Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 17 July 19 >

July 18[edit]

Image:10 jan 2004 EOD mortar rounds iraq.jpg[edit]

Image:10 jan 2004 EOD mortar rounds iraq.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Twthmoses (notify | contribs).
  • "No known copyright policy" and "freely downloaded" are not valid reasons for fair use. I do not see how fair use could apply in the way it is used in the two articles that link to it. — Konstable 13:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not iconic, but I think it would be a valuable photo to have. Could somebody from dk.wikipedia contact the Danish defence ministry to see whether they would release it? I imagine they might quite like the idea of it appearing here. In the meantime wait. Jheald 12:47, 20 July 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.

Image:Einstein tongue.jpg[edit]

Image:Einstein tongue.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Conti (notify | contribs).
  • I fail to see how this image is a "non-repeatable historic event that is iconically associated with Albert Einstein". Legitimate fair-use photos of persons are extremely rare, and in this case, a replacement can be found. How is Einstein sticking out his tong so remarkable that a picture of it qualifies under fair use? SalaSkan (Review me) 01:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This picture is iconic of Einstein. It is ubiquitous in American culture at the very least, and as the rational states, it (the picture itself) is in fact talked about in the article--Cronholm144 01:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not just a picture of a famous man, but a famous picture in its own right. Q.E.D. Fair use at Einstein, but not on user pages.--Father Goose 04:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    True, fair use does not extend to userpages. I will give them the heads up--Cronholm144 04:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    .... rmed and alerted via my edit summary. Should I mention it on their talk pages as well? --Cronholm144 04:20, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I already told users about using the image just yesterday :-) Cheers. Sasquatch t|c 16:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Cronholm. Search for more references, e.g. [1], [2], etc --Quiddity 06:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is very culturally relevant and is a good example of Einstein's place in pop culture both then and now. As to 'Userpages' ONE userbox used it, and ONE user page had that box (mine). I've changed the image to a free use image. Tiki God 08:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry 'bout that, but I didn't want there to be any doubt about keeping the image. It was on 3 userpages not including yours BTW.--Cronholm144 08:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This image is used in the Albert Einstein article. There are free photos of Einstein, so this image can't be used to depict the person. It is argued above that the image is notable in-and-of itself. . . but the event depicted is only mentioned in one sentence. The photo is not notable enough to be the primary focus of a major section of the article, so it is not notable enough to pass NFCC #8. The evidence above that the image is popular does not show that the image "contributes significantly to an article", which is what is required. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if discussion about the image is expanded - (Delete otherwise). Currently, the article simply describes (in one sentence) the occasion at which the picture was taken. This isn't enough to keep this image. But I believe it's possible to write a whole sub-section (or even a small article) about this picture. The subsection should mainly describe why is this image considered iconic and should completely avoid original research. We need many reliable sources talking about this image's notability, and not simply using the image (it's not up to us, as a tertiary source, to conclude that as it's heavily used, it's iconic and important)! I'm not convinced the sources provided in this ifd would suffice. The google search is obviously moot (I could prove that some images of Paris Hilton are iconic using this criteria). Although the neatorama.com article is a good reading, I don't think it count as a reliable source. And the msnnbc article doesn't discuss the image's notability at all. But I do believe such source can be found. But unless they are found, the image must be deleted. --Abu badali (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep only if expanded text is written in a new “Albert Einstein in popular culture” article. Otherwise delete. The Albert Einstein article is already 85KB long. (By the way, someone should look at the other fair use images in this article.) --teb728 18:40, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I have split out an Albert Einstein in popular culture page using the old content of the main article. I did not add expanded text on the iconic nature of the image; I leave that to those eager to keep the image. --teb728 22:35, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I fully agree with TEB728. Apparently, this picture is "iconic" of Einstein, but currently, the article merely states this:
"On Einstein's 72nd birthday in 1951, UPI photographer Arthur Sasse was trying to persuade him to smile for the camera, but having smiled for photographers many times that day, Einstein stuck out his tongue instead (Kupper 2000)."
That's all, and far too little to justify a fair use image to me. Also, it isn't even sourced. Like TEB said, when there is an Albert Einstein in popular culture article (and I'm sure it could be created, see for example Adolf Hitler in popular culture), and the cultural impact of this picture is demonstrated, a fair use claim might be legitimate. Not now. SalaSkan 18:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded commentary is made: I concur with Abu badali, teb728, and Quadell. There's nothing in the inline text of this article to indicate why this picture is significant in any way other than that he stuck his tongue out for it. I think most of us have seen this image used countless times outside of Wikipedia. There's certainly substantial enough material *somewhere* to go on about the iconic nature of this image. But, it's not extant in this article. If the article is expanded to comment (significantly, I might add, not just to keep the image but with real relevance to Einstein) then perhaps the image could remain. Otherwise, it's purely decorative. I don't see the point. If it's culturally relevant, then write about it. If it's iconic, then write about it. But, to have a sentence about him sticking his tongue out...so what? Is there anyone among us who's never stuck their tongue before??? Are we depicting that he CAN, in fact, stick out his tongue? I don't recall Einstein having a tongue disability. --Durin 20:52, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly? not only one of the most famous photos in the world, but one with a pop culture attached to it as anyone who has ever been to a bookshop would know, it takes much less time to add this "commentary" than to write up an IfD and then comments of the length of Durin's. {{sofixit}}--Konstable 21:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seriously? Probably one of the ten or twenty most iconic photos in the history of photography ... if the section needs work, though, someone should work it. WilyD 21:23, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, guys, fair use is not about what the thing is, it's about how the thing is used. --bainer (talk) 02:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Exactly. That's why the picture here is used to describe the... picture and the event that lead to it being taken.--Konstable 05:54, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Describing a picture and the event that lead to it being taken is not enough to satisfy item #8 of out policy. Otherwise pretty much any picture ever taken would be able to pass this criterion. --Abu badali (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but I think you are not following the argument. Please have a read of the section which uses the photo, then have a look at one of the hundreds of books that reference this photo, then explain how these are not part of popular culture around Einstein. And then make some specific statements that I can respond to if needed.--Konstable 13:22, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, re-read my argument. I didn't say this picture isn't notable. I said we're not discussing its notability. --Abu badali (talk) 14:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read my argument.--Konstable 14:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Just did it. You ask me to explain "how these are not part of popular culture around Einstein". I don't agree these are not part of popular culture around Einstein (as explained in my argument), so, I can't explain how these are not part of popular culture around Einstein. --Abu badali (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Konstable, read Abu badali’s first post on this image (dated 16:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)); he is saying much the same as you. The difference between you is that he adds that in order to fulfill WP:NFCC#8 the text in the article where the image is used needs to describe how the image is part of the popular culture around Einstein. (To which I add that this expanded text (and hence the image) should go someplace other than the Einstein biography, which is already too large.) --teb728 20:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept. I would really like the reference to the photo in Albert Einstein in popular culture to be expanded more, but I feel it's sufficient to meet NFCC 8 (and I'm a real stickler for that particular criterion). howcheng {chat} 17:17, 24 July 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Image:Wikiproject-Islam.png[edit]

Image:Wikiproject-Islam.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Matt57 (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned, unencyclopedic Bleh999 01:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment--Did it get superseded, replaced, etc? If there is no chance it will get used again put me down for delete.--Cronholm144 01:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michael Tierney.jpg[edit]

Image:Michael Tierney.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by SilverBull (notify | contribs).

Image:Brighteyesshoot2.jpg[edit]

Image:Brighteyesshoot2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Biginjapan91 (notify | contribs).

Image:NIriver1.jpg[edit]

Image:NIriver1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Grutness (notify | contribs).

Image:Black-monitor.jpg[edit]

Image:Black-monitor.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jasz (notify | contribs).

Image:Full-house-cast.jpg[edit]

Image:Full-house-cast.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by QuasyBoy (notify | contribs).
  • Image is a promo image obviously, but source listed is likely not the original site for this photo, and the page itself does not load, only the link to the image itself, with no copyright info at all. 74.204.40.46 07:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Savedbythebell.jpg[edit]

Image:Savedbythebell.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mokwella (notify | contribs).
  • Promo image from a television series, with no source listed, and no copyright information listed. 74.204.40.46 07:27, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Source is presumably the production company, as the type-of-image tag claims. A group shot from the production company used to show what the character ensemble looks like is usually considered acceptable by WP:NONFREE for an article about the show. Jheald 12:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jheald. Dalejenkins 13:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if you could provide the source information this would be fine, you can't just presume upon its source information. If this was okay then thousands of images could be uploaded and we just have to say, oh i think its from this site, so lets use it. I am not saying it should be deleted because its wrong, I am saying it should be deleted unless someone knows where it was taken from. Find the original source of the image and list it here, it should not be that hard, it should be easier than typing all the reasons you should keep it. So, go find the sourceEjfetters 08:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Who gives a shit about this legal nonsense. Pathetic. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.110.222.93 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 22 July 2007.
  • Well I don't think that since we can't find a source we should just start swearing on here, how childish.74.204.40.46 05:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dawson's Creek Publicity Photos[edit]

  • Keep. Source site exists solely to promote the show. Use of an image selected and distributed by the show's creators to promote a character is no less appropriate for fair use than a screenshot. Jheald 13:03, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this has been discussed AT LENGTH for several television actors. Publicity shots all over Wikipedia are being deleted, and should be replaced with screen stills of the character - as done in ones for Star Trek, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, Star Trek: Voyager, Star Trek: Enterprise, Days of Our Lives, Passions, Sunset Beach.74.204.40.46 00:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this explains it, the disclaimer taken right from sony picture's site, linked at the bottom of the site they are taken from.

LICENSE TO USE THE SITE

SPE grants you a non-exclusive, non-transferable, limited right and license to access, use and privately display the Site and the Site Content as described herein for your personal use only, by way of one (1) computer connected to the Site over the Internet, provided that you comply fully with these TOS. You may "cache" pages of the Site for the sole purpose of increasing the speed and efficiency at which you access the Site. Any other copy or use of a portion of the Site is not authorized, will be a violation of these TOS and will constitute a copyright violation. You shall not interfere, or attempt to interfere, with the operation of the Site in any way through any means or device, including, but not limited to, spamming, hacking, uploading computer viruses or time bombs, or any other means expressly prohibited by any provision of these TOS or by law.

Says "Personal Use" - Wikipedia isn't personal its public. Says the use of these images is unauthorized and is a copyright violation. I think that about says it right there.74.204.40.46 00:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're not claiming those images are licensed to us. They're not. We're claiming that our usage of those images falls under fair use - wholly different concept. Jheald 00:58, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The license seems explicitly forbid such things as uploading content to Wikipedia. Without the license I would agree with you. --teb728 02:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not their place to forbid fair use. Fair use is a right protected by law. They don't have the right to forbid it. Jheald 08:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not that they are forbidding "fair use". It's that the uploader is claiming that these images are to be used by the media for promotional proposes, when the copyright holder explicitly forbids anything but personal use of this images.
As we're discussing tv-series, we can fairly use a small part of the series (i.e., a screenshot). But it's not fair to take material produced to enhance the copyright holder's website and use it to enhance our site.
This all have been discussed at length in other nominations and deletion reviews. --Abu badali (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what is the big deal, look at all the character images for the pages Jean-Luc Picard, Kathryn Janeway, Hoshi Sato and so on. This has been discussed at length, look back in the history of all these images, plus many more, and it was decided to just repalace them with screen caps. Get screen caps of the characters, why is this such a problem with Dawson's Creek, but it was no problem with Star Trek, I am confused? Ejfetters 08:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here what about these screen caps I found for you -
http://www.dawsonscreek.com/gallery/joey/401_joey.html from Episode "Coming Home"
http://www.dawsonscreek.com/gallery/jen/jen9.html from Episode "Uncharted Waters"
http://www.dawsonscreek.com/gallery/dawson/309_dawson2.html from Episdoe "Four to Tango"
http://www.dawsonscreek.com/gallery/pacey/301_pacey2.html from Episode "Like a Virgin"
These are good screen caps that, along with source and fair use rationale tags can be used I believe. Please also read [[3]] this will show you the discussion had about publicity shots of televison characters. There I've done some of the work for you. I'm not out to delete all these images, just replace them.Ejfetters 08:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually I don't think these should be used either, someone should just get caps from the DVD's which are all released now. This way there is no dispute that they are even from the sony site. Ejfetters 20:27, 28 July 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:

Star Trek Photos[edit]

Worf and Troi are screenshots from Star Trek: Nemesis, the others have been updated with free and clear screenshotsm also from Nemesis. My bad. Squiggyfm 18:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the old versions and the orphans - Picard is orphan (the image, not the captain), and we already have plenty of images of him. The old version of the images replaced by screenshots (like Worf) should be removed. --Abu badali (talk) 12:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Images still don't have any license or copyright information on them74.204.40.46 06:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Crusher, Picard and Data, but save Worf and Troi as those are screenshots from the Film Nemesis and are fair use as they are identifing elements of the motion picture.Squiggyfm 13:14, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • They just need source information on the images is all.74.204.40.46 21:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whorf was kept, since it's a screenshot, although I tagged it {{nsd}}. The others, some other admin deleted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:57, 31 July 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.

Image:N76003313 13964.jpg[edit]

Image:N76003313 13964.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Lordnick1 (notify | contribs).
  • Not linked anywhere, no encyclopedic purpose. — Wafulz 14:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with Wafulz. Per Reasons for deletion, "Content not suitable for an encyclopedia" and "Images that are unused, obsolete, violate fair-use policy, or are unencyclopedic". (Guyinblack25 18:28, 18 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Image:Janis_cakste.jpg[edit]

Image:Janis_cakste.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Solver (notify | contribs).
  • Not enough evidence that the author died more than 70 years ago (but if this image ould be found to be PD for some other reason...) Abu badali (talk) 15:48, 18 July 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.

Image:Logo4bucks.png[edit]

Image:Logo4bucks.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Hmwith (notify | contribs).
  • Use of the Ohio State University logo---and its special type---consititutes a violation of copyright and trademark law. In addition, because of such, it was removed from the Ohio State University template, and its removal as per terms Wikipedia:Fair_use#Policy item #9 from the OSU template has left it orphaned. AEMoreira042281 16:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uploader/creator's comment: I made the image freehand on my computer. I thought what Ohio State would/could have copyrighted were the "O" with a buckeye leaf on the bottom, right corner and the "O" with "Ohio State" written through it. I didn't know that one could copyright a generic red letter "O" with a gray outline (easily made on any word processor program). If I was mistaken, I sincerely apologize, and have it be deleted.  hmwith  talk 17:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This clearly falls under the purview of fair use. The "O" may be a trademark owned by Ohio State, but that shouldn't inhibit its upload or display. Even complete reproduction is fair use (see [4]). Maybe update the licence template to reflect that, but I don't even think that's needed. Jeremiah 13:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Orphaned anyway. howcheng {chat} 17:23, 24 July 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Image:Pshq3a.jpg[edit]

Image:Pshq3a.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Proehlgg (notify | contribs).
  • Image is of a living person who wants image to be deleted. The image, I believe, has been previously removed and has been uploaded by another user, who appears to have used a sockpuppet. — Jgassens 16:33, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pshq2a.jpg[edit]

Image:Pshq2a.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Proehlgg (notify | contribs).
  • Image is of a living person who wants image to be deleted. The image, I believe, has been previously removed and has been uploaded by another user, who appears to have used a sockpuppet. — Jgassens 16:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Primal Scream 1.JPG[edit]

Image:Primal Scream 1.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Proehlgg (notify | contribs).
  • Image is of a living person who wants image to be deleted. The image, I believe, has been previously removed and has been uploaded by another user, who appears to have used a sockpuppet.

Image:Mickey_Mantle_Time_Cover.jpg[edit]

Image:Mickey_Mantle_Time_Cover.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Hayford Peirce (notify | contribs).
  • Magazine cover used for identification purposes of the subject only. howcheng {chat} 16:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pub85si.jpg[edit]

Image:Pub85si.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by TMC1982 (notify | contribs).
  • Magazine cover used without any critical commentary of the cover itself. howcheng {chat} 16:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wade&Letterman.jpg[edit]

Image:Wade&Letterman.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free screnshot showing an athlete being interviewed in a talk-show, used to illustrate the information that he was once interviewed in this talk show. Abu badali (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Simms_to_LT.jpg[edit]

Image:Simms_to_LT.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-free screenshot doesn't adds any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:D-Wade_on_SI.jpg[edit]

Image:D-Wade_on_SI.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessaary, non-free image of a magazine's cover showing an athleted. It's used to illustrate the information that the athlete was featured on the cover. It doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brotherhood-Showtime.jpg[edit]

Image:Brotherhood-Showtime.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).
  • tv.yahoo.com is not a source for promo material. their images are to enhance their site, not ours. Abu badali (talk) 18:26, 18 July 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:

Image:Finals_jordan_98_grab.jpg[edit]

Image:Finals_jordan_98_grab.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-free image showing an athlete playing basketball. It doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep One of the most iconic moments in sporting history, and the pic is a screenshot not a photograph. TayquanhollaMy work 18:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep enough of IP paranoia -- first, interpretation of fair use is patently poor (in the WP community, not targeting anyone in particular); second an encyclopedia bent on being bereft of (legitimate, mind you, if one is acquainted with the real meaning of fair use) images is meaningless. Third, the moment is indeed tremendously iconic to any basketball fan, avid or not, around the world—and in this instance the trite "a picture is worth a thousand words" resonates with a ring of logic. Fourth, the justification proffered for deletion is an oversimplification, to say the least. Chensiyuan 01:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      You seem to misunderstand the Wikipedia policy on non-free content (see WP:NFC). The purpose of this policy has little to do with protecting the rights of copyright owners; rather it aims at minimizing the use of non-free content in order to maximize the reusability of Wikipedia content. (I’m not saying that sarcastically; that’s what the policy really is.) The term “fair use rationale” is rather misleading: To show legal “fair use” is not nearly enough; rather the rationale must show that Wikipedia needs the non-free content. In particular, in order to save this image from deletion, you need to show that its use fulfills WP:NFCC#8. --teb728 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Both this image and the one underneath this add a tremendous amount to the Michael Jordan article; for those who actually know the events that the images are portraying, it's an opportunity to reminisce. For those that do not know about pivotal Jordan events (ie. The Shot and others), it's a valuable snapshot of history. I'm not exactly sure why the original user wanted these pictures deleted, but I cannot think of any good reason why either ought to be. GlassCobra 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was nominated because, although the event may have been notable, we don't need this screenshot to understand the text about the event. And we don't use non-free material unless it's absence would be detrimental to the understanding of the article. --Abu badali (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of the most iconic moments in sporting history. We might as well do away with fair use if we're going to delete this pic. Aaron Bowen 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Picture is not necessary to understanding the text, violating WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 17:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My god have we lost sight of reality here? This is a low res screenshot of a tremendously iconic moment is sporting history. Let's not get ridiculous here. Trevor GH5 05:42, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Finals_jordan_91_grab.jpg[edit]

Image:Finals_jordan_91_grab.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Quadzilla99 (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-free image showing a basketball player playing basketball. It doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Another one of the most iconic moments in American sports history, as you can see from the source of the pic. Also a screenshot and not a photograph. TayquanhollaMy work 18:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We don't need this image to talk about the event. The event may be notable, but this screenshot is not. The source uses the screenshot to identify the link to the video showing the event. Luckily for them, they are the copyright holder. --Abu badali (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep enough of IP paranoia -- first, interpretation of fair use is patently poor (in the WP community, not targeting anyone in particular); second an encyclopedia bent on being bereft of (legitimate, mind you, if one is acquainted with the real meaning of fair use) images is meaningless. Third, the moment is indeed tremendously iconic to any basketball fan, avid or not, around the world—and in this instance the trite "a picture is worth a thousand words" resonates with a ring of logic. Fourth, the justification proffered for deletion is an oversimplification, to say the least. Chensiyuan 01:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Both this image and the one above this add a tremendous amount to the Michael Jordan article; for those who actually know the events that the images are portraying, it's an opportunity to reminisce. For those that do not know about pivotal Jordan events (ie. The Shot and others), it's a valuable snapshot of history. I'm not exactly sure why the original user wanted these pictures deleted, but I cannot think of any good reason why either ought to be. GlassCobra 03:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Iconic moment. Aaron Bowen 21:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Picture is not necessary to understanding the text, violating WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's definitely a matter of opinion. I, and several others who have already expressed opinions do not believe that it violates that particular tenet. GlassCobra 19:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. None of the arguments above expressed the opinion that the image is necessary to understanding the text. All the keep arguments say the image should be deleted because the text is about a iconic event (which is not enough for keeping a non-free image) . --Abu badali (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Keep Abu's well documented copyright paranopia aside, this is undoubtedly one of the most iconic moments in American sports history, and a low res screenshot is perfectly acceptable. Trevor GH5 05:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • It’s not a matter of copyright paranoia; you seem to misunderstand the Wikipedia policy on non-free content. See my 03:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC) comment on Image:Finals_jordan_98_grab.jpg (above). In order to save this image from deletion, you need to show that its use fulfills WP:NFCC#8. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TEB728 (talk • contribs)

Both images were deleted, since they were not necessary to understand the events depicted. Reminiscing is great on sites designed for that purpose, and seeing a snapshot of history is also nice, but Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, and we only use non-free media if they provide encyclopedic information that would not be available otherwise. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:05, 31 July 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.

Image:1994-0207-1.jpg[edit]

Image:1994-0207-1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by ShadowJester07 (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-free image from a news agency showing a basketball player playing baseball. It's used to illustrate the info that he once played baseball. It doesn't add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Images from User:Kay Körner[edit]

On July 16 I received this message on my talk page from an administrator on the Commons, warning me to be careful about images uploaded by User:Kay Körner (who also uploads as User:Lucken), who had been blocked at Commons for repeatedly uploading images against policy. I looked through Kay's uploads and found several images tagged as if they were free, but which appeared to be copyright violations. I asked Kay about these, but received a rather bizarre and non-informative response (here). There may be some genuine free contributions among the copyvios, but I think it's better to delete than take chances, given the uploader's history and response. Here are the suspected copyright violations:

In addition, this user uploaded the following non-free images which are not used in article space. I'm listing them here, rather than tagging them {{orfud}}, because I have reason to believe the user would remove the notices.

And these images are used, but are mostly just used decoratively, and have no source. (Many are mistagged as well: dolls as logos, photos as posters, etc.)

If any of these are worth keeping, we should determine an adequate source and improve the rationale. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:01, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I was just informed that this user also uploads as User:Fox53, and has been blocked from the German Wikipedia for uploading improper images as well. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Robcubs.jpg[edit]

Image:Robcubs.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by ShadowJester07 (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-free screenshot showing an American football kicker siging a song, used to illustrate the info that he sang that song. Abu badali (talk) 18:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bg_cg9fII.jpg[edit]

Image:Bg_cg9fII.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Wcole (notify | contribs).

Image:Cheney2.jpg[edit]

Image:Cheney2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by GraigC (notify | contribs).
  • suspected copyvio. The source site says everything is copyrighted. – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pa_frankiej_1.jpg[edit]

Image:Pa_frankiej_1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Arcangel619 (notify | contribs).

Image:Pa_frankiej_4.jpg[edit]

Image:Pa_frankiej_4.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Arcangel619 (notify | contribs).

Image:220px-Frankie1.jpg[edit]

Image:220px-Frankie1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Arcangel619 (notify | contribs).

Image:The_inlfuence_of_the_SED_for_the_east_German_soccer.jpg[edit]

Image:The_inlfuence_of_the_SED_for_the_east_German_soccer.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Fox53 (notify | contribs).
  • Book cover, only used decoratively in an article that doesn't mention the book – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The_BFC_is_to_blame_for_the_Berlin_Wall!.jpg[edit]

Image:The_BFC_is_to_blame_for_the_Berlin_Wall!.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Fox53 (notify | contribs).
  • Book cover, only used decoratively in an article that doesn't mention the book – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BFC_Dynamo_-_The_Master.jpg[edit]

Image:BFC_Dynamo_-_The_Master.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Fox53 (notify | contribs).
  • Book cover, only used decoratively in an article that doesn't mention the book – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kanyebush.jpg[edit]

Image:Kanyebush.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by The_lorax (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-free screenshot showing an artisting making a declaration on tv, used (in 5 articles) to illustrate the information that he appeared on tv to make such declaration. Abu badali (talk) 20:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The image has fair use rationale, the proper copyright tag, and adds to the articles it is on because it helps illustrate Mike Myers' react to what Kanye West was saying. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:39, 24 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete. Picture is not necessary to understanding the text, violating WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 17:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Appropriate, non-replaceable fair use to back up the discussion of the controversy, showing what TV viewers actually saw. This adds to the viewer's understanding of the incident - which is what is required. Jheald 16:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It seems to me that the image does not significantly increase readers’ understanding of any of the articles beyond the text. Saying “it shows what TV viewers actually saw” could apply as well to any screen shot. --teb728 17:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image deleted. Violates WP:NFCC #8. -Nv8200p talk 20:12, 1 August 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.

Image:Einstein_patentoffice.jpg[edit]

Image:Einstein_patentoffice.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Stevertigo (notify | contribs).
  • Image of a young Einstein with unknown copyrigth status (as explained on the image's description page). The image is not crucial to the understanding of any of the articles it's used in. Abu badali (talk) 20:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is clearly a cropped version of a PD image in Commons. Does that clear up its status here? --teb728 23:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The commons image is also tagged for deletion; but this was taken in 1905; how is it not PD by now? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:26, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we can prove it was published before 1 July 1909, then {{PD-US}} would be applicable. It still would be deleted from Commons as Commons requires the image to be PD in both the home country and the U.S. howcheng {chat} 21:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Swiss Federal Intellectual Property Office (ie the new name for the Patent Office) says it was taken in 1904. [5] -- Jheald 21:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, but when was it published? You're right, that's the key question. Jheald 21:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is used at http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap951219.html. That site contains the general statement, “All the images on the APOD page are credited to the owner or institution where they originated. Some of the images are copyrighted and to use these pictures publicly or commercially one must write to the owners for permission. For the copyrighted images, the copyright owner is identified in the APOD credit line (please see the caption under the image), along with a hyperlink to the owner's location.” [6] But for this image no copyright owner is identified; so apparently the site editors believe the image is PD in the U.S. --teb728 22:41, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kept and tagged {{PD-US}}. howcheng {chat} 17:41, 24 July 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


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:

Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg[edit]

Image:Max-Planck-und-Albert-Einstein.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by JdH (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-free image of Einstein receiving a medal. It doesn't seem to help on the understanding of the topics of none of the 7 articles it's used in. Abu badali (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is hard to imagine a more iconic picture of Planck and Einstein than this one. The Max-Planck-Medal is a highly prestigious award of the German Physical Society. It was firstly awarded on June 28, 1929. The laureates were Max Planck himself and Albert Einstein. The medal for Einstein was presented by Planck personally. The award which consists of a golden medal with the portrait of Max Planck and a hand-written document was and still is awarded by the German Physical Society for excellent performance in the field of theoretical physics. JdH 17:36, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sentence "Max Planck presented the medal to Einstein" does not need a picture to be understood. howcheng {chat} 23:28, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and do a more thorough check on its copyright status. 1929 is very close to the Public Domain Horizon, if all the Ts weren't crossed it may have become free since then. Who claims the copyright on it? The only active source listed, the Emilio Segrè Visual Archives, explicitly claims to not hold the copyright. Bryan Derksen 20:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, we have to assume it's copyrighted unless we have some proof to believe it's not. We can't simply tag it as PD until someone comes claiming copyright. --Abu badali (talk) 15:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (what JdH said) Ben Hocking (talk|contribs) 18:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not a vote. You don't need to worry to repeat someone else's argument (but of course, feel free to do so). --Abu badali (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Deleting an image of a photograph taken in the late 1920s would be excessive. Lacking evidence that there is a current copyright holder, it should be presumed to be in the public domain ("free"), or at minimum a perfect example of fair-use. This recent trend of nitpicking the rules and guidelines about illustrations such as this one has gotten very much out of hand. ... Kenosis 18:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but you have it the wrong way around. Images are presumed to be copyrighted unless proven otherwise. howcheng {chat} 22:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I've had a chance to look into the current policy discussion about "non-free" images a bit further. Nontheless, in this case, my advocacy of "keep" stands as is. The image does indeed enhance the reader's understanding of the topic in a way that mere text cannot possibly, no matter how well it's written. Seeing Einstein with Planck-- IMO, it's a fantastic, even stunning photograph to the eye of anyone who knows who Max Planck is. ... Kenosis 22:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image deleted. This reference indicates the image was part of the Bettman Archive which is now owned by Corbis. Since Corbis makes their business selling images, using this image on Wikipedia violates WP:NFCC #2. NFCC #8 is violated in most of the articles the image is used in. -Nv8200p talk 18:04, 1 August 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.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Tagore-einstein2.jpg[edit]

Image:Tagore-einstein2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Dwaipayanc (notify | contribs).
  • Unsourced image used under fair use, showing "2 monumental personalities" meeting. Used to illustrate the information that these 2 monumental personalities once met. In the 3 articles it's used in, it doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't this under PD, considering the age of the photo? --Ragib 20:39, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • PD has to do with when was the image first published, and not when it was produced. And in the lack of source information, we can't establish that. Of course, if this image is discovered to be in PD, I shouldn't be deleted. --Abu badali (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • At least one of the subjects (Tagore) died in 1940, so the image has to be pre-1940. Most likely it is pre 1933, if taken in Germany. --Ragib 23:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even if we assume the supposedly German photographer died in the first years of the War, it isn't still 70 years since then. --Abu badali (talk) 12:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Was it a German Photographer? Was it first published in Germany? Under Indian copyright law, photographer's death is irrelevant, rather, for photos, copyright is provided for 60 years from the date of publication. Of course, the lack of source and author of the photograph makes such discussions pointless. :( --Ragib 19:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to the caption at Albert Einstein the photo was taken July 14, 1930. Of course that doesn't tell us when it was published. --teb728 20:32, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to [7] (which shows a different photograph of these two men, but probably from the same photo session), the photographer is an American named Martin Voss, and nobelprize.org credits this exact photo to "Martin Vos/Rabindra Bhavan, Shantiniketan". Artnet confirms the name "Martin Vos", but I can't seem to find anything else about him on Google. Anyone have a subscription to Artnet? I'll leave a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arts. howcheng {chat} 21:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. It might be public domain if it were published in the U.S. (a good assumption, given that the photographer is American and the photo was supposedly widely circulated) and it were missing a copyright notice or if the copyright wasn't renewed, but there's no guarantee, and so we have to err on the side of caution and treat this as a non-free image. howcheng {chat} 17:51, 24 July 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Cascadia earthquake.gif[edit]

Image:Cascadia earthquake.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Arg (notify | contribs).

Image:EinsteinSzilard.jpg[edit]

Image:EinsteinSzilard.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ed_g2s (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary non-free image showing two physicist witting a notable letter, used (in 6 articles!) to illustrate the information that they wrote that letter. In none of the 6 article it's used in, it seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 20:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Einstein_inshul1930.jpg[edit]

Image:Einstein_inshul1930.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Epson291 (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of Einstein playing a violin in a synaogue, used to illustrate the information that the once played the violing ona a synagogue. It doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Also, no source information is provided. Abu badali (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, illustrates his connection to Judaism. No free photo is available. Epson291 21:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to me that the text already describes his connection to Judaism. The image is if anything misleading in that it suggests that he attended synagogue. --teb728 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EinsteinandAbbaEban.jpg[edit]

Image:EinsteinandAbbaEban.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Epson291 (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of Einstein laughing with some diplomats, used to illustrate the information that the once met these diplomats. It doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Also, no source information is provided. Abu badali (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, illustrates his work with Zionism and the creation of the State of Israel. No free illustration available. Epson291 21:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems to me that the text of Albert Einstein admirably describes his work with Zionism and the creation of Israel. The image adds little if anything. See WP:NFCC, particularly #8 for the requirements for using a non-free image. --teb728 20:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WikiCabal MTG Card.png[edit]

Image:WikiCabal MTG Card.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by GeeJo (notify | contribs).
  • Derivative work of copyrighted material --Eyrian 21:13, 18 July 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.

Image:HeroesSeason1.jpg[edit]

Image:HeroesSeason1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by TheSequelofDisney (notify | contribs).
  • This image has two rationales. The first seems to have been designed to cover every theorhetical eventuality a DVD cover could be used for, but it does not specifically address how the image significantly contributes to the article. The second rationale: "For an article about a tv-serie, the cover artwork is very important and adds significantly to the article." is very ambiguous and again, doesn't fulfill WP:NFCC#8. The image is not discussed or referenced in the article, and seems to have no special significance aside from decoration of the DVD section of the Heroes article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Like album covers, a DVD cover is considered acceptable if accompanying an article section with prose commentary devoted to the DVD. Arguably, the section here is just about okay, even though the style is not great. Jheald 21:49, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The referenced section of the article lists the release dates, number of discs, and contents of the DVDs, without any notable verifiable reference to the box or its cover art. This information in no way requires illustration, and is not rendered better understandable with the decorative image. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 17:56, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Per policy on cover art, there doesn't need to be a reference to the box or its cover art. (See "images" section on WP:NONFREE). The cover-art image is considered as acceptable as identifying the unique image associate with the merchandise. Per policy, specifically for cover art, it is whether there is sufficient discussion about the DVD - eg release dates, contents, critical reception etc - that matters. Jheald 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Er... WP:NFCC#Images says: "Cover art: Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." A list of contents ≠ critical commentary. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 18:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Note that "critical commentary" is a specific legal term in US law, which does not imply "criticism" (neither literary nor artistic). Discussions are ongoing at WT:FAIR as to whether the wording should be replaced in the guideline with the more transparent term "significant commentary" (having the same meaning), for which the requirement test has been suggested of a separate prose section devoted to the item the cover image is associated with. As I originally wrote, the case here is on the margin, but IMO is just about okay, and would be strengthened if the prose were improved. Jheald 19:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. As Jheald says, this is a close call. The deciding factor for me is that it's not a straight-on view of the cover but instead an angled one, which requires more creative decisions than the former and there's no real reason for us to be using this type of image. Recommend replacement with a 2-D representation of the cover art only. howcheng {chat} 16:32, 26 July 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Image:Scientist_stub.jpg[edit]

Image:Scientist_stub.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by LexCorp (notify | contribs).
  • This image of Einstein is not PD in the U.S.A. Abu badali (talk) 22:59, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Public domain#Canadian images: Yousuf Karsh. --Abu badali (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way.... Speedy per WP:CSD#G4: Image:Albert Einstein by Yousuf Karsh.jpg. --Abu badali (talk) 23:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted. Commons version showing through. howcheng {chat} 16:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Covian.jpg[edit]

Image:Covian.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Rsabbatini (notify | contribs).
  • Photo used under fair use, but source given is a "private collection". Rare case of WP:NFCC#4 violation. Abu badali (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EdwardSands.jpg[edit]

Image:EdwardSands.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Pikabruce (notify | contribs).
  • OR EdwardSands.jpg - obsoleted by Sands1.jpg Pikabruce 23:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Pikabruce[reply]

Image:Houssay.gif[edit]

Image:Houssay.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Rsabbatini (notify | contribs).
  • Image from Nobel Foundation, that releases their images for a fee for those interestes. Our use does not respect the market opportunities of the copyright holder. Abu badali (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_July_18&oldid=1143363981"