Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 October 6

< October 5	October 7 >

October 6

File:Shamrock UFC 8 title copy.jpg

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; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shamrock UFC 8 title copy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nyquistx3 (notify | contribs).

Non-free images which in my opinion doesn't convey information which can't be described through text. {{di-disputed fair use rationale}} removed by IP. --aktsu ^(t / c) 06:26, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, this picture conveys a visible picture of Shamrock and how different he physically looked as the UFC Champion in his prime. Too many new fans to MMA view Shamrock being this old, broken down fighter who has become a tomato can. This picture greatly enhances Shamrock's image, especially with new MMA fans who read Wikipedia to learn things they may not know. It adds to the whole overall section of the article that is dedicated to his glory years, something that cannot be portrayed with mere text. The picture enhances the article and makes the article better; isn't that the purpose of contributing to Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.136.39 (talk) 06:35, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Jameskysonleefashion.JPG

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jameskysonleefashion.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stevenshapiro (notify | contribs).

Pretty sure this isn't James Kyson Lee, just some kid trying to get his face into a Wikipedia article. Closedmouth (talk) 12:22, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:--Kenya.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:--Kenya.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kintetsubuffalo (notify | contribs).

Delete: A postage stamp not used in a stamp article and claimed as fair-use. This non-free image is being used in a list thereby failing WP:NFLISTS # 2 because the image is not being used with any contextual discussion and is just being used to decorate a section of the list. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the readers understanding will not be affected by the image being removed. ww2censor (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:2008WWF FDC Wikipedia.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:2008WWF FDC Wikipedia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Philatelicum (notify | contribs).

Delete: First day cover, with stamps being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 16:13, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Amina stamp.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Amina stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Paralingua (notify | contribs).

Delete: Postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Ants Piip stamp.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ants Piip stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Karabinier (notify | contribs).

Delete: Postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 16:17, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Aramoana stamps 01.jpg

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. The argument that the image fails to meet WP:NFC#Images item 3 has not been refuted. Stifle (talk) 12:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aramoana stamps 01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gene Poole (notify | contribs).

Delete: Postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 16:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Critical commentary" is not an inclusion criterion. Fair use rationale is detailed and explicit. WP:NFC#Images #3 not relevant. Image complies with WP:NFCC#8. --Gene_poole (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Illustrates the point effectively to the required degree. The rest ditto to Gene Poole. Outback the koala (talk) 06:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the stamp still fails WP:NFCC#8 because most of the prose used in the caption could easily be moved and easily explain the facts about the stamps existence and issuance without the necessity to use a non-free image without any detriment to the reader. ww2censor (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per Ww2censor. Image really isn't needed; text can convey similar information. And WP:NFC#Images #3 is still relevant... why would it not be? Fails NFCC #8 and NFC#Images#3. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Ridiculous, Drilnoth, a picture is certainly worth a thousand words, if you've ever heard of the expression; simple text cannot convey to the reader everything, why do we have any pictures on wikipedia at all by that logic, it could be just text because "text can convey similar information". And Gene Poole has already stated how "Critical Commentary" is not an inclusion criterion. I don't know why we are still talking about this! Outback the koala (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed a picture is worth a thousand words but not if it fails non-free content policy. ww2censor (talk) 17:42, 23 October 2009 (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.

File:Archimedes greece 1983.png

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: Speedy deleted per WP:CSD#G7 Rettetast (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Archimedes greece 1983.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ianmacm (notify | contribs).

Delete: Postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose can be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Has WP:NFCC changed recently, or have some people become more zealous when interpreting it? Archimedes reached FA status with this image and no-one complained about it, even though it was known to be non-free. I cannot see much of a problem here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 16:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: NFCC has not changed but the FA status was reached two years ago by the article this stamp is in and no image review seem to have taken place. Nowadays FAs have their images scrutinised more closely so it likely this one just slipped through. As stated in the deletion nomination there is no critical commentary about the stamp and if there was, it would need to be supported by verifiable reliable sources. The current prose is clearly understandable by readers and it will not be detrimental to their understanding if the image is removed. If it was detrimental you would need to show all the stamps mentioned in the text. ww2censor (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is another example of Wikipedia making its own ad hoc rules about copyright. No book or newspaper article would have a problem with a low resolution image of a postage stamp as long as it was quoted in a relevant context. If I live to be a hundred, I will not understand why Wikipedia makes rules that impede articles under the guise of helping the copyright owner.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 07:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "under the guise of helping the copyright owner", it's in order that Wikipedia can be a free encyclopedia. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, standard decorative fair use. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Fine, go ahead and delete it then. Sometimes Wikipedians appear to be on a different planet from everyone else.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 08:24, 7 October 2009 (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.

File:Athos070.png

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Athos070.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sv1xv (notify | contribs).

Delete: Postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article (though in a section about stamps and postal history) without any WP:RS critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose is already perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image which is just used for decoration. ww2censor (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existence of the stamp is mentioned in the article. Providing a picture of the stamp doesn't further enhances a reader's understanding that the stamp exists. Also per Ww2censor. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2009 (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.

File:Bratislava-stamp 9317.gif

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bratislava-stamp 9317.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mukerjee (notify | contribs).

Delete: Postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose can be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:50, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Cevdet Sunay.GIF

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cevdet Sunay.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deliogul (notify | contribs).

Delete: Postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp list thereby failing WP:NFLISTS # 2 because the image is not being used with any contextual discussion and is just being used to decorate the list and without any critical commentary of any kind it also fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 17:53, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Commemorative issue.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Commemorative issue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ranilb5 (notify | contribs).

Delete: Postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose can be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 17:54, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Crouwel NumberPostalStamp5ct.jpg

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; deleted by Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crouwel NumberPostalStamp5ct.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Black Orchid (notify | contribs).

Delete: Postage stamp being used to illustrate the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose can be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 17:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stamp is illustating the fontdesign by the designer Wim Crouwel. And it is on the english wikipedia, I thought that would be enough and conform the rules. Black Orchid —Preceding undated comment added 19:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: If that is your intention you need to specify that in the fair-use rational and there needs to be the critical commentary of this claim, supported by a verifiable reliable source that justifies the claim made. If you can provide that I will be happy withdraw the deletion nomination. BTW you could really do with a better quality image, up to 300px wide, if it is kept. ww2censor (talk) 22:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I saw that the article I wrote was rewritten and I've been looking for other images which can show the same idea. I added new text (with references) and added the designs (File:Joy Division-Substance (album cover).jpg and File:Crouwel LogoRabobank1973.png) So my point to show his type design is made. And the article doesn't need the Stamp anymore. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: Personally I don't think the article needs the images per sé, but if it does need images there are other examples of his work that are more characteristic. But I left them in (maybe we could discuss that further in the talk page of the article?). Typehigh (talk) 00:03, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Neither of the two images newly introduced to replace the stamp have fair-use rationales to justify their use in Wim Crouwel, so they too will likely be removed and deleted if not used elsewhere properly. You might want to fix that if possible. ww2censor (talk) 02:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would agree. The only rationale I can think of is that Wim Crouwel references the album cover (File:Joy Division-Substance (album cover).jpg) whenever he tells about his typeface in interviews and such. The Rabobank image (File:Crouwel LogoRabobank1973.png) shows a logo that was designed by Wim Crouwel. However, I am not sure if the images are necessary in the article. I am not knowledgeable enough about wikipedia to know how to edit or add fair-use rationales. Typehigh (talk) 03:53, 9 October 2009 (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.

File:DPRK JK stamp.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DPRK JK stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MathFacts (notify | contribs).

Delete: A non-free postage stamp being used, without a fair-use rationale, to illustrate the existence of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose can be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Directors of Philippine National Library 1949.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Directors of Philippine National Library 1949.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rdmelo (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to identify the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose can be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 18:03, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:DonaldStamp.gif

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DonaldStamp.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Katana Geldar (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose can be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Douglas 1858.png

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Douglas 1858.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AlexMcCormac (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose can be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 18:06, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Douglas stamps Grenada 1999.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Douglas stamps Grenada 1999.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose can be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 18:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Commentary about the stamps have been added to the caption for stamps issued to illustrate and commemorate the various roles played by Kirk Douglas throughout his career. There is no commercial or artistic detriment to the government of Grenada by displaying their stamps, and the opposite is likely true: that an article about Kirk Douglas would be the most logical and beneficial place to use these images. The numerous images on these stamps could not be described by prose alone. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, readers do not need to see the stamps to understand the article. Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete decorative use of fair use (fails WP:NFCC #8), replaceable by text noting the issuance of the stamp (fails WP:NFCC #1). No external sources indicating notability of stamp series, etc. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2009 (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.

File:Scouting in Equatorial Guinea.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Scouting in Equatorial Guinea.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kintetsubuffalo (notify | contribs).

Delete: Postage stamp being used to illustrate the existence of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose is perfectly well explained in prose even without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep-disagree with your overstrict reading of the guideline. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Scouting in Equatorial Guinea can easily be illustrated by a freely licenced image of scouts in that country. There is no need to show the stamp just to claim it exists. Non-free images must pass all 10 criteria. ww2censor (talk) 13:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

easily? One of the smallest, poorest countries in Africa? Come off yourself. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 03:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.230.151.97 (talk) [reply]

Delete per nom. Obviously fails WP:NFCC and especially criteria 1. Rettetast (talk) 14:02, 8 October 2009 (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.

File:Firstdaycover.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Firstdaycover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Noiresque (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp on a first day cover being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose can be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image but is not. ww2censor (talk) 18:15, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:France-cubitus-stamp.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:France-cubitus-stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pahpaha (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any criticial commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose is perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. Also fails WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use because there are already three other non-free images in the article Cubitus. ww2censor (talk) 18:25, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Garbonermanstamp.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Garbonermanstamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Entheta (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the existence of the stamp in a non-stamp article without any criticial commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose are already perfectly well explained in prose without the need to use a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 18:29, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:George Adamski stamp 1.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Adamski stamp 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nima Baghaei (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose are already perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. Also fails WP:NFCC#3a minimal use as there are three additional non-free image sin the article George Adamski. ww2censor (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Gina Bachauer stamp 1981.png

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gina Bachauer stamp 1981.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lourakis (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 18:35, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Glucksbergstamp.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glucksbergstamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Argos'Dad (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 22:41, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:Granada stamps.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Granada stamps.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp, without a fair -use rationale, being used to illustrate the work of the subject in a stamp used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. Besides which the illustrations of the artist's work that are copyright until 70 years after Chagal's death. ww2censor (talk) 23:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Commentary about the stamps have been added to the caption for stamps issued to illustrate and commemorate the artwork produced by Marc Chagall. The commemorative stamps were issued shortly after his death. There is no commercial or artistic detriment to the government of Granada by displaying their stamps and stamps are meant to be publicly displayed each time they are used on an envlope. An article about Marc Chagall, an artist, would be the most logical and beneficial place to show these images. The numerous images on these stamps could not be described by prose alone. The image shows only minute 100px portions of the stamps and can only have the effect of supporting the Legacy section of the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Forty stamps from Granada commemorating the works of Chagall", is not critical commentary about the stamp itself and that can be easily described in the prose without any detriment to the reader even if there no image of non-free stamps. It still clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 00:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Descriptive text with citation added, along with fair use rationale. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Tagged for speedy deletion as missing a fair use rationale. Rettetast (talk) 11:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete replaceable with text, as the later mention of the UN stamp shows. Thus fails WP:NFCC #1. Decorative fair use. Plus, effectively a user created montage. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:07, 7 October 2009 (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.

File:GuillaumeDeVillaret.jpg

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GuillaumeDeVillaret.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Elonka (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose are perfectly well explained in the prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a section in the article that discusses the series of stamps, and a source is provided. There are also no other images of any kind in the article, so removing the image of the stamp would substantially weaken the article. --El on ka 23:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: all it says is that some stamps were issued. That can be easily described in prose and it is not critical commentary about the stamp itself, nor supported by any verifiable reliable sources. Sorry but you can't use the image without better justification than that. ww2censor (talk) 23:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I believe I have found a PD image which can be used. We can allow the en.wiki file to be deleted, and the mediawiki software will automatically fetch it from commons. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well done Ohconfucius; not as colourful but free. That solves the problem nicely as the stamp only identified the subject. Thanks indeed. ww2censor (talk) 14:00, 8 October 2009 (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.

File:HK 60 anniv stamps.jpg

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: Keep –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HK 60 anniv stamps.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ohconfucius (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose are perfectly well explained in prose and it is unnecessary to use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the stamps are specially issued to commemorate the event, and are of a very unusual design, particularly their shape. The image is needed to reinforce their uniqueness. Most stamps are retangular, and do not form part of a sheetlet. I believe the description "unlike usual stamps" is a critical commentary, but which I feel is still an inadequate description. It needs to be reinforced by the image of the stamp sheets. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one I am inclined to keep as it is the subject of commentary in the article and is necessary to understand it. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stifle. Necessary for the section in the article. Rettetast (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment and suggestion: I still need to be convinced further. If the fan shape of this stamp is the main concept you want to convey then the image should show that better and this image fails that purpose and the prose could be refined to make that clearer. Maybe the individual stamps as shown this web page would convey this better than the tiny miniature sheet image shown currently. The current image contains two tiny miniature sheets side by side and neither is very clear; the lefthand one seems rather redundant to the commentary, so you could crop the righthand sheet from the image on this webpage and reduce it to 300px wide for more impact relative to the prose. BTW, neither the source nor most of the other news reports I can find mention the fan shape at all. ww2censor (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - With due respect, it is not you but the closing admin who needs to be convinced (-: Stifle (talk) 21:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed Stifle you are correct, but if I was convinced following some appropriate changes I would withdraw the nomination. I am not a total deletionist you know. ww2censor (talk) 22:32, 10 October 2009 (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.

File:IS0.50AtlantiumFlagStamp.gif

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; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IS0.50AtlantiumFlagStamp.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. Besides which there is no fair-use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2009 (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.

File:IS0.50AtlantiumStamp.gif

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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 17:28, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IS0.50AtlantiumStamp.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Onecanadasquarebishopsgate (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. Besides which it does not have a not fair-use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 23:12, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is way too much copyrighted content in Empire of Atlantium (coins, banknotes etc). However, this image could be used as a general illustration with suitable critical commentary in the text of the article. One stamp is enough.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks for pointing that out. So it fails WP:NFCC#3a for minimal use too. I'm sorry but here is no justification without some reliably sourced commentary. At least Wirtland (micronation) provided an OTRS permission. ww2censor (talk) 17:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not particularly interested in Atlantium, but could this image be kept if the other images were removed and there was some commentary in the article?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The image still has no fair-use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 15:18, 14 October 2009 (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.