Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 January 14

< January 13	January 15 >

January 14

File:Giorgio Galea.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this OTRS ticket, the subject of this file is requesting the file be deleted. They have provided the following "nomination" statement: "This article has false data about me; Giorgio Galea." Tiptoety ^talk 00:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Sole upload of user which he never added to any article or page. Seems unusable. Mangoe (talk) 17:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Who is Giorgio Galea? The image doesn't look useful unless the person on the photo is notable. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2013 (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:MegaCon.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 ⚡ 14:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Target article Saint James Comics was deleted via prod, will likely not be notable any time soon. No foreseeable encyclopedic use. — ξ ^xplicit 00:27, 14 January 2013 (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:Australian release of Right First Time.jpeg

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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid FUR--virtually the same as the standard cover —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:11, 14 January 2013 (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:Dowjonesnews.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Was added to H. V. Kumar but it doesn't really seem to say anything relevant to that article. Mangoe (talk) 17:16, 14 January 2013 (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:AB Mackenzie.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free images: there is already a different image of the same character. See File:Clementine Ford as Mackenzie.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This image is needed. This actress is the most notable actress in the role of Mackenzie Browning. Nonsense. Ar re 01:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Then delete all of the other images, then. Only one image of the character is needed for identification of the character. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I gather that more than one actor has played this role? If so, the current use as an "alternative image" in the infobox is not a good way to go about this. Instead of the endless plot summary in the article, which is inappropriate for Wikipedia anyway, there should be a separate section discussing this particular actor's portrayal of the role. If such a section is not or is not going to be created, then delete. Chick Bowen 05:01, 26 January 2013 (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:Rachel Kimsey as Mackenzie.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 Chick Bowen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:03, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive use of non-free images: there is already a different image of the same character. See File:Clementine Ford as Mackenzie.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: this image isn't needed, because the actress is not notable in the role. Ar re 01:40, 15 January 2013 (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:Jeopardy 1978 Bonus.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC #1; replaceable by a user-made diagram of the bonus board (which is ineligible for copyright). RJaguar3 | u | t 15:23, 14 January 2013 (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:Rizana Letter Tamil.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 Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image is not PD, does not qualify for fair use Ryan Vesey 17:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consider my !vote as neutral while I consider newly presented evidence. Ryan Vesey 18:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This file is in the public ___domain, because Rizana's Letter was written to the Public in Large to disclose that she is innocent. The Letter was not addressed to anyone by her. She might have given the Letter to any third party but her motive is, to disclose the world that she is innocent. The Letter doesn't have any significant economic value for it is to be claimed by her legal heirs that it is the property of theirs.HudsonBreeze (talk) 17:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant. Unless someone specifically releases something into the public ___domain, or under a relevant license, it is copyrighted. We have no evidence that she released it into the public ___domain. Ryan Vesey 18:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Then how it becomes after authors expired their works become into PD after 70 years.?HudsonBreeze (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That proves my point. Texts don't enter the public ___domain until the author has been dead for 70 years. The letter from Rizana won't enter the public ___domain until 2083. Ryan Vesey 19:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But this is not one of the other creative works sort. She had written in mind public in large. She should have thought of every one/organization under the Sun would get her message and they would help her get out of the execution. That is why the letter belongs to PD under implied intention.HudsonBreeze (talk) 19:21, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia itself seeks to freely share its message/information, but that doesn't make our edits public ___domain, unless we specifically and explicitly say so. There is no such thing as "PD under implied intention". Reso lute 14:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Intended for public distribution" does not equal public ___domain. Books that are sold to the public (or even given out freely) are still protected by copyright, unless the author explicitly releases it into the public ___domain. I see no evidence of such a release, and I don't see how this file could satisfy NFCC #8; therefore delete. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Striking for now: the document was apparently written not by her but by the Sri Lankan Embassy. I'm unclear as to whether that makes it PD; ~~if it does, then keep; if it doesn't, then~~ strong delete since there's no way it would satisfy NFCC. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:09, 21 January 2013 (UTC) delete vote reaffirmed strongly per Ryan's PDF, which appears to say that this does not qualify under a government exception. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 03:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not PD and cant see how it could meet WP:NFCC. ✍ Mtking ✉ 19:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The above letter was used in the Sri Lankan Court as a judicial record. That was why her agent was arrested and sentenced. I am sure any Sri Lankan Court records are under public ___domain.HudsonBreeze (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you point the rest of us to a rule/law/source that establishes that those records are automatically PD? VernoWhitney (talk) 22:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works can be in the public ___domain for a variety of reasons. Examples: the term of the copyright has expired, the work was not eligible for copyright protection in the first place, or the copyright owner has authorized the public to use the work without permission or payment[1].

In the Rizana's Letter's case it may be into Two different sitautaions above;

1. The work was not eligible for copyright protection in the first place because it was addressed by Rizzana as "To Whom It May Be Concern" style in a Jail without any economic motive.

2. The copyright owner has authorised the public to use the work without permission or payment since it could be used as a legal testimony to enable her release; even she might have perceived, even if nothing would help her release, the letter would be a ever lasting testimony to proclaim her innocence even after her execution.

Other than that I have contacted a law firm in Sri Lanka and they confirmed since the letter was used in the Sri Lankan Court as a personal testimony to disclose her age alteration by the recruitment agent who was subsequently sentenced by the court, the letter becomes a court document and all court documents are in Public Domain in Sri Lanka.

We need some Wikipedians who are attorneys to analyse the situation.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be diplomatic, I don't believe you, and I suspect that not many will do either. No lawyer would ever make such a statement, and there is nothing in international copyright rules that says a copyrighted work can be made PD worldwide by the simple act of using it as evidence in a court case, there needs to be some form of release made by the person who made the work. ✍ Mtking ✉ 08:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe that is your ignorance. The Law firm agreed to get a Court Stamped Copy of the Letter. Then we could use that under Public Domain and it was confirmed by Two Lawyers.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Works can be in the public ___domain for a variety of reasons. Examples: the term of the copyright has expired, the work was not eligible for copyright protection in the first place, or the copyright owner has authorized the public to use the work without permission or payment[2]. When the Letter comes after the court proceedings that satisfies the above criteria.HudsonBreeze (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you are emphasizing with bold and italics would require that Ms. Nafeek to clearly release it into the public ___domain (do please note that Wikipedia is subject to U.S., not Canadian law) and is completely separate from any possible issue of the court subsuming her copyright and then releasing it. As Writ Keeper said, public distribution is not the same as public ___domain, and we can't simply guess at her motivations to establish legal standing. That leaves us still waiting for some hard evidence that those of us who haven't contacted a law firm in Sri Lanka can use to confirm that the letter is in the public ___domain--and preferably establish exactly why its use in court would make it so. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Law Firm which I have contacted is not the one handled her case where the agent was convicted and sentenced for falsifying her age in the pass port. But the Law Firm told they will try to contact them to get the Court Stamped Copy of the Letter. Since the Court Stamped Letter is a court document, it is in public ___domain as those Two Lawyers confirmed me. Since Rizana wrote the Letter in "To Whom it May Concern" style and if the court had used for its legal proceeding the letter, it should be considered that Rizana had indirectly addressed the Letter to the particular Court and automatically the Letter becomes the Court's document; and to determine whether it is in the public ___domain or not is the court's jurisdiction and in Sri Lanka generally any court's documents are in public ___domain.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But I am not sure when I will be getting the Court Stamped Letter; if this image of the letter is going to be deleted before that; then I will recreate the image of the court stamped letter under public ___domain later on.HudsonBreeze (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have explained on the image talk page why the image qualifies under Fair-Use; once I receive the Court Stamped Letter, I will replace the image into PD.HudsonBreeze (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That may (or may not) fly for Sri Lanka, but images have to be considered PD in both the country of origin and the United States. I don't think it's a good idea to keep pursuing this. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Writ Keeper, VernoWhitney, Mtking & Ryan Vesey, though what you all say are correct; I couldn't be convinced for some or other reasons and taken for Jimbo Wale's opinion as well. This is my final attempt and thanks for your time and effort and the valuable information which you have shared.HudsonBreeze (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO you should rethink next time before appealing to Jimbo (the essay for a large part isn't merely a joke). This is clearly not the case worth bothering Jimbo. Even if he shows sign of interest, his comment on your issue is not binding. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While Jimbo's opinion is not binding, if he felt this issue wasn't worth bothering him about he didn't need to respond. Rlendog (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per NFCC#1, it clearly is irrepleaceable content. --Cyclopia ^talk 15:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But how does it meet the rest of NFCC, particularly #8? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you know the language in which the letter is written (which perhaps for many Westerners is obscure, but it is spoken by 70 million people, so there's a good chance readers can take advantage of it) it surely increases understanding of the topic (translation of some excerpt would be nice) ; also it is a document related to the case, and as such it is no different from the person passport picture. --Cyclopia ^talk 17:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no situation where an image of text is appropriate. Unless the article is discussing her handwriting, there is nothing in that image that can't be adequately described in prose. Ryan Vesey 17:19, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to this reasoning, also non-free book covers shouldn't be included unless we explicitly discuss that book cover itself. Our common practice is different. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Our common practice is not different. Non-free book covers are included because they illustrate the subject of the article. This is not the subject, it is a letter written in tamil, enhancing nobody's understanding of the execution. Ryan Vesey 18:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"enhancing nobody's understanding of the execution" - That's just your opinion. My opinion is that it enhances it. Apart from the tamil text (which is probably significant for people who know the language), there is the quality of handwriting and length of letter, which give an idea of her education level, for example. --Cyclopia ^talk 18:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The text is copyrighted too, so it doesn't solve any NFCC issue to quote the text but omit the picture. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and don't be ridiculous. There is no underlying reason to delete the file, public ___domain or not. There is no way in a million years that the possible owners of the copyright, if there are any (which would be the girl's parents, the dead child's parents, or the government of Saudi Arabia, all according to Saudi inheritance laws and copyright laws) would assert ownership and try to limit circulation of the photograph. It does not serve the mission of creating a free encyclopedia to exclude a significant document like this, and frankly, seems like a mindless misapplication of bureaucratic rules to claim that NFCC excludes it. If that's true, it's an error in NFCC or more likely interpretation of the rules. I'm not convinced that it does in fact violate NFCC, as the image is in fact historically important in its own right, and also is irreplaceable to educate the reader as to its significance. When a document itself is important, people need to see the document, not a translation or description of its contents. That's why people line up to see the Declaration of Independence in a museum, not to see a transcription of its words. If the rules say black is white, you know there's a breakdown of those rules. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, people line up to see the Declaration of Independence itself, not a photographic reproduction of it in an encyclopedia. A picture of the Declaration has much less historical significance than the document itself, and that's a distinction it might be worth keeping in mind. Like I've said on Jimbo's talk page, I don't think we can (or should) invoke IAR where copyright is concerned. But, I'm no expert, so the decision will be what it is; I don't passionately care about whether it's in the article or not. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - People online want to see the online pictures, as with United States Declaration of Independence or Magna Carta. Of course there are distinctions, I"m making the narrow point that when the document itself has historic value, a picture of the document and the actual words of the document (which is just as non-free as the image) are important. You can reach that result through IAR or other Wikipedia policies. When you have a rule that clearly isn't intended to cover a given situation and doesn't work in that situation, it's silly to follow it mechanically. One construction principal in law is that if you have two possible interpretations of a law, and one reaches an inconsistent or absurd result, then you take the other interpretation instead of either declaring the law invalid or applying it to an untenable result. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - (Aside, a transcript of the letter (taken verbatim from a source's direct translation) was also put into the article under claims of public ___domain, and also removed.) I understand that; I'm just not convinced that it's clear that NFCC isn't meant to handle these cases, nor that the option of not having the image in the article is absurd. Probably most non-free content could be used without a reasonable risk of legal action (after all, who'd turn down some free exposure by having their stuff at Wikipedia?) But I don't think the point of NFCC is to merely avoid lawsuits, although there's an element of that, of course. I think the point of NFCC is that we're trying to make Wikipedia as free as possible (in the "libre" sense of the term) for redistribution and modification. Using content that's not free makes that goal harder to accomplish, even if we could "get away with it", because our articles then depend on things that can't be modified or redistributed in the same way that the articles themselves can. So, we use non-free content as minimally as possible, and I just don't see this as vital enough to the article to override that. But, reasonable people can disagree with me, and that's fine. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - If libre taken to the logical conclusion is that we refuse to touch anything that possibly onced belonging to a live human being for 70 (is it?) years after her death, it would have the opposite of the intended effect of the movement and Wikipedia, namely, it would restrict the free flow of information not only by ceding all disputed territory to the copyright owners, but also ceding the no man's land of material nobody claims, out of our own self-imposed taboos. If the editors of that article don't think it's important enough to include, that's one thing they can decide on their talk page. But that decision should not be imposed from outside based on copyright. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Image has no commercial value, cannot be easily replaced by an alternative, serves to document and increase understanding of the subjct (as well as validate what was written, vs what was reportedly written). The author is dead. The document was used in government proceedings. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The image is irreplaceable (NFCC #1) and enhances understanding of the topic (NFCC #8). Even putting aside any value in the handwriting and length of the letter in understanding the victim, certainly her own actual words are important to understanding the topic. I could perhaps be persuaded that the image does not meet NFCC #8 if the text that the letter could be reproduced without showing the image of the letter. But copying the text of the letter would result in the same fair use issues as using the image of the actual letter. So I don't see an alternative that would equally permit understanding of the topic that avoids the need for fair use. That said, there may be value in seeing the handwriting and other aspects of the letter itself, but the most important benefit of the image of the letter over copying the text of the letter is that the image avoids any possibility of altering the meaning or errors in the copying process. The image of the letter shows her own words as she wrote them, and so is preferable to a copy of the text, which would invoke the same fair use issues anyway. Hence, the image meets NFCC, and should be kept. Rlendog (talk) 22:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ryan and Writ. Not PD. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. There is never, ever, a reason to use a non-free representation of a handwritten document. If we need to know what she wrote, we can quote the relevant parts of the content from a reliable source. Since we will never need the full text of the letter, selective quoting is sufficient. If we need to know how she wrote it, that can be described in words. Using the image as documentary evidence to "validate" whether she really wrote what sources said she wrote would be WP:OR. Using the written page to allow conclusions about "understanding the victim" would be an invitation to OR too. Since the huge majority of our readers can't read the document's language anyway, its value is minimal. We've had these kinds of cases a hundred times, and the answer is always the same: written text gets quoted, not pictured. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:02, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The picture of the letter is copyrighted because the text of the letter is automatically copyrighted. (As noted, you have to specifically license to the public ___domain or CC to make a published word free for WP's purpose). We wouldn't be able to provide an exact free replacement in the sense that the full transcript of the letter would also be a copyright problem, but its clear from what the translation says that we can fair-use quote the most relevent parts of it for articles, so that is a free replacement. No one has demonstrated that there is anything unusual about the visual appearance of the letter to make the non-text image of it necessary. --MASEM (t) 00:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator Ryan Vesey should not have commented here that - "She either killed a kid or allowed one to die in her care". Then all his arguments quoting various policies are based on ill-motivation on the subject. It was revealed that the Dawdami police failed to take the dead infant for a postmortem to determine for certain the cause of its death.<ref name="bulatlat1">{{cite web|url=http://bulatlat.com/main/2013/01/13/rizana-nafeek-another-victim-of-saudi-arabias-%E2%80%98flawed%E2%80%99-justice-system |title=Rizana Nafeek: another victim of Saudi Arabia’s ‘flawed’ justice system|publisher=Alipato Media Center Inc. |date=2013-01-13} |accessdate=2013-01-17}}</ref> And we are not the God to prevent the death when someone in our care. Then many thousands of doctors are at this time either lost their jobs or executed.123.231.89.36 (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I've been following this at a bit of a distance, but I have to agree that the image of the letter is not clearly released to the public at large and made free. The translation which appear(ed) in the article is unquestionably copyrighted and must be removed if it isn't already gone. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've followed the discussions clearly and I think sometimes we can go overboard with some rules, from a common sense point of view, this is fair use, even Jim[3] seems to think so. Kanatonian (talk) 15:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even User:Boneyard90 in support that the image should be kept and User:Jimbo Wales confirmed here as well that image should be kept.61.245.168.22 (talk) 16:06, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, obviously. The image fails multiple criteria of WP:NFCC:

WP:NFCC#3b: You shouldn't include an entire work. The image includes the entire work (every single word). In order to make it comply with WP:NFCC#3b, you would need to remove most of the words from the letter.

WP:NFCC#8: It is perfectly possible to understand the article without the letter being there, and its exclusion from the article doesn't in any way affect the understanding of the article. Note that the letter is in Tamil, but users of this web site are only expected to understand English, so people reading the article aren't expected to be able to read the letter. This just makes the inclusion of the image even more pointless. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please note User:Amadscientist's comment at Wales Talk;

"Just being the English Wikipedia does not mean we exclude non english images. LOL! Even our policy states that we can use non English sources when no other source of equal validity exists. You cannot sub out a translation of the original document and that is what this is. An original document. It has encyclopedic value for that reason alone (if not more). This image cannot be replaced by a free image. This image has direct context to the article's subject. Regardless of the image being written in another language, does not mean it does not have encyclopedic use on the English Wikipedia. There are no copyright issues when Fair Use is used properly and the last part of criteria 8 is a Wikipedia policy and guideline, it is not a part of Fair Use case law. There really is no actual Fair Use law. Fair Use pertains to a number of decisions not an actual current US copyright law. Fair Use allows images as part of critical commentary. Why wouldn't we include the image and a link to a translation?-"

"I actually get where you are coming from on this. I just disagree strongly. Fair use, in this case, is clearly applicable. What you are arguing is the use of an image of text that you cannot read means that it has no value or less value. That seems to mean that we, as English speaking and reading users of Wikipedia, are limited in our understanding of the situations being summarized if they are not clearly all English. No. That is shortsighted. The document has direct context to the subject. It contains more information as an image then just text and is the document used by this government. Regardless of its language it has as much context and value as any document, regardless of the written language.-"

Please visit Jimbo Wales' Talk Page for further facts.61.245.163.48 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"users of this web site are only expected to understand English, so people reading the article aren't expected to be able to read the letter." Since when is language a criterion for inclusion. Many users will not be able to understand the text in its original language, but others will. And we don't discrimminate against those who can. Rlendog (talk) 22:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In order to fulfill WP:NFCC#6, the article must provide a reliable source which citing expert's comment that the letter was written by Ms. Rizana while being coerced. Otherwise you can't ask our readers to judge by the said image whether the font of the letter to be twisted or not, compared to normal writings. Using an image without reliable source to convey your personal judgment is another form of WP:SYNTH. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 10:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Please note the above document(Letter) is the statement of Rizana and was written by someone in the Sri Lanka Embassy while she was confessing(possibly over the phone) and then Sri Lanka Embassy has taken the document(Letter) to her and she read it and signed and impressed her finger thumb.[4]

The Letter reads Rizana's mind and not the one who wrote it. The Letter shows the consistent sequence from one event to other. Any psychologist who read the narration in Tamil can detect whether she is lying or not. Apart from that some one who reads carefully the letter can detect there is some unknown factor is the cause of the death of the infant.

English translation will lose all those very soft factors in the original Tamil Letter but will pass only the translated information. That is why we need above document which is in Tamil as historic document to testify her innocence posthumously even after centuries .61.245.168.19 (talk) 14:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This shows your zero understanding of our no original research policy. Is there any reliable source that says exactly "any psychologist who read the narration in Tamil can detect whether she is lying or not"? No, so we can't justify the usage of this image. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 22:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, that justifies the original Tamil letter should be there. That is my statement that "any psychologist who read the narration in Tamil can detect whether she is lying or not". Even a legal expert who is well verse in Tamil can interpret from the original Tamil letter better than the translated one. A Pediatrician who is well verse in Tamil can interpret from the original Tamil letter better than the translated one. What I am trying to say here is the original Tamil text should be kept than it's translated version for the better interpretation of actual situation and circumstances which caused the infant's death.61.245.165.26 (talk) 01:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a legal expert who is well verse in Tamil can interpret from the original Tamil letter and his research on the letter is published, cite one and then this image can be used in the article. Otherwise being MERELY a confession letter written by a convicted is not enough to justify the usage. Any reason suggesting this image is crucial due to your belief that her confession was extorted is original research. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you have gone crazy or you haven't still done your homework before you utter your nonsense here.

Please note the importance of the image comes along with the Rizana's conviction is wrong since the verdict was come out without postmortem report and depending on statements of police and the dead infant's parents. She had not given any legal assistance in the very beginning what she should do and not do. The situation ultimately caused her to sign on a statement in Arabic which she can't understand.

It is because of the importance the original Tamil image only, the Asia Tribune published the original Tamil image with English Translation here; so it is not some Editor's Original Research on Wikipedia here and it is only seconded by the thoughts of Editorial Board of the Asia Tribune, an English language media why the English translation should be supported by the Original Tamil Image.61.245.163.3 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have gone too emotional to participate Wikipedia. How she was executed unfairly is no business to me. I do not pity the fact that she didn't receive any proper legal assistance. I'm a heartless man. Are you satisfied? We are talking about how we treat this non-free image according to our policy on copyrighted materials. The image is only important to Wikipedia when at least one reliable source uses this image to claim any suspicion of her case. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the following research and analysis which is published in the Asia Tribune based on the original Tamil letter;

[Copyvio removed]

Hope the above research and analysis based on the original Tamil letter will make the letter an important component of the article.61.245.165.45 (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see any important feature presented by the letter image. The letter itself is to clarify Rizana was coerced for her previous conviction statement, her mental status while writing this letter is irrelevant. Therefore it makes little difference to quote the English translation directly in the article instead of embedding the letter image. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 13:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, please stay away from this discussion and give space for other editors to discuss. There is no point in discussing with you.61.245.165.22 (talk) 17:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not. And I beg you to stop whining in Jimbo's talk page. It only puts you on the worse side for attempting to use Jimbo's founder influence to do your bidding, which in reality, will never work. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 01:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You on the previous post questioned, "The letter itself is to clarify Rizana was coerced for her previous conviction statement". I don't know whether you have properly read the translation. The Letter clearly states that she was coerced by the quote, "......In these circumstances, I under duress placed my signature on the written paper they gave to me. They took me to another place and asked a question, As I was virtually in a state with loss of memory and in fear and frightened mood, I had happened to tell them that I strangled the infant. In the name of Allah, I swear and aver that I never strangled the infant."

No one has forced Jimbo to get involved. But there is a parallel discussion on this issue on his talk page.61.245.168.15 (talk) 03:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the translation and it only strengthens the fact that this letter image is unnecessary to the article. It provides no further information than the text itself. I believe what the letter (including the translation) says is truth and I don't know why the reader would need to confirm the handwriting style to understand the writer (Rizana)'s emotional state while composing this letter. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. That is your point. Let other editors to comment what they think. Already we have discussed enough. I stop my discussion with you at this point.61.245.168.15 (talk) 03:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, OR policies prevent editors from inserting their own original research into the article. Readers are always welcome to draw their own conclusions. Providing readers with information from which they can draw their own conclusions is in no way a violation of WP:OR. Rlendog (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Far different story. If the image was PD we wouldn't discuss it here. Since it was brought here for its deletion, it's the editor's opinion why it should be kept or deleted. If the only given reason(s) to keep it constitutes original research, then the reason itself is invalid. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If the nominator's rationale for deletion is that the image constitutes original research, that is one thing. But there is no "research" involved in the image of the letter itself. And I don't see any deletion rationales that claim that the image actually consititutes original research. An argument for deletion that claims that readers may use the image to perform their own original research is a misapplication or misinterpretation of WP:OR. Just throwing the words "original research" doesn't constitute a deletion rationale based on policy. The reason to keep the image is that it enhances the understanding of the topic, not that it constitutes original research. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per WikiDemon ,Kanontian,Cyclopia.The subject is died and is irreplaceable. It clearly meets Fair use inclined to agree with Jimbo's view here Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tracked down the actual source page, rather than just a direct link to the image. From that it appears that this image was not written by her at all, but "by the Sri Lanka Embassy in Saudi Arabia". Given that I feel that its use fails WP:NFCC#8 in that while it could increase the user's understanding can be increased by its inclusion, it is not significantly so, nor is understanding that she recanted significantly impaired by the omission of this image. Likewise, any comments regarding the length of the letter and/or quality of handwriting being important are entirely unfounded. Furthermore, even if it were her words, the use of the letter as a whole fails WP:NFCC#3, as any particularly important quotations within the letter should be used individually rather than in its entirety. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The document reads her mind and she went through it and then signed and impressed her finger thumb. The importance comes not in getting a picture of her hand writing but of her mind.61.245.163.43 (talk) 01:00, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, if this is the case and it was prepared by the Sri Lankan Embassy (which is Sri Lankan soil) and it's a court document, it would appear that the letter is in fact public ___domain. I don't feel it contributes much to the article editorially, but it could be uploaded to Wikisource and translated by a Tamil speaking Wikipedia and linked from the article if that is in fact the case. What do you think of the PD evidence then? Ryan Vesey 18:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, that leaves the question, does US law apply a copyright to this item even if it is true that Sri Lanka doesn't? Ryan Vesey 18:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Sri-Lankan government works were always automatically PD then they would likewise be PD in the US. I find no indication of that possibility, however, in commons:Template:PD-Sri Lanka or the underlying File:Sri Lanka's intellectual property law.pdf. Furthermore, the act of submitting a document to a court does not necessarily make it PD (since the document/evidence itself is not an edict of government)--I did already question HudsonBreeze about this possibility above but there's so far a lack of evidence regarding that possibility. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Commons says that Sri Lankan government works are PD only for an "official text of a legislative, administrative or legal nature, as well as any official translation thereof". I could see this being an official document and therefore PD, but those are uncharted waters for me. Certainly, if it's not now PD, it can't possibly be fair-use, since it's neither her words nor her handwriting, just something she agreed to and signed, but I think a fair case could now be made for PD. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that pointer -- the part quoted at Commons is available directly from http://www.nipo.gov.lk/act_regulations/chapter-1.pdf, so it stands up. Now to me, that language reads as very closely analogous to the U.S. Copyright Office's language regarding edicts of government that I linked to above (i.e. "judicial opinions, administrative rulings, legislative enactments", etc.). If it was written in the voice of the government, I'd be more inclined to call it an official text of that nature, but according to the translation it's written from her perspective, "I, Rizana Nafeeq, ... state as follows:". As with you, though, this particular niche within copyright law is uncharted waters for me. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:26, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking through the intellectual property law here. On page nine it reads "laws and decisions of courts and administrative bodies, as well as to official translations thereof" (is not covered by copyright law). This doesn't appear to be a law or decision of the court. My vote is going to remain delete because I haven't yet found proof that court documents are not copyrighted only that their decisions are, but I'm certainly open to be convinced otherwise if someone can show me something from the law. Ryan Vesey 19:36, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But the decision to document her words and its documentation is coming from the Sri Lankan Embassy which is an administrative body of the Sri Lankan Government and has all its immunity even in a foreign soil as Sri Lankan Government body.61.245.163.43 (talk) 00:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All it is is an image of a handwritten letter, what exactly are you trying to convey to the reader with a visual depiction of it? Is it iconic? Is it of truly critical, historical significance, to the point that the article would be lessened by its absence? The real kicker is that here in EN.wikipedia, 99.9% of the people partaking in this discussion cannot even read it. Swap out this image with that of a shopping list, or a love letter, or the closing credits of a Sri Lankan porno, none of you would be the wiser. Tarc (talk) 02:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, please note User:Amadscientist's comment at Wales Talk;

"Just being the English Wikipedia does not mean we exclude non english images. LOL! Even our policy states that we can use non English sources when no other source of equal validity exists. You cannot sub out a translation of the original document and that is what this is. An original document. It has encyclopedic value for that reason alone (if not more). This image cannot be replaced by a free image. This image has direct context to the article's subject. Regardless of the image being written in another language, does not mean it does not have encyclopedic use on the English Wikipedia. There are no copyright issues when Fair Use is used properly and the last part of criteria 8 is a Wikipedia policy and guideline, it is not a part of Fair Use case law. There really is no actual Fair Use law. Fair Use pertains to a number of decisions not an actual current US copyright law. Fair Use allows images as part of critical commentary. Why wouldn't we include the image and a link to a translation?-"

"I actually get where you are coming from on this. I just disagree strongly. Fair use, in this case, is clearly applicable. What you are arguing is the use of an image of text that you cannot read means that it has no value or less value. That seems to mean that we, as English speaking and reading users of Wikipedia, are limited in our understanding of the situations being summarized if they are not clearly all English. No. That is shortsighted. The document has direct context to the subject. It contains more information as an image then just text and is the document used by this government. Regardless of its language it has as much context and value as any document, regardless of the written language.-"

Please visit Jimbo Wales' Talk Page for further facts.61.245.165.14 (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is historical if the incident itself is historical. The letter was written based on the confession of the deceased and then she read the letter and signed and impressed her finger thumb.61.245.165.14 (talk) 03:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from quoting the exact same passage in the same page TWICE, even though anything published in Wikimedia is under CC 3.0. What you did only make the whole discussion fall into the TL:DR hell. The letter is only "historical important" in your POV, but there is no reliable source agreeing to that view. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One more, the deceased read her own version of confession on the same style and the same font though it was written by someone else; it has its eternal influence for a reader to visualize something which the deceased visualized.61.245.165.14 (talk) 03:21, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care one whit for Amadscientist's opinion, or where it was posted. This is a written confession form a woman executed, what, a few weeks ago? Tragic? Yes. Historic? No, not in the slightest. It just happened, you don't get to declare the woman a martyr quite yet. Tarc (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When some one asked a loyal Christian why you bother so much of the Jesus Crucifixion, even we have lost Gandhi, Kennedy,Lincoln in a tragic way; the loyal Christian answered their deaths are only tragic but the Jesus one is eternal; entire universe is shaken.

Rizana's death for some is a tragic of a poor house maid, but for others it is historic of a fellow human who went as a house maid for the betterment of her family while her peers in Sri Lanka are studying either in the national universities or western universities' offshore campuses. She struggled a good part of her life in the jail without proper judicial administration or a fair trial(the verdict without postmortem report) and then finally while her peers were in joyous mood for convocations, Rizana's head was spared in one strike by the executioner’s blade. For me her death is equivalent to a Martyr; she sacrificed her life for the family.

Though I don't want capitalise Jimbo's statements as a founder of this project, I couldn't resist his quote below as a fellow human being;

"......if Wikipedia presents the truth (and no one appears to be denying the factuality here) in a compelling way, then the truth can be a powerful force for good in the world. What I haven't seen yet (but I haven't been to the talk page discussion) is any valid arguments against inclusion. An illustration of the facts explained in the article and backed by reliable sources is a great way to improve the experience of the reader"

I won't get involved in any discussions here in future. Bye to all.61.245.163.12 (talk) 04:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, Jimbo had it completely backwards when it comes to justifying the usage of non-free conent. Call me crazy, but co-founding an online encyclopedia doesn't magically make one a copyright expert. Tarc (talk) 05:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly no copyright problem here, it's a free content question, and founding / guiding the world's preeminent source of free content does give him a lot of credibility to opine whether a particular class of content fits that source's free content mission. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's good to know. Next time my Optiplex 755 box blue-screens I'll give Michael Dell a call, since he's obviously the one that'd have the expert opinion on such things. But all of this is besides the point of "what does a picture of text convey to the reader?" Tarc (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per 61.245.168.19. I haven't followed the present fortunes of PD-Manifesto/PD-Press release etc. and I certainly can't argue what the intent was in Tamil - certainly there are some who make a veritable living out of arguing those issues improperly, e.g. the guy who has been sitting on the Unabom Manifesto on Wikisource for the past five years even though it was unambiguously PD, and the only practical way to actually settle such legalities is by verdict or violence. But in terms of Fair Use, well, the argument is made that this is something being distributed noncommercially which doesn't compete commercially, and a high resolution is needed for the intent, i.e., to look into the thought processes of the person in question during this incident. That not every Tom Dick and Harry can do psychological and handwriting analysis on this language means nothing. The only person we need to care about here is the one individual who does do something with it. Wnt (talk) 17:24, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You are making a wrong assumption here: there is no handwriting analysis to be had here, because it isn't even her handwriting. As was pointed out above, she didn't write this. It's the handwriting of some official at the embassy. The only thing she added herself is her thumb print. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You can analyze whether, for example, he paused to listen or wrote it in one fell swoop, and left a larger droplet when he resumed writing, and maybe a shrink could claim to know from the writing whether he was composing it out of his own mind or based on facts, etc. Also, perhaps some indication of how she went through the story could be gleaned by following the pace of his dictation, etc. (That sort of stuff is "WP:OR" to argue, the bottom line is only that you can do something when you have data) Wnt (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, that's really far-fetched now. And it's still an NFCC problem. NFCC#8 implies that an image must contribute to the understanding of the article, not to the understanding of some potential, hypothetical research about the topic that somebody outside Wikipedia might do. It is not our task to offer people non-free material as raw data for some "original research" that they, as readers, might do independently of us. Non-free material must serve to support something that we are actually saying in the article. And that something, of course, must be legitimate according to our content policies, so it can't be original research. Hence, unless we have a reliable, citable source from which we can actually draw that sort of handwriting analysis, the potential for such analysis can never be a justification for including non-free material. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So to be clear - if a Fair Use image shows something which is already explained in the text, then it is redundant and unnecessary; while if it shows something the reader has to use his own judgment, looking at the photograph to perceive, then it is not supporting the article and is inappropriate. Do I have that straight? Wnt (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. An image is used when the text itself is deemed insufficient to convey the meaning of what reliable source says. (for example, a photo of a noticeable train accident to depict the situation already described by the sources.) It is not contrary to our fair-use policy. But ‎File:Rizana Letter Tamil.JPG is clearly failing this criteria for lacking any reliable source claiming any problem of the handwriting of the letter. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fut.Perf., the image will contribute to the understanding of the article of more than 77, 000, 000 Tamil people including Two Academy Award Winners[5] and A Forbes 100 List Billionaire[6]; and Not to mention this is the mother tongue of Rizana, and also the mother tongue of Three Nobel Prize Winners[7].Sudar123 (talk) 02:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Hudson. 184.144.59.141 (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jimbo Wales himself telling us that despite errors in editors arguing that the image in question is public ___domain, "The image very clearly meets our usual standard for "fair use" and that's what really matters." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:02, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, Michael. It has been awhile since I have seen argumentum ad Jimbonem used in any kind of deletion, policy, etc...type of discussion. Tarc (talk) 17:45, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When the founder speaks, we do well to listen. Maybe using a Jimbo comment about this specific issue is considered "poor form", but I figure he's probably a whole lot more knowledgeable about these things than am I. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:50, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The proverbial "royal We" ? Mr. Wales' opinion counts no more and no less than yours or mine, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 20:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay (chuckle)... then I do well to listen, and although his "opinion counts no more and no less than yours or mine", I respect it and the knowledge and wealth of experience behind it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:47, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Closing Admin-1

Please find the detail discussion which is currently archived at the Jimbo Wales Talk Page.61.245.168.54 (talk) 12:29, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note to the Closing Admin-2

Since 9 editors including 3 administrators(including Jimbo Wales) agreed that the image qualifies under fair use, I am adding back the image to the page.61.245.163.32 (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise removed the image and claiming what is on the image is not Nafeek's confession. I asked User:Future Perfect at Sunrise to explain on the Image deletion discussion page(here) to discuss before the removal, but he didn't do. Please some one take this issue for Arbitration Committee Enforcement.61.245.165.26 (talk) 02:35, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? You reinserted it with a blatantly false description. You said it was her confession. It isn't. It is the retraction of her confession. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a major mistake you to accuse as a false description. If you are fellow Wikipedian you are supposed to correct rather than coming out with accusations which suit to push your POV. Ryan Vesey states it is a "Statement", but you say,"retraction of her confession". Don't you think how both of you differ?61.245.172.21 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I have removed it again, even with the corrected caption provided by Ryan Vesey (who said he didn't endorse the insertion either, for the record). In the present state of the article, the letter is not discussed, and in fact not even mentioned anywhere else in the text. Whatever the potential fair use justifications might have been that some people apparently had in mind here, among the bare minimum requirements for any such justification to be even worth considering is that the letter must be the object of significant encylopedic discussion. I don't know if it was when this discussion started, but it certainly isn't now, so a fair use claim has not a snowball's chance in hell at the present moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't understand what are you trying to say by the statement, "...I don't know if it was when this discussion started, but it certainly isn't now..." When the discussion started itself the source "Asia Tribune" was referred. Someone would have simply come to know when he was reading that the letter was written by some one else while she was confessing(or let it be, "retraction of her confession"). If that doesn't have encyclopedic value with her Signature and Finger Thumb Impression, then Bill Clinton's autobiography My Life doesn't have autobiographic value at all because the book's editor was Justin Cooper and Clinton said "I wrote it out long hand, left blanks for research, he'd do the research, put it in the computer, print it out, and then we'd edit it".[8]

It is inappropriate to delete the image while there is a deletion discussion is going on, under the pretext that it is not used anywhere. It is only a Back Door Method to get things done which is not achieved Straight Forward Way.

I am informing others who suggested for Fair Use.61.245.172.21 (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Nobody's saying it should be deleted because it's not currently being used anywhere. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anon: if you expended only half of the energy you have been spending agitating against the deletion of this image on actually improving the article, much would be won. If people feel the letter is important for the article, then they should be writing something about the letter in the article – something well-sourced and pertinent to the topic. Then, and only then, can we judge whether that passage would benefit from visual support through an illustration. None of the editors who voted keep here has made any attempt at developing such coverage in the article. But without it, there is not even a basis for beginning to consider reinsertion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:36, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is clear: somebody's got to figure out what is actually up with this document. Arguing over keeping this image is distracting us from this goal, but clearly article development is facilitated by having it available in the meanwhile. From [9] (note: this link crashed a fully updated Firefox before working the second try...) it sounds like her confession was probably in Arabic, and obviously we want that, but she was denied a translator while making it. If this is the retraction, well ... there were people in the above discussion arguing it wasn't - if this is her response is it her handwriting after all? Her copyright? It may not even need Fair Use if her family has released it. Using the dates visible in the letter I was able to search out text for it [10] Note that several sites have that text, so the document itself is the object of discussion. And amazingly, to the creaky limits of Google translating Tamil, I get from [11] "A copy of this statement to be shared on social websites எனக்குறிப்பிடப்பட் attached to the film for the audience." (I'm afraid I literally can't tell which letter is which, so I'm not sure if that is in the letter or if it is in the presentation on this website, or what the website is, but it certainly is interesting) I don't know if we can call that PD or CC-by-Tamil, but it should be good enough to let Wikipedia (perhaps not Commons) host the document. - since then I found a statement by the Asia Human Rights Commission which reproduces the letter, calling it an affidavit. Wnt (talk) 18:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, this takes us back to square one: no, it is not her handwriting (she signed something written out for her by somebody at the embassy; see further up in this discussion), so the visual picture of the writing has no higher or privileged information value compared to any other printed or digital representation of the same text, i.e. a simple quote. The situation is no different than with any of thousands of other historical documents Wikipedia articles have to deal with: written text gets quoted, not pictured. There is not the slightest reason to treat this document differently from all the others. (Oh, and by the way, the line about "social websites" is of course not in the original letter. A full English translation can be found here: [12]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Don't embassy employees have typewriters or something? Wnt (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares? We have a reliable source saying that the embassy wrote it (the once mentioned in my last post, also quoted repeatedly above). Have you got a reliable source that she wrote it herself? (And, even if she did, it wouldn't really make a difference anyway. Don't start again with those ridiculous speculations that one could infer something about the case from her handwriting.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:55, 5 February 2013 (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:PONYHeadquartersBoardRoom1.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly generic view of a conference room. Originally added as part of a gallery in PONY Baseball and Softball but now unused. Mangoe (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2013 (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:Danila Botha Headshot2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image has conflicting license tags. If it is correctly tagged as public ___domain, then we are lacking the necessary permission from the copyright holder. Lacking such permission, then as a non-free image this is replaceable and fails WP:NFCC#1. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This image is taken from the copyright holder's homepage. It is an image used for press and publicity purposes. How would I go about obtaining proper permission? Emvern(talk) 14 January 2013

You would need to get the copyright holder to fill out the form we provide at Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries and email it to us. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:46, 14 January 2013 (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:David Hicks.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:05, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable, so fails WP:NFCC#1. This was previously nominated for speedy deletion on these grounds but was kept based on the assumption he'd be in prison and inaccessible. According to the article, this appears to be not an issue any longer. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've located a suitable image on Flickr and uploaded it to commons, although the names conflict at the moment. Should be replaced in an hour or two. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mackensen, i have rejected the move request of the image at Commons as this image would soon be deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:COM:FR#Which files should not be renamed?: "If a filename in a local project conflicts with a filename at Commons, the file in the local project should be renamed. Renaming it at Commons would mean changing it in 500+ projects instead of just one." --Stefan2 (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replaceable by commons:File:David Hicks.jpg (see above discussion). Mackensen (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2013 (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.