Image used in Spider Forest. A rationale was recently added to the image by Melesse, saving it from speedy deletion. However, the copyright holder is not explicitly named, the source is not named, and the rationale incorrectly states that the image is being used in the infobox (it isn't, because the infobox already has one). The image is being used to illustrate the trivia section of the article, but not any specific point in that section. It's just eye candy. PC78 (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. BJBot (talk) 00:29, 11 March 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.
Image is being used in an article about the subject of the stamp not for identification of the stamp which is against the wording of the image copyright tag being used and Wikipedia:Non-free content. Nv8200ptalk 03:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The tag seems reasonble to me and I don't see copyright problem. The reasons given in tag say it all. I think you need to be more specific as which part of tag you have problem for and can't we just fix that part? The reasons given in the tag:
Each stamp's image is small and of low resolution.
Use of the image affects neither its potential market nor its value as it is being used for non-commercial purposes both at the original website and at Wikipedia.
The image is non-replaceable.
Stamp is used only on Iran Air Flight 655 article, which is directly related to the stamp's topic.
Keep Is there any policy in Wekipedia to use the image of a stamp only in identification of it? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is directly related to the article. There's no conflict with the image copyright tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.36.32.9 (talk) 12:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is a conflict. The tag says to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design). It is directly related to the article but the stamp image is not fair use in the subject of the stamp's design.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nv8200p (talk • contribs) 00:11, March 17, 2008
Keep - Update the fair use and keep. The subject of the stamp is directly related to the article it's used in. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the stamp is not discussed in the article and its use directly conflicts with the license: "to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design)" --Dual Freq (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the fact the stamp was released with that topic is relevant to the article. It's used to illustrate the existance of the stamp itself, not its topic --Enric Naval (talk) 10:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't the criteria for inclusion of non-free images that there be critical commentary about the image, not simply illustrating to prove its existence? Not only does the text have no commentary on the stamp, but the stamp and its existence is not even mentioned by the text outside of its caption. Additionally, WP:NFCC #8 states "omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (understanding of the topic). Illustration to prove existence is not part of the non-free content criteria and omission would not be detrimental to the understanding of the downing of Iran Air 655. --Dual Freq (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the problem, then what about rewording the article to mention the stamp? It's obvious that the stamp is there to explain how the government of Iran treats the incident, it's just that it's not specified on the text how the stamp represents that. Changing the article to fit the image would be way better than deleting the image. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to add that, but the stamp has been in the article for a year and no one has bothered to add anything about it yet. I doubt anyone ever will. This was nominated above for improper use of non-free content, and looking at non-free policy it does not appear to comply as described above (WP:NFCC #8 omission would not be detrimental to understanding of the topic). Simply to prove its existence is not part of the non-free content criteria. --Dual Freq (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try this text [1]. Also, in NFCC you can also read "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject.". In this case, the stamp itself is shown as a way to illustrate how the iranian government faults the US for the incident (the map of Iran burning on the background is a clear tell-tale). It is not used at all to provide an illustration for the shooting itself --Enric Naval (talk) 11:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
P.D.:and its removal would be detrimental to understanding how the iranian government tried to fault US for the shooting as if it was a deliberate act, arriving to the point of releasing that stamp --Enric Naval (talk) 11:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with an updated fair use rationale. This is the closest thing to a compromise illustrating Iranian feelings I can think of. (Unlike the unidentified kid, this stamp is definitely about Iran Air 655. Working it into the text shouldn't be a huge problem.) (Also please note I wasn't the original uploader, the image used to show four stamps.) Anynobody 03:47, 24 March 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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
