffs (talk) 03:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I typed that too quickly. Of course I meant post-1977. ww2censor (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepThe stamp is not being presented as a decoration in the article. The stamp is being presented to show the stamp itself that was issued on the same day the book went on sale 50 years prior. The author and the book are inextricably linked to one another, especially when discussing awards and recognition, because it is the author who receives the award or honor for her contribution to the literary world, not the book itself. The stamp is necessary for the readers understanding of this particular section of the article, which is discussing awards and recognition the author received for the book.

It is necessary to display the stamp so the readers can see the detail of the stamp without having to explain to the reader that the stamp is one inch by one inch, in deep red ink, with a large number one and the abbreviation USA on the right side of the stamp and the name Margaret Mitchell written vertically on the left side of the stamp with an image of Margaret Mitchell when she was 30 years old with her wavy hair swept back off her forehead.

The addition of critical commentary of the stamp would be a violation of Wikipedia neutrality policy, unless criticisms could be presented from different points of view and those criticisms could be referenced to books and other articles. Since none such criticisms have been found to date, no critical commentary can be added at this time. Therefore, the stamp is presented without any criticisms as to not be in violation of Wikipedia's neutrality policy.Prairiegrl (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If no critical commentary can be added, then the stamp cannot be kept. It is not necessary for readers to see the actual stamp to understand that said stamp was issued, unless there is something intrinsically important about the image on the stamp itself. howcheng {chat} 18:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not necessary for readers to see a picture of the Sistine Chapel either. Just tell them it's a painting on the ceiling of a church.Prairiegrl (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Sistine Chapel is not copyrighted. If it were copyrighted and non-free, then we would only use a photo of it in an article about the painting itself, not in the article about God or Adam (the subject material). – Quadell ^(talk) 20:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all these stamps also, because this article isn't about any of the people shown on these stamps. List of people on stamps of the United StatesPrairiegrl (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are missing the point. All of those stamps on that page are in the public domain and are free of copyright, so we can do whatever we want with them. The Margaret Mitchell stamp is unfree and therefore subject to different rules. howcheng {chat} 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this seem like a textbook example of a use that fails WP:NFCC #8. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:40, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One could argue that any photo isn't really necessary to its article. Let's just go ahead and delete every fair use image on Wikipedia, if you all have such a problem with them. It's completely relevant, too. The article mentions the creation of a stamp for the author, obviously an important in the history of this book. So why not add an image of the stamp to go along with the text? It also shows perfectly how the book and author are regarded in our society (well enough to be made into a postage stamp.) Absolutely anything can be described in prose, but to say that words can completely substitute for an image is stupid and wrong. Delaywaves ^{talk • contribs} 20:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are also missing the point. Non-free images are allowed under certain circumstances. This is not one of them. howcheng {chat} 22:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was a reply to one sentence of my comment. I know very well that non-free images are sometimes allowed. I also understand the circumstances in this case: that these types of stamp images are only allowed if they help illustrate the article and are informative and helpful to the reader. I believe I explained in my last comment why I think all of those qualities apply here. Delaywaves ^{talk • contribs} 23:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, first of all, the stamp is not even mentioned at all in the article, so if I remove the image, the article is not really affected at all. So let's pretend you move that caption into the article text: "On June 30, 1986 the U.S. Post Office issued a 1-cent stamp honoring Margaret Mitchell on the 50th anniversary of the day her epic novel, Gone with the Wind, went on sale." What part of this sentence is not really comprehensible without the image? howcheng {chat} 02:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the image of the author on a stamp is not necessary to understand that such a stamp was issued on a particular day and that can all be stated in prose without any need for a non-free stamp image. If there was something particularly special about the stamp image itself that enhanced the reader's understanding of the article and if these was some critical commentary about that fact, besides that is was issued and what it shows, then you might have some justification for keeping it but I don't see that ever happening for this image in this article. ww2censor (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course you don't understand the significance of the stamp and what it means to women of this country. You aren't an American and you certainly aren't a female. Prairiegrl (talk) 12:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being American or female really has nothing to do with this discussion. Buffs (talk) 22:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Prairiegrl you are correct I an neither female nor American, but that has no bearing on complying with the non-free content policy. You have still not told us what the significance of this stamp image is that requires it to be displayed in the article about a book; it add nothing to the reader's understanding of that book. ww2censor (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep we have stamp images in the tributes sections of hundreds of articles; move to margaret mitchel article, or delete them all. Slowking4: 7@1|x 19:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hundreds of articles with stamp images, How many are using non-free images? And how many have inappropriate non-free rationales? ww2censor (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not saying keep or delete, just pointing this out. Slowking4, your comment runs afoul of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because other articles do something doesn't mean that they should. –Drilnoth (T/C) 18:44, 30 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShibeParkStamp2001.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by HarringtonSmith ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: Non-free stamp used in the article Shibe Park clearly fails WP:NFC#Images #3 without any critical commentary about the stamp itself. More importantly it fails WP:NFCC#8 because the use a this non-free stamp is unnecessary for the readers' understanding of the article and the fact that the USPS produced a stamp to honour the subject of the stamp can easily be explained in prose. ww2censor (talk) 03:02, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This image significantly enhances the article both informatively and visually. The stamp shows a view of the ballpark and its surroundings in its early days that is not shown anywhere else, and in vibrant color no less. The only other image we have of the ballpark as it appears in this stamp is a much more zoomed-in, less informative view. All other photographs of Shibe's exterior are from the 1970s, after an ungainly addition ruined the beautiful, legendary facade seen in this image. In addition to the enhancement of the article, the stamp itself portrays well how Shibe is viewed in our society. It fits perfectly in the "Contemporary Culture" section, proving that the stadium is still held in high enough esteem to be made into a postage stamp. Delaywaves ^{talk • contribs} 19:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Shows the ballpark at its best. Good and useful. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A unique image presented in a unique way, not duplicated by any known photo. Text contains discussion of the copy on the back of the stamp. Plus, there is no possible commercial disadvantage to the copyright holder by using this image because the stamp's value is in the physical stamp, not in the image. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 03:16, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If this was a ballpark that was lost to father time where images could not be found, I would be fine with keeping it. However, there are many very nice images of the park on the page already that tell the story of the park better than the stamp ever could. Yes, it's in color, but I've always liked the originals. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The use of a non-free image is not necessary because the prose, about the stamp, already in the article clearly states all the information necessary and having the non-free image add nothing extra. Besides which there are a number of images of the facade, some very similar images to the stamp image that show the front entrance, even one from 1909 File:Grand Stand Entrance of Shibe Park.jpg which you could hand tint if you are so inclined and it would then be very similar to the stamp image. Yes, the stamp may show the ballpark at its best, but again that is no reason to use a non-free image. Commercial disadvantage is not a reason that justifies the use a non-free image and many people and place images have been illustrated on stamps that honoured those people or places but that does not justify its use especially as thousands of stamps are issued every year worldwide, many just to make money from stamp collectors. "Baseball's Legendary Playing Fields" is a classic example of that commercial issuance of stamps.

If there was something particularly special about the stamp image itself that enhanced the reader's understanding of the article and if these was some critical commentary about that fact, sourced of course, besides that is was issued and what it shows, then you might have some justification for keeping it but I don't see that ever happening for this image in this article. ww2censor (talk) 03:40, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The stamp image and the photo File:Grand Stand Entrance of Shibe Park.jpg are not at all similar. With all due respect, if you see them as similar images, then I better understand your fervor to delete an image that really enhances the article. And the commercial motivation of the USPS "just to make money from stamp collectors" has no bearing on the issue. Respectfully, — HarringtonSmith (talk) 15:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The image enhances the article as stated above, and does not, nor could not, commercially or artistically violate the original depicted item's source. Colinclarksmith (talk) 20:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, other images in article serve to show the building adequately. The appearance of the stamp is not the subject of critical commentary, so this fails WP:NFCC#8. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:15, 29 July 2011 (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 B (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:US-se-tenant-checkerboard.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bobdatty ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: unnecessary use of a non-free stamp to illustrate a se-tenant stamp fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. There are other se-tenant stamp images available on the commons and while they don't have the same layout as this one, that fact can easily be explained in prose without the necessity of a on-free US stamp. ww2censor (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2011 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gary R. Englert.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mooney1084v ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

File was originally linked to an english Wikipedia article (Gary R. Englert) that has since been deleted due to an approved AfD for non-notability. File is also currently orphaned as a result. TheGoofyGolfer (talk) 03:12, 25 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ds kothari.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dell335 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: Indian postage stamps are copyright for 60 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and the use of this 2011 stamp in an article about the subject without any critical commentary of the stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3. More importantly it fails WP:NFCC#8 because the use a this non-free stamp is unnecessary for the readers' understanding of the article and the fact that the Indian postal service produced a stamp to honour the subject of the stamp can easily be explained in prose. ww2censor (talk) 03:21, 25 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Toy Tinkers-Turks & Caicos stamp 1984-11-26.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pigby ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: Non-free stamp used in the article Toy Tinkers clearly fails WP:NFC#Images #3 without any critical commentary about the stamp itself. More importantly it fails WP:NFCC#8 because the use a this non-free stamp is unnecessary for the readers' understanding of the article and the fact that the Turks & Caicos postal administration issued a stamp to honour the subject of the stamp can easily be explained in prose. ww2censor (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sorry about that. Pigby (talk) 03:59, 31 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tilbergs postal 2005.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Irpen ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: Non-free postal stationery image used in the article about the subject of the article Janis Tilbergs not about the stamp image clearly fails WP:NFC#Images #3 without any critical commentary about the stamp itself. More importantly it fails WP:NFCC#8 because the use a this non-free stamp is unnecessary for the readers' understanding of the article and the fact that the Latvian Post office produced a stamp to honour the subject of the stamp can easily be explained in prose. ww2censor (talk) 03:30, 25 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Raj Narain Postage Stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jethwarp ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Delete: Indian postage stamps are copyright for 60 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates and the use of this 2007 stamp in an article about the subject of the stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3. More importantly it fails WP:NFCC#8 because the use a this non-free stamp is unnecessary for the readers' understanding of the article and the fact that the Indian postal service produced a stamp to honour the subject of the stamp is easily explained in prose. ww2censor (talk) 03:46, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, clear NFCC#8 violation. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:54, 25 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SisterIreneNYFH.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Tobit2 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Low quality (blue tint), replaced by File:Children at New York Foundling cph.3a23917.jpg (better-quality version of this photo). howcheng {chat} 04:36, 25 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:High res swoosh.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jcool155 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, no target article & not much encyc. use Skier Dude (talk) 05:41, 25 July 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShandaSharer2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by BlueLotusLK ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Citing precedent set at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 8#File:Caylee anthony.jpg, it is not necessary to show a non-free photo of the victim to understand the content of the article, per WP:NFCC#8. If this were a free photo, it would be perfectly fine to include a photo of the victim. However, since it is non-free, it must meet all ten non-free content criteria, and it would appear to fail one of them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:10, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I disagree with that precedent, but concede the situations are analogous. I feel this use passes NFCC #8. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you feel it passes WP:NFCC#8? This particular photo is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article, nor is it otherwise necessary to see a photo of the victim to understand that something nefarious happened to them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • A valid question. It's true, this particular photo is not the subject of critical commentary. But I think that having a photo of the victim "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic [the Shanda Sharer murder case], and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". It's not a black-and-white area, and there's room for editors to disagree in good faith. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:45, 25 July 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:18, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RileySawyers.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kafziel ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Citing precedent set at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 8#File:Caylee anthony.jpg, it is not necessary to show a non-free photo of the victim to understand the content of the article, per WP:NFCC#8. If this were a free photo, it would be perfectly fine to include a photo of the victim. However, since it is non-free, it must meet all ten non-free content criteria, and it would appear to fail one of them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said to the previous nomination (about a week ago): I must have missed the day when David Fuchs was elected Arbiter of All Things Fair Use. (Or the day that he claimed to aspire to the title, for that matter.) The deletion discussion you're citing was quite divided, and one admin's decision does not automatically set a precedent by which all other content should be judged. But if you honestly feel that removing these photos improves the articles on Wikipedia, have at it. I learned long ago not to get in the way of a crusade. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I disagree with that precedent, but concede the situations are analogous. I feel this use passes NFCC #8. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you feel it passes WP:NFCC#8? This particular photo is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article, nor is it otherwise necessary to see a photo of the victim to understand that something nefarious happened to them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • According to you, maybe. When viewed in a wider context of all child murders, maybe one seems interchangeable with another. You're basically saying that if you've seen one dead little blonde kid, you've seen 'em all, right? But we can't presume that all readers have prior knowledge of the subject. The criteria for what is "necessary" is not defined anywhere in Wikipedia policy; it's a matter of opinion. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to answer the question directed to me, while assuming good faith. This particular article is about the murder of one particular individual. As above, I think that having a photo of the victim "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic [the murder of Ms. Sawers], and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". If you disagree, I can see where you're coming from. But I don't believe you will find consensus that a photo of the victim fails to significantly increase understanding of that victim's murder. In an article on a tangential subject, I would feel differently. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bottom line: If it were free, no problem. But since it's not, it has to follow all the guidelines for non-free content, and they are very strict, by design. This one doesn't meet them, falling on WP:NFCC#8. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:01, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again: Says you. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 06:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know they're very strict by design. I remember when they were being ironed out, and I participated in the discussion that lead to the consensus for their wording. I was the one who suggested we stop calling them "fair-use images" on guideline pages and templates, and start calling them "non-free images" consistently. I'm glad the criteria are strict, and I understand them very clearly. And my understanding of the topic is significantly impaired by the lack of a photo of the victim. You've been stating your interpretation of the policy in these individual cases as if your opinions were the only logical way to look at it, and it's coming across as condescending. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The precendent does not apply; there, the articles it was used in were about the events surrounding the person's death, and they were not a biography of the subject herself. Since this is used in an actual biography article, and we can't take new free images, it serves an important purpose for the article and it cannot be replaced. Non-free images of people who have died are generally acceptable for use in their biography article, but not in other articles. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:18, 29 July 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert sandifer.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ohmyyes ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Citing precedent set at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 8#File:Caylee anthony.jpg, it is not necessary to show a non-free photo of the victim to understand the content of the article, per WP:NFCC#8. If this were a free photo, it would be perfectly fine to include a photo of the victim. However, since it is non-free, it must meet all ten non-free content criteria, and it would appear to fail one of them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As below, I don't think that precedent applies. Either way, I think this passes NFCC #8 in the article it's in. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:52, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you feel it passes WP:NFCC#8? This particular photo is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article, nor is it otherwise necessary to see a photo of the victim to understand that something nefarious happened to them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:09, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This isn't an article about an event in Sandifer's life. It's the Robert Sandifer article. In an article about an individual, having a single photo of that individual is critical in understanding the article. That's a pretty long-standing majority interpretation of NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:54, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, see my comment on the nomination above. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:19, 29 July 2011 (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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kelsey Smith-Briggs.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Karppinen ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Citing precedent set at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 July 8#File:Caylee anthony.jpg, it is not necessary to show a non-free photo of the victim to understand the content of the article, per WP:NFCC#8. If this were a free photo, it would be perfectly fine to include a photo of the victim. However, since it is non-free, it must meet all ten non-free content criteria, and it would appear to fail one of them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:12, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In the Caylee case, iirc, the image was used in articles relating to Caylee, but was not used in the article about Caylee Anthony herself. Is that correct? In that case, I note that this image is used only in an article about the person. How is that different than any biography (of a non-living person) illustrated with a non-free photo? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:33, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I feel this passes NFCC #8 in the article it's in. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:53, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you feel it passes WP:NFCC#8? This particular photo is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article, nor is it otherwise necessary to see a photo of the victim to understand that something nefarious happened to them. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above, this is used only in the Kelsey Smith-Briggs article. In an article about an individual, having a single photo of that individual is critical in understanding the article. That's a pretty long-standing majority interpretation of NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 22:58, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bottom line is, it is not necessary to see a photo of the victim to understand that the person was abused and murdered. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article is not "This person was abused and murdered." The article is entitled Kelsey Smith-Briggs, and the topic is the person herself. And not seeing the person significantly decreases the understanding of that topic, it seems obvious to me. Slightly off-topic: Do you think that in general, if we have a biography of a non-living person on Wikipedia, and the only photos that will ever exist are non-free, and there's a non-free photo in the infobox... do you think that photo should be deleted in most cases? Because that goes against pretty long-standing practice here, doesn't it? – Quadell ^(talk) 11:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Agree with Quadell. It is long standing practice that non-free images placed in the infobox of dead people can be used to identify that person in the biographical article about that person only, and if no free images can be found. It is a red herring to refer to the Caylee Anthony photo because it was not being used in a biography about her. ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, see my comment on the nomination above. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:19, 29 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:360° Singapore A Day in Life.ogv (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Maglame ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Invalid claim of "fair use", for two main reasons. (1) The portion used is the entire video work. (2) Its main purpose in Singapore History Gallery is illustrative/decorative and does not seem to be properly justified. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reason to keep--46.246.173.61 (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:TNMap-doton-Durhamville.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by DoxTxob ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned, obsoleted by File:TNMap-doton-Durhamville.png. –Drilnoth (T/C) 16:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Duplicated--46.246.173.61 (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2011 (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 as G7 by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:IISER-K-Campus-Lake.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dvidby0 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused Dvidby0 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the author requesting deletion, I tagged it G7. --Muhandes (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2011 (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 as G7 by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:IISER-K-Lawn.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dvidby0 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused Dvidby0 (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the author requesting deletion, I tagged it G7. --Muhandes (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2011 (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 as G7 by TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:IISER-K-Students.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dvidby0 ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

unused Dvidby0 (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is the author requesting deletion, I tagged it G7. --Muhandes (talk) 19:31, 25 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abdelkrim.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dzlinker ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is older, and was originally tagged as PD. But there's no source for that, and it may not be PD... we don't know when it was created or first published. Now it's tagged as non-free, but still with no author or date. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication that the image is fair use, no information at all about it really. User:Dzlinker is a sockpuppet of User:Omar2788, who is notorious on Wikipedia Commons for uploading images with incorrect or false copyright claims - he's even been blocked for it, twice. I started a previous thread on the Commons about this here, and even a quick examination of his talk page there before he blanked it indicates just how many images he's had deleted, including several that were uploaded after his blocks for copyright violation. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• He's added a rationale, but hasn't dealt with the sourcing or dating problems. He also removed the ffd tag, so I re-added it. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:56, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well, may not be considered a good reason but we need old photos in wikipedia. Really can someone tell me who deleted the images of the kings of nepal, butan and jordan? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.246.173.61 (talk) 21:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "we need old photos in wikipedia" is not a valid reason for violating copyright laws. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:18, 31 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Htoo-Ein-Thin-profile.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hybernator ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8, a better image is already in the article and we don't need two non-free images to illustrate what somebody looks like. –Drilnoth (T/C) 19:57, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Concur--46.246.173.61 (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Debatable whether it fails WP:NFCC#8. This picture shows the front profile while the other one shows just the side profile. Hybernator (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • IIRC, multiple non-free images of a person are almost never allowed. Keep one or the other (doesn't really matter to me which one), but not both. –Drilnoth (T/C) 11:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: not just does it fail WP:NFCC#8 but more importantly the image fails WP:NFCC#3a, minimal use; one image is enough to identify the subject, using two such images clearly is not minimal use of non-free images. Again either one or the other image but not both. ww2censor (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:H frequencie in the middle east.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by H5+R1A ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned image uploaded by a now-blocked user. Poor quality, questionable copyright status due to nature of the image and uploader's being blocked. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poor quality--46.246.173.61 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2011 (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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haplogroup H mtdna map.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by H5+R1A ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Orphaned image uploaded by a now-blocked user. Poor quality, questionable copyright status due to nature of the image and uploader's being blocked. –Drilnoth (T/C) 20:03, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Poor quality--46.246.173.61 (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2011 (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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 10:04, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silent disco van grote tot kleine evenementen en festivals.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by WesselBottenberg ( | contribs | uploads | upload log).

orphan image and promotional 92.27.97.179 (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2011 (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.