Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 15

< April 14	April 16 >

April 15

Photos of Associated Press

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: close. The non-standard formatting seems to have confused AnomieBOT, and this weird nomination is not worth breaking the bot over. Thus I'm "closing" this bit not tied to a specific file, and the rest are converted to regular nominations so as to get the bot back on track. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:11, 23 April 2011 (UTC) CV. As per Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy#2: "Respect for commercial opportunities". According to the letter from Associated Press (AP) file:Marked-ap-letter.jpg, AP does not approve the photographes it owns the copyright to be uploaded to Wikipedia under the fair use rationale without a fee. More files should be considered from the search result [1]. Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of "replace the original market role" did you no understand?

This rationale is broken. We can use images from any copyright holder when we have a fair use claim. Some photos from AP has achieve an iconic status so that the photo itself is the subject of books, news-stories, and, of course, encyclopedic articles. Such use is not replacing the original market role of the image, as explained in the policy you cite. --Damiens.rf 16:47, 15 April 2011 (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:The Falling Man.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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, object of a dedicated article with substantial critical commentary, reasonable claim to "iconic" status, seems like a solid case of fair use. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is better understood with the image provided. It's a nonsense to describe some important photograph, without the photograph. -- – George Serdechny 07:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep #1. No reason is given for deletion (and there is no obvious reason for doing so either). - SummerPhD (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, not a speedy. The reason is given right above this entry. (Note it's a group nomination with several sub-entries). Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep - as long as there's an article about the photo itself, it's usable under our non-free content policy. --Damiens.rf 17:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is absolutely no reason to delete this. There is no way someone could understand the article without having something to look at. -M —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.222.155.200 (talk) 18:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep An iconic image of the September 11th attacks; without this image the whole article would not make any sense at all.--Cssiitcic (talk) 22:11, 18 April 2011 (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:2004 Blackwater Killings in Fallujah.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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - image from a news source that is actually being used to illustrate the event depicted. Although one of the articles using this image describes it as an famous AP photo, the article (not even the section) is about the image itself. That the publication of a newsworthy image caused some reaction is not news. In itself, it does not make the photo notable. What we need is a good deal of third part sources discussing the photo itself to establish its notability. But eve then we would have to use the image on an article (or section) about the photo itself, and not about the event it shows. --Damiens.rf 16:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not as spun-up on the nitty-gritty of images, so I'll yield to you. What's driving me crazy is that all the images I can find of this incident were either taken by news organizations or by insurgent groups (technically copyrighted under Iraqi law). Palm_Dogg (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - It may be the case that we have no adequate image to illustrate this incident. --Damiens.rf 21:50, 15 April 2011 (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:Buck Shaw 1960.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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:09, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete - decorative use of a non-free image. --Damiens.rf 16:51, 15 April 2011 (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:Iman al-Obeidi as a child.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random family photo of a person as a baby held by her smiling father. Not the object of sourced commentary or analysis in the article. We don't include non-free baby photos just like that. FUR claims that it is somehow important because "her relationship with her family is an object of discussion [...] regarding the cultural and political context" – but what concrete, factual, sourced information about her relation with her family does it convey? That she was a pretty child? That her father loved her? (Does it really show that?) That her family is liberal? (Does it really show that? How do we know? ) Nothing of what this photograph may serve to show – or better: to insinuate – is more than baseless speculation, nothing relating to it is sourced, beyond the mere information that the photo exists. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this photo. The rationale is perfectly good, and I shan't repeat it here. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The image gives us some visual information about her childhood; the family showed it to the media; it has no monetary value; there is no reason to suppose anyone would mind; and there's no realistic chance of asking for a formal release. Common sense ought to prevail. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:46, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I asked a very concrete question: what visual information about her childhood does it convey? Name it. Describe it. Then, when you have done so, tell me whether that information is sourced rather than OR, whether it is of crucial significance to the article, and whether the verbal description of it could not be understood alone without the visual support of the image. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just about everything could be described using text rather than images, so that's not a reasonable criterion. As I've said before, we have to use common sense when looking at how much text, or what kinds of images, it's reasonable to claim fair use for. Where we're dealing with an image the family wants to see published; where they're the copyright holders; where there are no monetary issues; but where we don't know how to contact them to ask for a formal release, then it simply makes no sense to cause a problem. It's ideology and wikilawyering over common sense, and—even worse—ideology that serves no purpose.

This kind of thing is becoming the death of this project. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 04:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. A non-free image that has no purpose in the article except for showing the ageing process of a certain individual visually.--Rafy talk 14:30, 20 April 2011 (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:Svyatoslav face reconstructed.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed {di-replaceable}, taking it here for greater clarity of argument. This is not a "scientific reconstruction" (like some of those that are made on a basis of a skull), but simply a fictional portrait, i.e. an artist's impression on the basis of a description in an historical source. The artist's reconstruction effort as such is not the object of sourced discussion in the article and probably not a potentially notable subject; indeed, no information about its creation and its creator are offered. As long as it's used merely to illustrate the section in the way it does now, it could be replaced with any drawing of a heavily-built, fierce-looking random guy with a sidelock and moustache that you or I could draw. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't. If you could, I would appreciate a lot. Thanks. -- – George Serdechny 07:28, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could but I won't. But thank you for confirming that you would accept such a drawing as a replacement, which is enough to prove my point. (The criterion is not whether a replacement has been made, or whether you or I personally have the skills to make one, but merely that it could be done in principle.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Still, it will be a difficult task to find qualified painter who will volunteerly repaint the portrait and donate it to WP. – George Serdechny 06:22, 16 April 2011 (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:TheWire60.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random scene, just two men standing somewhere in a nondescript situation. Not embedded in analytical commentary, not even a caption saying who they are or what they are doing. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:56, 15 April 2011 (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:Mad 0905.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative unnecessary non-free magazine cover that is not even mentioned in the article where it appears. Damiens.rf 16:30, 15 April 2011 (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:Iman al-Obeidi being gagged by minders at Tripoli, 26 March 2011.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 - both CSD#F7 and the unacceptable use section of WP:NFC establish the criteria that have evolved for keeping such images. I cannot see a consensus below that the image itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article as required. Peripitus (Talk) 10:35, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a living (although disappeared) person copied from a news agency. Damiens.rf 16:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The image is uploaded under fair use to provide a crucial illustration for the article Iman al-Obeidi. No free version of the image is available. Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Falls under the fair use rules and, likely, historic importance rules, though we'll need more time to pass before that can properly be determined. Either way, I don't see how this doesn't fall under our non-free criteria. Silver seren^C 10:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above. Her images are widely circulated in the media.--Rafy talk 00:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a one of a widely used and much-discussed series of images of her that appear to be, as things stand, of historical significance. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 07:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete - wow! I'd be tempted to speedy delete it under F7 if there weren't so many disagreements. The photo in question is being used in an infobox, and this article is not about the photo, but the subject. WP:NFC#UUI#7 is quite clear - this photo itself is not the source of critical commentary as is. Not to mention, as it sits in the infobox at the moment, it is a violation of WP:NFCC#1. My delete !vote remains in effect only insofar as the object remains in the infobox and doesn't sit inline on the text with critical commentary. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:08, 23 April 2011 (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:Spiegelman-cover.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine cover being used in an article that barely mention the existence of the cover (just in the image caption itself, without sources) Damiens.rf 16:59, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The image is fatally inaccurate. In addition, covers of the New Yorker can only be used in the article New Yorker (magazine) -- see Template:Non-free magazine cover which states "It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of magazine covers... to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. Any other uses of this image... may be copyright infringement". There was a previous deletion discussion a year ago, here; the decision was Keep. The decision was wrong then, and would be even less defensible now, since then the image was at least also used in New Yorker (magazine) which is no longer true. Herostratus (talk) 18:04, 15 April 2011 (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:Scott King Men's Health October 1997.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free magazine cover. The magazine article already has an exemplar, and they all pretty much look the same. Damiens.rf 17:09, 15 April 2011 (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:Scott King Men's Health November 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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free magazine cover. The magazine article already has an exemplar, and they all pretty much look the same. Damiens.rf 17:10, 15 April 2011 (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:Fredbarrie.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free magazine cover being used just to make the point that a given story was featured on the cover. Damiens.rf 17:12, 15 April 2011 (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:Tvg70288.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 17:14, 15 April 2011 (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:KaelNewYork.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 - We do not host press images simply to decorate or illustrate - Peripitus (Talk) 10:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo copied from Associated Press to show what a woman looked like. Damiens.rf 19:01, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this image. It is designed "to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." One picture is worth a thousand words, and this photo shows the subject of the article. Sincerely, a friend to all, GeorgeLouis (talk) 23:04, 16 April 2011 (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:MorrisThompson.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AP photo used to show what a man looked like. Damiens.rf 19:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. He is dead (died in a 2000 plane crash)

2. His wife and daughter, people who could have had free photos of him, are also dead (they died in the same plane crash).

3. There is no known information on any surviving kin, so there are no relatives to contact regarding photos of him

4. If someone can find a free photo of him, that would be helpful. But he was well known in several stages of life. A USGov free photo would probably show him in the middle ages, while he was well known with what he did as an old man, right before his death

5. I will search for other photos, but I doubt I will find a free photo of Morris Thompson as an older man. This photo was the only one I saw in articles about the plane crash

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Doyon Foundation has a photo of Thompson as an older man. It is also copyrighted: http://www.doyonfoundation.com/static/Scholarships/Scholarships_2008_2009.aspx

Also I searched the Bureau of Indian Affairs website. I could not find any free photos of Morris Thompson.

WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That we need the image doesn't follow we can take it from AP.

Someone talented in WP:COPYREQ should as for an OTRS ticket at Morris Thompson Cultural and Visitors Center. --Damiens.rf 23:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damiens, the main website says "Copyright © Morris Thompson Cultural and Visitors Center." - So the owners will have to change the copyright first. If they agree to do so, then this case defaults to deleting the AP image. Until that happens, both the AP image and the Doyon image are copyrighted.

Assuming that the Doyon image stays copyrighted, are there additional restrictions to using the AP image that the Doyon image doesn't have?

The statement "That we need the image doesn't follow we can take it from AP." - It can follow if Doyon does not relicense that picture and there are no additional restrictions to using the AP picture compared to the Doyon picture.

No, it can not. That we desperately need the image gives us no more stand to ignore AP rights. --Damiens.rf 02:05, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My statement above says "and there are no additional restrictions to using the AP picture compared to the Doyon picture" - If there are "AP rights" then that would be "additional restrictions," yes? But it may be helpful explaining what these "AP rights" are. If one says "That we desperately need the image gives us no more stand to ignore AP rights. " then he/she needs to explain what they are and link to a page describing them. If there were "special AP rights" then my statement above would be conditionally voided as the condition "there are no additional restrictions to using the AP picture compared to the Doyon picture" would not be met.

After doing some reading, I found that AP's main profit generator is licensing images for a fee, so it has a commercial purpose that, in the case of an image that is not famous for being a photograph itself, could be unfairly duplicated by Wikipedia usage. That means that AP would be more motivated to contest fair use images than, say, another non-fair use holder.

In this particular case, even if the Thompson Foundation doesn't give free rights to the Thompson image, we could use that image instead of the AP image, but on a fair use basis.

WhisperToMe (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just sent an e-mail to the Thompson foundation, linking to the OTRS page and the Commons licensing page. If they agree to relicense, they will send a message to OTRS. If the relicensing occurs, File:MorrisThompson.jpg will default to "delete" WhisperToMe (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this photo: The photos here and here may not be free, but at least they are not from a commercial source. —teb728 t c 03:21, 25 April 2011 (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:TankMan.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photo from AP being used just because its existence is mentioned in one article (in a paragraph that mentions the existence of many other just-as-notable photos). We can do without it. Damiens.rf 19:23, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there is presently a discussion regarding a similar image proposed for deleted here: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 12#File:Tianasquare.jpg. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 21:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The mention of the photo is perfectly clear without actually seeing the photo. Possibly Speedy Delete under F7 as the mention of the commercial photo hardly qualifies as “commentary.” —teb728 t c 02:51, 25 April 2011 (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:Ilisn.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of a newsletter, published in Finland. I would suspect that copyright on a 1983 Finnish magazine is still intact. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:46, 15 April 2011 (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:Joe Diffie Night To Remember.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Way too high res, adds nothing to article. Also clearly not public ___domain, as it's a screenshot from a copyrighted music video. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:52, 15 April 2011 (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:CU Samurai tipover test.jpg

The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file 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 delete F7, criteria 2: Non-free images or media from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. While the test may be the subject of commentary, this image is not. VernoWhitney (talk) 17:20, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned earlier and challenged. As a non-free photo, it is not necessary to see the car tipping over to understand that the car tipped during testing. Thus it fails WP:NFCC#1 because it is replaceable by text or by a free illustration. It is not necessary to show the actual event using non-free media. As an Associated Press photo, it fails WP:NFCC#2 because it is a photo from a press agency and the photo itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. And it also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the photo itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The photo of the CU driving test is the subject of the article and lawsuit, and is discussed at length in the article Suzuki v. Consumers Union. This photo significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. (NFCC#8)

This photo was widely circulated at the time of the lawsuit, and arguably has attained iconic status. It seems odd to argue that a photo of this car parked on a street would have the same encyclopedic value as a photo of the actual test. (NFCC#1).

NFCC #2 calls for respect for commercial opportunities. Fair Use of this low-resolution copy would in no way replace the original market role of the AP photo.

That Associated Press doesn't like having their photos used under Fair Use (see this letter) really shouldn't affect WP policy. This is a clearcut case of acceptable Fair Use, and deletion of the photo would damage the encyclopedic value of the article. --Pete Tillman (talk) 06:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC), original uploader[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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.