orphaned image, absent uploader, no information provided about where this image was taken, so it is just an unencyclopedic picture of a street. Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:25, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, sole contribtuion of user, unencylopedic personal photo, low quality due to image rotation Jordan 1972 (talk) 01:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Different image on Commons showing through. -Nv8200ptalk 14:28, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Author request; Orphaned screenshot includes Wikipedia logo. OsamaK 11:12, 6 September 2008 (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: delete. Wikipedia is not a photographic survey of every variation of a military vehicle. There are plenty of free images in the article to add to the readers understanding that this is an article about a tank an here is what it looks like. Removal of this non-free image will not significantly impact that understanding. -Nv8200ptalk 01:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Used in the Merkava article, where all the other tank variants have a free license, so I think it should be considered replaceable. PhilKnight (talk) 12:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
All the other tank variants (Mark I - IV) appear in Yad La-Shiryon museum, Merkava Howitzer is shown in Beit ha-Totchan museum - anyone may take a free license picture there. Namer prototype was presented in 2005 and doesn't appear on any museum or exhibition nowadays. Operational Namer based on Merkava Mark IV chassis, which I uploaded, was never shown in any museum or exhibition, but only in an official ceremony within the IDF. the picture cannot be replaced with a copyright free alternative because there is no such place where a free license picture can be taken. Maybe only a journalist with certain documents may be allowed to take a picture of an operational Namer based on Merkava Mark IV chassis during training in a military base, but such picture wouldn't have a free license. I ask for keeping this picture as it is. Flayer (talk) 12:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are these tanks in use at all? If so, what's to stop military personnel taking an image and releasing it? Unless the tanks are only located in some top secret base (as some aircraft may be) or the tanks are no longer operational with no surviving models, then I would call this image replaceable. If it is deemed to be irreplaceable, then this seems to be a good source to take the image from, though it would need a reduction. J Milburn (talk) 18:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Taking pictures (even a picture of my own face!) inside military bases or training grounds is forbidden (as it would be top secret) unless having certain authorizations that journalists may have, but journalist's work is also fails free license criteria in Wiki. Again, all these armored fighting vehicles are operational (except the howitzer and the useless IFV prototype) and appear in open museums (except both IFV prototype and the IFV operational version). Flayer (talk) 14:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Still not completely certain it's irreplaceable, but is it absolutely necessary? To me, it looks just like any other tank, and this particular model isn't really discussed in-depth anyway. There are plenty of free images of very similar tanks in the article. J Milburn (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It may become replaceable when it would shown in a museum. Otherwise I only have to convince Marsh Gelbart from "Janes" to donate his images to Wikipedia. We are talking about an infantry fighting vehicle, not a tank. It significantly differs from the prototype, having completely different hull, skirt, and cupola-like elevation. I have plans for main article for the Namer IFV - there it may be discussed in-depth. Flayer (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think I would have much of an issue with this image appearing in an article about this particular tank, but contacting someone who does have an image of this vehicle may well sort the problem out completely. J Milburn (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Our non-free content criteria are far stricter than fair use law. We could have a lot of images that we don't- we aim to be as free as possible, not to toe the line. J Milburn (talk) 16:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty examples of allowed non-free content fair-use in En.Wikipedia: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Why is it only me have look for someone like Marsh Gelbart or don't-know-who who does have an image of Namer mk4, instated of using especially provided IDF image? Wikipedia aims to be as free as possible, or completely free? I think that in this case keeping the image would keep Wikipedia as free as possible. I wish to provide my own free alternative, but it can't happen until IDF allows to take images of this vehicle for everyone in some place. Flayer (talk) 13:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I may be missing something here but it seems from the description that it is close to impossible to get a free picture here. So it isn't replaceable fair use. It seems to meet all our other criteria for fair use. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly!! I often think now, that it would be easier to get back to the IDF for another three years, or to infiltrate like a spy into a military base where these brand new IFVs are kept, and to make a picture that Wikipedia administrator would call free without hesitations, than saving this intentionally given Image:Namermk4.jpg from deletion. Flayer (talk) 22:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
orphaned image, absent uploader, is a screen shot of a web page which the uploader claims is his webpage, but the image contains non-free logos as part of the image Jordan 1972 (talk) 18:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, sole contribtuion of user, claims to be shot of uploader's webpage, likely was used on a deleted article about website, image contains a copyright notice Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, is a screen shot from some program. Uploader claims copyright to it and allows it to be published on Wikipedia, but applied a PD-self tag. Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, is a screen shot of a web page which the uploader claims is his own, likely used on a deleted article on the website. Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, sole contribtuion of user, claims to be a logo of a WWE character that "many people in North Georgia know" Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, unencylopedic personal photo and low quality due to image size Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, sole contribtuion of user, image unlikely to be Pd-self given studio watermark in bottom right corner Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:52, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, sole contribtuion of user, it is tagged as PD-self (and I question that a bit - I think it is a promo shot) but given the very high resolution if it turns out to be non-free it would have difficulty meeting the criteria. Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, sole contribution of user, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:59, 6 September 2008 (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 debate was:
delete, independent of vote headcount. Multiple reasons for deletion here: non-free elements for which we have no plausible fair use claim; doubtful authenticity; replaceability with textual description. Fut.Perf.☼ 21:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting...for different reason. This image does not increase the reader;s understanding. ViperSnake151 21:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per discussions at NFR and PUI --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image's status is likely non-free, owing to the inclusion of third-party logos of unclear copyright status. I might be interesting in keeping it, as a fair use image, but don't believe we can use it under GFDL. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I don't understand how this image would "likely be non-free" due to the inclusion of Hezbollah and Hamas party symbols. Would a random picture of the Pentagon with the US Government's or Greenpeace's logo also be problematic? Nor do I agree with the claim that this image does not enhance the article, in fact this image very clearly brings to light an important subject matter of the article. 149.254.200.219 (talk) 11:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy enough to understand: copyrighted works don't suddenly stop being copyrighted when someone duplicates them. The United States seal, along with many other works of the US government, would be in the public domain (see {{PD-USgov}}); in cases where an included logo is protected by copyright, it will typically become a question of whether the logo's inclusion is "incidental" or not -- whether it's the focus of the image or just happens to be in it. To continue from your provided example, a photograph of some protestors who happen to be holding a Greenpeace banner is quite a different licensing situation than a close-up, cropped shot of that same logo on a t-shirt. Hope that makes things a bit more clear. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wouldn't have gone through the trouble of figuring out how to add photos if I didn't think it was important.--Einsteindonut (talk) 12:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepIt added dimension to the article.--Saxophonemn (talk) 12:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is clearly non-free and adds little to the article. What's it actually showing? That there's anti-Semitism on the Internet? I'm sure it's an interesting image, but it is not for a reader to understand the topic- what the group stands against could easily be explained in text. J Milburn (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously it is a useful illustration. Flayer (talk) 15:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete achieves nothing that could not be achieved with text. The icons aren't needed to establish that JIDF posts rants on Facebook about groups it doesn't like. Jheald (talk) 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is useful in illustrating the positions and actions of the organization. I see no reason why this should be considered "non-free", although I am not a lawyer. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 23:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This picture helps the reader understand what it is that the JIDF is actually doing. Clears up much misunderstanding. Shachna1979]] (talk) 23:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The screenshot's "author" can't license images whose copyrights are held by others, and its use doesn't satisfy WP:NFCC. — Malik Shabazz (talk·contribs) 03:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The logos are in context of the screenshot, the screenshot is the story/article. Logos are fair use in this context.--Knulclunk (talk) 15:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a useful image, and without it, only the logo would be presented to help visualize the JIDF. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 03:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
orphaned image, is a high resolution scan of a page from a magazine - the article is about someone who has a WP article at Cheryl BogartJordan 1972 (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, sole contribution of user, unencyclopedic, and as the uploaders name suggests, its "stupidstuff" Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Protector_USV.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S_Dvora_MK_III.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S_Dvora.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S_Dvora_Mk_III_2.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
