The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:
Deleted as a clear WP:NFCC#1 violation. – Quadell(talk) (random) 23:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-free photo of an expensive amp. I tagged it as replaceable, but the uploader said that, because it was very expensive, it isn't possible to replace this image. The closing admin agreed with the uploader, but I still think the image is replaceable, and I'd like to get more opinions here. – Quadell(talk) (random) 03:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I remember an IFD discussion from a while back for a Cisco router where it was agreed that non-free use would be permissible because it was unlikely that a free image would be created because of their limited accessibility and price. Oh well, no big loss. east.718at 04:08, December 22, 2007
You're probably thinking of these, Image:Cisco-rs1.jpg and Image:Cisco7600seriesrouter.jpg, internet backbone routers that cost over $100,000.00 each. The consensus was that we couldn't use them, so User:Akc9000 managed to get permission from the copyright-holder to use the images under a free license. All the arguments people had been making that "it's impossible to get a free image of this!" were proved wrong. If we would have used the non-free image, we never would have acquired a free one, so the cause of free content (one of the pillars of Wikipedia) is advanced by not allowing non-free images when it could be possible -- even if very difficult -- to replace them. – Quadell(talk) (random) 21:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussion was already closed, the argument that the image was replaceable is dismissed. - Mafia Expert (talk) 18:29, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepA rare and expensive amplifier. It is doubtful that a free alternative will ever be available due to its rarity and expence. As the image is from the official webpate of Rockford Fosgate, the preseveration of this image will not results in lost revenue to the original photographer. Nor with the preseveration of this image, under fair use as is well documented on the image page, result in lost revenue for Rockford Fosgate. Fosnez (talk) 15:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: lack of harm (i.e. no revenue loss) is a necessary but not sufficient condition for fair use: replaceability is the key. I've e-mailed their media rep for an image request, per User:R. Baley/Acquire a free image. Kelvinc (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When a replacement is found, fine, remove it. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 16:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't how things work. If an image is replacable it's deleted since amongst other things, this encourages people to find a replacement Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see why someone can't go to a high-end audio store and snap a photo of it using a cameraphone or something. If that's not feasible, surely at least one Wikipedian either owns the amp, or knows someone who does. *** Crotalus *** 13:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Insufficient attempts have been made to find a replacement. People are claiming it's irreplacable because the amp is expensive and/or rare but no one has tried contacting the copyright owners for the image for example or the makers of the amp. And even the claim the public is generally not able to view these amps seem suspicious to me since I found this image on flickr which while copyrighted shows that the public does come across these amps (and no one has tried to get this released under a free license either). Furthermore, the image is only used in Rockford Fosgate with absolutely no description of the amp the image shows in the article (which AFAIK is a violation of NFCC criteria anyway). Rockford Fosgate appear to make a lot of amps and the use of this expensive amp as a general image to show amps they make is unnecessary. Removing the image will NOT in any way harm the readers understanding since there are alot of different amps which could be used in it's place. Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Vandal image of a private forum. Was not given permission for repost. 72.211.222.62 (talk) 04:54, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:
Kept, since it's clearly encyclopedic (since we have articles on the topic). No arguments have been made that show any policies this image violates (other than stating that it's unencyclopedic, which seems false on its face). I can't find any reason to delete this free image. – Quadell(talk) (random) 23:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very useful for articles such as penetration, bareback (sex), anal sex, sex, homosexuality, unprotected sex, pornography, sodomy, and for those interested in researching, cultural anthropology, sociology, human sexuality, human anatomy, biology, psychology. Similar images are used in articles such as anal-oral contact, autofellatio, ejaculation and is encyclopedia in line with those images. Wikipedia is not censored. And also for example anal-oral contact's image of analingus/rimming is in use in 12 languages of wikipedia, which shows these images aee broadly viewed as encyclopedic.Ah0000000ga (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it were really so useful, then it, or similar images, would already appear in such articles; they don't. Images appear in various sex-related articles, but rarely are they overtly pornographic, close-up, unprofessional colour photographs of sexual behaviour. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They do at anal-oral contact, autofellatio, ejaculation in dozens of languages, those are very similar images. Wikipedia is an ameteur site with lots of unprofessional pictures, there is nothing against such an image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ah0000000ga (talk • contribs) 01:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Unencyclopaedic and only to be used in disruptive way. Dekisugi (talk) 08:12, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might add that, for whatever reason, Ah0000000ga's main objective appears to be to insert a sexual image of himself into as many Wikipedia articles as he possibly can. It's worth noting that this image has been removed from every article he's attempted to place it in. Exploding Boy (talk) 16:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The picture doesn't improve the readers' understanding of the subject. That must be the acid test here, and I am starting to feel as if the editor who uploaded it is t5rying to make some kind of WP:POINT here Mayalld (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are no images currently used in Bareback (sex), and I don't see how this image would improve the article. Darkspots (talk) 11:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
