Copyright violation, Violates Fair Use guidelines for website screenshots restricting image use solely to "identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question." The image is not used to describe the website in question, but rather is used in the article about an individual, Chris Crocker. Further, per WP:NFC, the editor must prove that "omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." Strothra 01:30, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incorrect - the image is used to show his notability and this was one of the first major new websites that he was featured on. Copyright is designed to protect an individual's financial position. This screenshot does not negatively affect News.Com.Au's financial position - hence fair use is allowed. - Fosnez 02:17, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Screenshot of a news media web site depicting and proving the question as to notability of the subject of the article. Seems I recall the whole argument during the article's AfD was whether or not he was notable. Said picture in question proved such and the AfD survived. -- ALLSTARECHO 03:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If we included a sentence in the article to the effect of "he was featured on the main page of news.au on such and such a date", wouldn't the image then serve to provide "identification and critical commentary relating to the website in question."? We need the image to properly convey the feature story's prominence. Ichormosquito 03:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, per WP:NFC. Further, such text would not qualify as "critical commentary." "Critical" being the operative word. --Strothra 03:59, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. What if we included the image in a section dedicated to criticism of what some have considered to have been Crocker's overblown media exposure? The image would then perform a "critical" function, one completely apart from the original function of the website. Ichormosquito 04:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't find some excuse to justify the image. Instead, we should think of what needs to be illustrated in the article and illustrate things that need illustrating. This serves no critical purpose. Mangojuicetalk 19:53, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly violates WP:NONFREE counterexample #12. Non-free media policies are non-negotiable. It is sufficiently encyclopedic to say that there was media coverage of the video, and cite that coverage; it is not necessary or prudent to violate copyright to do so. We already have a free picture of the article subject. ➪HiDrNick! 11:01, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per MangoJuice. We can think of some other way to illustrate the section. Ichormosquito 08:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm assuming this should be closed since the image has been deleted.. ? -- ALLSTARECHO 17:40, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this isn't an AfD - there is no discussion to "close" per se. Rather, each IfD nom is reviewed administratively and archived by date. This nomination was never negotiable per WP:NONFREE. --Strothra 04:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have no idea who the person in the photo is and as a result it is extreamly unlikely that it will be useful. Genisock2 15:44, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wait a minute...your nomination doesn't make sense...you say it's quite clear that the company that owns the rights to this image uploads it, releases it with a proper license, and you have problem with that? These folks are doing it right...gee, I wish I could get the folks at Boeing and Northrop-Grumman to release images like this! Rather than noming it for deletion, you should write them a thank-you note for being so generous with their images. We should be encouraging aircraft manufacturers to release images under CC licenses, not deleting them when they do!C'mon, here, let's let a little common sense break out! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - No valid reason for deleting this inage is given in nomination, not even COI (not valid in this case anyway). All he has shown is that the user has the rights to post the pic, which is REQUIRED by Wikipedia, which means the pic does NOT qualify for deletion. This is a good pic, and even if the Airship Management Services, Inc. article is deleted, the pic can be used elswhere in articles on blimps. - BillCJ 03:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (Nominator). I made a poor choice in nominating this image, and hereby withdraw my nomination. Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 15:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My message is the same here as it is above: your nomination doesn't make sense...you say it's quite clear that the company that owns the rights to this image uploads it, releases it with a proper license, and you have problem with that? These folks are doing it right...gee, I wish I could get the folks at Boeing and Northrop-Grumman to release images like this! Rather than noming it for deletion, you should write them a thank-you note for being so generous with their images. C'mon, here, let's let a little common sense break out! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 00:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no valid reason for deleting this inage is given in nomination, not even COI (not valid in this case anyway). All he has shown is that the user has the rights to post the pic, which is REQUIRED by Wikipedia, which means the pic does NOT qualify for deletion. This is a good pic, and even if the Airship Management Services, Inc. article is deleted, the pic can be used elswhere in articles on blimps. - BillCJ 03:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep (Nominator). I made a poor choice in nominating this image, and hereby withdraw my nomination. Ioeth(talkcontribsfriendly) 15:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Uploader seems to be a vandalism only account. Image is orphaned and is hentai. The uploader only put it on Rukia Kuchiki to vandalize the page, as she is one of the characters in the image. This is my first time doing this, so any help would be appreciated. --GhostStalker(Got a present for ya! | Mission Log) 21:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete. Orphaned porn/hentai/cartoon. no value. R. Baley 06:03, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should have been deleted a long time ago, and when I just posted it last week. Why isn't it being deleted? There is no source or copyright information! — Chris53516(Talk) 23:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
