Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 21

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:

Image:Classic_gun_pose.gif

Image:Classic_gun_pose.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andman8 (notify | contribs).

• Excess image in Pulp Fiction (film), article already has another image showing these characters. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:19, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Iconic image. Hardly excessive given importance of film and restrained use of images in article. Also illustrates characters' weaponry--a central aspect of the film, as described in the article.—DCGeist 06:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC #3 and #8. The image is used in the "Cast" section of the article, with the caption "Vincent (left) and Jules (right)". It's obviously being used to show the cast. If the image itself were iconic, you would think it would be discussed in the article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I added mention of the iconic nature and the Banksy parody, which could not be illustrated without a photo Eleland 01:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - iconic - Fosnez 14:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. The notion this image is iconic is unsupported by references. The caption of the image indicates the image is used for identification but not critical commentary. The statement that the weaponry in the image is a central aspect of the film is also unsupported. -Nv8200p talk 02:26, 29 August 2007 (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.

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:

Image:0000039823_20070517133204.jpg

Image:0000039823_20070517133204.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Degrassi lover (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image of the cast of a show. Replaceable by free images of the actors. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Context is a little unclear, but this appears to an image of a cast of characters, not a cast of actors. The former is not replacable with free images. WilyD 14:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• keep Cast of TV show characters, not replaceable.SuperElephant 14:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The picture can be replaced by free pictures (group or individual) of the actors/actresses. It's not like they dress up as the The Grinch for the show or anything. Anrie 13:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What encyclopedic information would be lost if the article were illustrated with free images of the actors, not in character? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obviously crucial image of TV show's assembled cast. Basic encyclopedic image.—DCGeist 06:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Image of characters, not actors. Hence not replaceable. -Nodekeeper 11:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A picture of the actors would not illustrate the show itself, and a picture of the actors in character like this is going to be copyrighted. 17Drew 15:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Image meets the criteria for a promotional image for identification of the subject - Gossip Girl (TV series). Individual images of the actors would not fulfill the same purpose as showing the ensemble of fictional characters in context. -Nv8200p talk 02:39, 29 August 2007 (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.

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:

Image:Lost cast (season 3).png

Image:Lost cast (season 3).png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by thedemonhog (notify | contribs).

• Non-free photo of the cast of a show. Replaceable by free images of the actors. A previous version was deleted as Image:Seasonthree2.jpg on July 10 IfD. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It should be noted that the previous image was deleted in part because it was super high resolution. The 13 character cast is never all together on the show and I'm not going to get several free images and make a collage. There is a fair use rationale. --thedemonhog talk • edits 03:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it even needed? The articles on the various characters all seem to have images. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. That's ridiculous, are you going to go around deleting pictures of the cast from every television show? A non-free image is the only way to have that. As we've witnessed, if you have a lot of individual character pictures together, that counts as excessive use of free use. One image showing a cast of a show is not unnecessary. -- Wikipedical 17:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, replaceable with free images of the actors. Deleting pictures of the cast from every television would be an excellent way to improve Wikipedia's quality. —Angr 21:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. I hope I'm misinterpreting that the user isn't willing to make a collage from free pictures of the actors/actresses because it will involve effort. A collage isn't even necessary, individual photographs will show more detail (since a group picture would take up about the same space as an individual portrait and thus less detail of the cast's faces). Anrie 13:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Same as above. What encyclopedic information couldn't be provided with free images of the actors? I understand that a free image of Michael Dorn wouldn't adequately illustrate the Worf article, but how would a free image of the actor be deficient? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Again, basic encyclopedic image of show's cast. Fundamental to basic purpose of high-quality Wikipedia article.—DCGeist 06:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, a single fair use image is probably preferable to a sloppy collage of free images of cast members, especially since they wouldn't be in costume. Axem Titanium 20:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a free replacement collage would not show the characters in costume. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Any depiction of the characters themselves is going to be under copyright. 17Drew 21:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kept, no clear-cut violations, and many users believe this passes NFCC#8. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:49, 30 August 2007 (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.

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:

Image:Stanley_baldwin.jpg

Image:Stanley_baldwin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mackensen (notify | contribs).

• nndb is not a valid source for images (they're just a website using images). Besides, after being properly sourced, this non-free image should be removed from some of the 18 articles it's currently used in Abu badali ^(talk) 11:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Crown copyright in Mother England is 50 years after publication - given that the guy took a dirt nap in '47, it seems fairly likely the image is actually PD. I'll investigate. WilyD 14:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• http://www.gac.culture.gov.uk/search/Object.asp?object_key=10678 The photo was taken previous to 1929, as it was purchased by the UK government in 1929. This suggests to me it's not actually covered by Crown Copyright there (if you go through the long gibbering about it, works really need to be produced for the Queen, not just bought be her later, to qualify as crown copyright. I'll therefor suggest this is covered by ordinary UK copyright. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:PD-UK-unknown - Commons suggests we can reasonably infer the image is PD, given that the image was bought by the government art collection in 1929, for display, and was (presumably) displayed. While one might be able to wedge a sliver of doubt in there, it seems very likely it's PD - let's hold off on any purge of appearences for the moment. WilyD 14:30, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It's true that CC doesn't apply if the UK obtains the copyright from a previous holder. Do we know who the copyright holder is/was? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we need to know? If they brought the copyright in 1929 surely that makes the question of the previous copyright holder irrelevant? Carcharoth 14:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Copyright in the UK is 70 years after the death of the photographer. If the photographer died in 1938 or later, the image is still copyrighted. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see what you mean. Crown Copyright seems not to apply, so you are going back to the copyright on the photographer. To do that, you need to be able to identify the photographer, otherwise "PD-UK-unknown" (or some other variant on 'unknown') applies. Carcharoth 14:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not what the commons tag I listed above gave for photographs. Is that tag wrong? The PD-UK-unknown tag indicates this is likely PD, since it was overwhelmingly likely to have been publicly displayed before 1937. WilyD 20:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • The Commons tag is correct, but the question is whether the original copyright-holder is unknown (not known to the current copyright-holder, not credited in the original publication), or just uncredited on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: So should we consider this image free or non-free? If non-free, are there articles that the image is in that don't pass NFCC#8? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Research shows image is in the public domain. -Nv8200p talk 15:58, 4 September 2007 (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.

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:

Image:Time-magazine-neville-chamberlain.jpg

Image:Time-magazine-neville-chamberlain.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jengod (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image of a magazine's cover, used in an article that do not mention the cover (nor event the magazine) Abu badali ^(talk) 11:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per actions taken I have revised the article to discuss the significant fact that Time magazine featured Chamberlain as the cover subject in its issue containing extensive reportage on the important World Economic and Monetary Conference. The article now quotes Times very informative and revealing descriptions of then Chancellor of the Exchequer Chamberlain. I have also added a fair use rationale to the image page.—DCGeist 03:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - that is great work by DCGeist:

  "During his tenure as Chancellor, Chamberlain emerged as the most active minister of the government. In successive budgets he sought to undo the harsh budget cuts of 1931; he also took a lead in ending war debts, which were finally cancelled at a conference at Lausanne in 1932. In June 1933, Britain hosted the World Monetary and Economic Conference. Describing the event as the "most crucial gathering since Versailles," top U.S. newsmagazine Time featured Chamberlain on its cover, referring to him as "that mighty mover behind British Cabinet scenes, lean, taciturn, iron-willed... [I]t is no secret that Scot MacDonald remains Prime Minister by Prime Mover Chamberlain's leave."[2]"

  Great stuff. The cover significantly increases the reader's understanding of the impact of TIME saying "that mighty mover behind British Cabinet scenes". Carcharoth 20:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This image is in concord with all ten WP:NFCC, in my analysis of it. Among the NFCCs that are most typically debated w.r.t. such images: t is not replaceable with a free image (NFCC#1), its use is minimal (NFCC#3), it significantly enhances the reader's understanding (NFCC#8). But it's almost certainly public domain anyway, since a search of the USCopyright Office records for 1960 and 1961 finds no renewals for its magazines under "Time-Fortune Company", which was then the publisher who held the rights to the enterprise. ... Kenosis 21:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This image is in the public domain, since Time Magazine did not renew the copyright on the cover in 1960 or 1961, per Kenosis and my own personal search.[1][2][3][4] (I don't believe this image would pass NFCC#8 if it were non-free, but that's moot.) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Research shows the image is PD. -Nv8200p talk 01:30, 31 August 2007 (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.

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:

Image:Evel_Knievel_-_Pinball_Machine.jpg

Image:Evel_Knievel_-_Pinball_Machine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jerkmonkee (notify | contribs).

• A full-page ad, used in an article that doesn't mention the ad – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per action taken Added well-sourced graf to article on merchandising of Knievel image, covering not only this notable pinball game (see quotes now in article), but the earlier bendable Knievel action figure as well.—DCGeist 04:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per DCGeist. Scarian^Talk 05:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Image is not significant to the article and is replaceable by a free image. -Nv8200p talk 15:37, 4 September 2007 (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.

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:

Image:EvelynBrent1.jpg

Image:EvelynBrent1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DCGeist (notify | contribs).

• Non-free photo of a person who is barely mentioned in the article – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The claim above is patently in error. There are multiple significant mentions of the subject in the article, Film Booking Offices of America:

"B. P. Fineman became the studio's production chief in 1924; Evelyn Brent, his wife, moved over from Fox to become FBO's top dramatic star."

"Fineman and Brent both departed FBO around the time of the [1926] purchase."

"Evelyn Brent was FBO's most prized non-Western star."

"Tod Browning directed two Gothic Pictures specials in 1924 starring Evelyn Brent: The Dangerous Flirt and Silk Stocking Sal."

"A masked Brent in the title role of Lady Robin Hood (1925), directed by Ralph Ince. Her cowering foe is played by Boris Karloff..."

(and, in the caption of the photo in question:) "Publicity photo of Evelyn Brent, star of 14 FBO films between 1924 and 1926."

Note also that the article passed FAC with this photo and the relevant text in place (I would supply a diff, but in fact the article has not been edited in the slightest since its promotion to Featured Article status in June).—DCGeist 16:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails WP:NFCC #8 in the article where it's used. —Angr 21:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC) Keep, image has been shown to be public domain, so the fact that it is not significant to the article where it's used is irrelevant. —Angr 18:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response Please reread WP:NFCC #8: "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." An image of a movie studio's leading dramatic star significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic. What text could possibly serve a similar function as this image?—DCGeist 21:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I certainly didn't feel enlightened by the presence of this image in that article. It's actually a bit distracting because the picture suggests that there is some amount of coverage of the person in question, while that is in fact not the case. I don't see how an image of the movie studio's leading star (apparently one of several) would increase most peoples understanding, as I doubt this is an actor most people would instantly recognize today. --Pekaje 21:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It seems that a case has been made for this being public domain, and in that case I see no reason for deleting this particular image. I still think the image serves little purpose in Film Booking Offices of America, but it would be very useful in the Evelyn Brent article. At any rate, this would be a content dispute, not a fair use dispute. --Pekaje 22:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Response It would help if you actually read the article before commenting on it. If you had, you would know there most certainly is "some amount of coverage of the person in question"--at multiple points in the article and underlining her significance. Your claim that this "is in fact not the case" is verifiably false.—DCGeist 23:49, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not too happy with the implication you're making here. I did read the article, and I just skimmed it again now. The Film Booking Offices of America article has only brief and rather trivial passing mentions of Evelyn Brent. Certainly nothing that would cause me to feel that her picture improved the encyclopedic value of the article. In fact, if this was a free picture, I would still be tempted to remove it from the article on the grounds of irrelevance. I'm looking at the current version of the article, BTW. Is it possible that something got deleted? --Pekaje 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your unhappiness is regrettable, but given your verifiably false claim that there is not "some amount of coverage of the person in question," I thought I was doing you a favor; if, in fact, you had read the article when you wrote that, you were either (a) lying about its contents or (b) choosing to write about it despite having completely forgotten its contents. Now you've changed your tune a bit--you're claiming that coverage is "rather trivial." "Rather trivial"? The article is composed of two primary sections. In the first, Business history, she is identified as "FBO's top dramatic star." In the second, Cinematic legacy, she is identified as "FBO's most prized non-Western star." Additionally, details supporting these obviously nontrivial statements are supplied: it is noted that she (a) starred in two films by famed director Tod Browning, (b) starred as a female version of the famous Robin Hood in a film directed by Ralph Ince, identified in the article as "the best known director to work regularly at the studio," and (c) headlined in a total of 14 films at FBO between 1924 and 1926. The reader is also informed at two points about her connection with the studio's production chief, from which the reader can readily infer one of the factors involved in her attaining her leading position at the studio. Please refamiliarize yourself with WP:Use common sense.—DCGeist 00:47, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think there might have been a language misunderstanding here. What I meant with "some amount of coverage" is something substantial that would warrant the inclusion of the image. Had I meant that there was no mention of her at all, I probably would have said "any amount of coverage". It was a bit vague and I apologize for the confusion this may have caused, but I would in turn like to remind you of WP:AGF. At any rate, I maintain that the coverage is entirely too trivial to necessitate a picture. In fact, in your last reply you seem to have included more or less the entirety of the text about her from that particular article. --Pekaje 01:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. And I believe that people possessed of common sense who bother to read that text will recognize its contents as "substantial" and much more than "trivial." For instance, a great deal of attention is paid in the FAC process these days to the use of nonfree imagery, yet the people who participated in the article's recent FAC voted it to Featured Article status. Nonetheless, of course, you're entitled to your view.—DCGeist 03:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Again with the implications that I didn't read the text. Please stop that, it's simply not true and repeating it muddies the waters. As a final point, I would like you to consider who participated in the FAC process and what their primary motivations would have been. I'm betting that protecting the article from unnecessary copyrighted images wasn't that high on the list. I strongly encourage the closing admin to read through the entire article, because this is about as clear-cut case of violation as there can be. --Pekaje 09:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article editor has addressed fair use concerns. The picture is historical content. This deletion of this image from a featured article would amount to a destructive edit. This is not the proper forum to debate utility of the image. That belongs on the article talk page. -Nodekeeper 10:45, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm confused. It is tagged Public Domain - No copyright. Why are we even discussing this? Is it tagged incorrectly?--Knulclunk 15:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected the tagging and rationale. ... Kenosis 15:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The image is in the public domain in the US and the EU at minimum. IMO, this should have been a simple matter of checking the US copyright records to (e.g., here) see if RKO or FBO renewed any copyright after 28 years for works that are not motion pictures or musical compositions, e.g., periodicals, collections of photographs, etc.. In the EU, just to be cautious about the analysis, it's public domain because unattributed or corporate "works" lose copyright 70 years after first publication. ... Kenosis 15:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image is crucial to this high-quality article. The importance of the person illustrated to the history of the film studio is made clear at several points in the article. Some editors here appear not to understand the importance of such images to articles on culture and cultural history. Gaining some familiarity with the field might reveal how such images are commonly treated as essential to readers' understanding in standard history and reference works.DocKino 22:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Research shows image is in the public domain. -Nv8200p talk 01:39, 31 August 2007 (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.

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:

Image:Darwin_on_Trial.jpg

Image:Darwin_on_Trial.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Duncharris (notify | contribs).

• I am actually proposing that this image be removed from its usages on Philip E. Johnson and Intelligent design, although usage on the article about the book should be OK. The image should be removed from those articles per WP:NFCC#8 in that omission of the image from those articles would cause negligible detriment to the reader's understanding of the topic. I know this isn't the ideal forum for this, but the 'fair use disputed' tags keep getting deleted and there is no better forum to which to take this. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE: See the closely related IfD #Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg.

• Keep. 1) ID is not aimed at the scientific community, but squarely at high school science students and thus school boards. As a cover of one of the primary ID books high school students and board members are likely to find in their library or waved furiously around at board meetings, it is indeed illustrative of the topic that they represent and thus are quite properly used at the articles at which they appear as the primary means of visual identification of the topic. 2) Videmus Omnia appears to have listed this image in a fit of pique. First he called for everyone commenting on a informal deletion discussion yesterday to "let an uninvolved admin decide" whether to keep the images. As an admin familiar with ID who had not been involved in placing the images I was asked to take a look and decide. And when I decided to keep them [5] Videmus Omnia reverted once [6] then immediately rushed to WP:IFD it [7] once he realized an admin decided to keep. Clearly WP:NFCC#8 is being zealously over-applied here. FeloniousMonk 14:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please commment on contributions, not contributors. I'd ask that you please become familiar with WP:NFCC before making admin decisions on image issues, as the image has a pretty clearly invalid rationale - for example, it's in clear violation of WP:NFCC#10c in that it does not specify the article in which it is to be used. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense, but 10c is a {{sofixit}} issue. It is not a deletion issue, ever. WilyD 14:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry, but I can't fix that, because I don't see a valid reason for including this image in any other article but that about the book (at least not with the reasoning given). And images that don't comply with the policy have to be deleted per Item 4 of the Foundation's resolution. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You can fix any NFCC10c problems. It's easier than pissing in the shower, and twice as fun. Whether you can fix NFCC8 problems is an unrelated question. WilyD 16:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Videmius, you should become familiar with WP:BURO and WP:CON.SuperElephant 15:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm familiar with them, I invite your attention to WP:NFCC. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • You link to it in every post. Do you really think I'm not aware of it's existence? WP:BURO and WP:CON are more important than WP:NFCC.SuperElephant 17:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per FM. Raul654 14:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — No deletion rationale presented <<<personal attack removed>>>. Matthew 14:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Keep per FM. And yes, I'm going to comment on the nominator--thanks for waste our time with your vendetta. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No rationale given. Once again, VO is using NFCC#8 as if it were self-evident. It isn't. Please explain why you think that the image makes no significant improvement to the understanding of the article. Guettarda 17:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far as I can see, the impact on the reader's understanding of the topics above would be negligible if the image was omitted. How is this incorrect? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Use only on article about the book - There's no need to multiply the use of non-free material as this. The other articles don't ask for the image. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Insulting VO, or maligning his motives, is childish and not useful. His concerns are legitimate. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Insult? Statement of fact, albeit I can certainly comprehend how saying that an editor's acts were childish and and unuseful is very adult and useful. In the meantime, your statement was subjective and meaningless as you failed to explain why his concerns are legitimate. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove from Phillip E. Johnson and Intelligent design. If this particular book were the subject of the articles, it would of course pass NFCC #8. But seeing the cover of the book does not help anyone understand the concept of ID or Johnson's ideas. It would be a useful decoration, but it does not provide any encyclopedic information about ID that words alone can't convey. In many, many previous deletion debates, it was repeatedly held that a book cover can't be used in an article unless the article or a major section of the article is specifically about the book itself. I can't see any reason to treat this case any differently. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Just on copyright principles alone. I fail to see the issue here about fair use. Using the bookcover is going to fall under editorial use. I think that there is even a template for the use of this kind of image. I really question the motives of putting this up for deletion in the first place.-Nodekeeper 19:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC) - changed to strong keep as per discussion below.-Nodekeeper 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It depicts books central to the topics that readers are likely to run into. VO has been hammering away at this and other related images to get them deleted long enough, it's becoming disruptive. Odd nature 20:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the same reasons already given at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#Intelligent_design, in which this image was already involved. Comment related to the increasingly forseeable RfC regarding the increasingly bilious wikilawyering of certain editors against valid local consensus processes, I feel sure, can wait until another time. ... Kenosis 20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't object to an RfC, but keep in mind that the ArbCom has already addressed something very similar in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abu badali. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understood. Actually, you already know my opiniion about deletion in general, which is that I support the efforts. And you've been civil to me and others. Personally I just think this has gone completely overboard. Perhaps a Request for Comment would be useful to try to get better clarity about some of the involved issues such as the difference between "necessary" and "significantly increase readers' understanding ", and also about local consensus process as versus policy-driven agendas that must of necessity affect many different articles. ... Kenosis 20:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep on the basis of the subjective nature of this statement alone, "would cause negligible detriment...". Do you know that? Have you gathered evidence? How do you know the removal of the picture would cause negligible detriment to understanding the topic? Believe it or not, real encyclopedias use pics like these for the purpose of increasing understanding by personalising the topic. And like it or not, infornmation sharing in the US (and let's be honest, a majotity of the readers and editors of the English Wiki are from the US) is becoming increasingly visual. Pictures help. In fact, as much as it pains me to say this, presentation, not substance, is everything these days. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8, even in the article about the book. —Angr 21:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Explain How does it fail? Because you think it does? Very weak. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • NFCC#8 says, "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Omitting this image would not be detrimental to understanding the topics of any of the articles where it's used, therefore it violates policy. —Angr 23:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Showing a book's cover gives it context and dimensionality it would not otherwise have. Take a look at this list and then compare that with an ordinary list. Then compare that again to this list. Saying that a bookcover does not have utility outside of it's immediate article is not just myopic, but flat out wrong. Changing my vote to 'strong keep'. BTW, someone needs to add cover pictures to Wikipedia's list of banned books. -Nodekeeper 23:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to putting images in a list, see WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFCC#8 says nothing about adding "context and dimensionality". It does say that nonfree images can only be used if omitting them would be detrimental to understanding the topic. A reader can understand List of most commonly challenged books in the U.S. without any nonfree images, so including them would violate policy. The other websites you linked to (presumably) make no claim to being free content, so they can use nonfree images by permission, or even without permission whenever they're unlikely to get sued. Wikipedia, on the other hand, bills itself as "The Free Encyclopedia", and its integrity and reputation are damaged by every nonfree image that is not absolutely essential, which is why NFCC#8 is worded that way. —Angr 00:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I could say the same thing. That the lack of relevant images in articles hurts and damages the integrity and reputation of Wikipedia. When a non-editor person comes to a Wikipedia page from a search engine and wants to read an article with all the images deleted because they're not perfectly GNU compliant (though legal to use by any other definition), is he going to say "Wow, this is a wonderful article because they are obeying WP:NFCC#8 really well!" I think not. He's going to say "Wikipedia sucks, they have no pictures." -Nodekeeper 09:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who thinks an encyclopedia that has no pictures "sucks" for that reason alone has no business using encyclopedias in the first place. —Angr 18:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Wikipedia is too good for that kind of user. Also, they should be denied the ability to read and have an education. -Nodekeeper 01:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Videmus, you mention the link WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use. From the third example of the link you gave me is this statement.

A detailed map, scanned from a copyrighted atlas, used in an article about the region depicted. The only context in which this might be fair use is if the map itself was a topic of a passage in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory might be "fair use", if this controversy is discussed in the article.

Clearly this book is controversial. Clearly it is being used in the relevant discussion. So by the link you gave me, in this instance use of this book cover image would be fair use. -Nodekeeper 09:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the cover itself is not the source of the controversy. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the book cover itself does not represent the book that the article is talking about. Ok then. -Nodekeeper 00:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep: Hey Wikipedia! How many fair uses for pages does it have? Over Four-thouuuuuuusand! Well, not really four-thousand... just four. Still 4 uses for Fair Use should result in a swift Keep. ElloMate!^{Talk to meh.} 00:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just to be clearer, as the Fair-use review is becoming an long agumentative mess with no forseeable consensus and with two opposing positions about NFCC#8, I'm adding a modified version of my comments here.
  ........This image is entirely valid fair use and is fully compliant with all WP:NFCC. The image substantially increases readers' understanding by giving them a far better sense of the particular aspects of the topic, a visual reference with a relevant caption, the combination of which adds to the understanding in a way that merely including a verbal description of the book could not do, and which the words in the image caption could not do on their own by merely replacing them with text in the article. It gives gives the reader a marker of an important and interesting aspect of the topic. The basic fact of how thoughtfully chosen images add explanatory power to a written presentation are widely agreed in the professional publishing community, whether profit or non-profit, whether freely licensed or copyrighted. The reason that visual images, not just charts and graphs, are used, e.g. in college textbooks and other material where you might expect that text should suffice is that they are understood and widely agreed to substantially increase explanatory power and thus substantially enhance readers' understanding of the topic. The use of this image in intelligent design also gives readers a sense of how the particular book approaches the topic by showing what the authors/publishers choose to depict to represent their particular slant on the topic in a way that mere words cannot possibly (in this case the profile of Darwin with the massive knotted brow in a strained pose).
  ........The manner of presentation chosen by the author/publisher is not merely a visual nicety. Rather, it provides valuable emphasis on this book, along with two other, seminal works on intelligent design, in a way that a mere verbal statement could never come close to achieving. The image along with the caption serves a valuable function as a "call-out" for the reader, thus significantly enhancing readers' understanding in a way that a mere textual callout box could never come close to doing. Moreover, all three of these important markers, this and the other two book images presently used w.r.t. this complex topic called "intelligent design", allow those readers who give a quick scan of the article to far more easily discern these markers, or "watershed events", so to speak, in the earlier development of intelligent design in a way that a mere sidebar or callout box could never do without appearing trite.The visual image of the book cover, in conjunction with its brief caption, thus adds significant explanatory power to the article, and significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic. Viewed the other way around, its exclusion would detract from the explanatory power of the article, and thus its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.... Kenosis 00:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed as proposed: The claims are ridiculous: The image of the book cover provides useful information for identifying and locating the book in a manner that prose cannot. Yegads! The book cover is text with a picture of Darwin. In red and yellow. And capitals. Surely we can use words to describe that? Anrie 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above.--Filll 16:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove from Philip E. Johnson and Intelligent design. Those who are regularly active in image work (as opposed to those who show up because they're interested in the particular articles from where the removal of the image has been proposed) will recognise this as a standard case of WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#3(a). The book covers are not the topic of discussion. I've seen this argument numerous deletion debates, and the answer is always that we don't use book covers except in articles about the book. We don't use them in articles about the author, or in articles about the topic covered by the book. Usually these images are simply removed from the articles where they don't fulfil the criteria, there's a bit of edit warring, an admin explains the policy, and that's that. It doesn't go to IfD. This is an unusual case, because the some of the editors of Intelligent design are experienced editors, and some of them are even administrators, though I've never bumped into any of them while doing image work. I recently removed lots of book covers and pictures of people from an article about Christian views on contraception. As it happened, there were no protests. But regardless of the enormous historical and cultural significance which Pope Paul VI or Casti Connubii or Humanae Vitae have to that topic, those non-free images could only be properly used in articles about themselves. (And if Paul VI were alive, a non-free image showing what he looked like couldn't be used even in his article.) They made the article more aesthetically pleasing, and they were easier for the eye to take in than the text. But they didn't fulfil the criteria. I can't see that any case has been made that the images serve some extremely important function (such that the article topic would be hard to understand without them) which was not served by the use of non free book covers in numerous other articles where removal has been proposed and approved by people familiar with active in image work, and vehemently protested by those who take no interest in image work but who have contributed impressively to the article. To sum up, the article does not discuss how the fact that the publishers chose a particular colour, font, and design for the cover (which would have to be seen in order to be understood and appreciated) had some significant influence on the way that people came to regard intelligent design — presumably because it didn't! ElinorD (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep justified by use on article about the book. These multiple RfD's which aren't actually proposing deletion of the media appear to violate WP:POINT in spreading discussion which should be directly related to the articles concerned. .. dave souza, talk 18:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This image significantly increased my understanding of the article. Omitting it would be detrimental to my understanding the article. Pasado 02:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. I think this proposal should just be closed, right now. It is acknowledged from the start that it is not deletion of the image that is being sought; but removal of it from some articles. This is the wrong way to make that proposal. The case for retention of the image itself is crystal clear, and could only be denied on the basis of reinterpretation of the plain intent of relevant policy and guideline. The guideline WP:NFC, in the section Examples of acceptable use – images, explicitly recognizes identification as a valid basis for allowing a cover image. The plain intent of the guideline is that identification is an legitimate form of "significant increase in understanding" allowed under the policy. The utility of this identification is of considerable value for locating a book in many circumstances, just as an ISBN is another valuable location tool in other circumstances. This applies no less for a book where large font text dominates the cover. The font and color and arrangement are all part of a deliberately constructed visual impact, along with the placement of an iconic image of Darwin within the cover. This image is useful for identification in a way that textual descriptions cannot replace. There is no restriction anywhere in policy or guideline for insisting that identification is only useful when the book is the sole topic of the article; but even so, there is a substantial article dedicated to this book, Darwin on Trial, using the image for identification, and the legitimacy of the image for that page is conceded even by the nominator! Hence; keep. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup. In fact, the real complaint behind this nomination is about placement and removal of tags! It sounds like this is a matter that should be addressed through the usual means for dispute resolution. This nomination is a poorly considered attempt to address a dispute in the wrong location, rather than any kind of genuine case for deleting an image. No attack or insult is intended by pointing this out; he states this himself from the start. The effect of the nomination is likely to detract from the real concerns of the nominator, foster more disruption and bad feeling within the community, and possibly poison the prospects for a useful dispute resolution on the matter of tags. With all good will to the nominator and respect to those engaging in this discussion, I suggest that the most helpful and appropriate response is speedy keep, and some kind of help given to the nominator for finding a better way to address his real concerns, within the normal dispute resolution process. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 03:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Wrong venue entirely, the nom already acknowledged that fair use is justified on the books main article, the question of whether or not this image is justified for use on other articles is already being discussed elsewhere. ornis (t) 03:46, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Aside from its clear value to the articles in question, obviously should never have been brought to IfD in the first place per explanations immediately above.—DCGeist 07:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images removed from articles per Wikipedia policy on non-free content and image copyright tag requirements. -Nv8200p talk 15:52, 4 September 2007 (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.

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:

Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg

Image:Darwinsblackbox.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deltaforce5000 (notify | contribs).

• Remove from usage on Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity, retain for use on the book's article. In the first 2 articles, the image does not satisfy the criterion of WP:NFCC#8 - removal of the image from those articles would have a negligible impact on the reader's understanding of either of those topics. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 20:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, violates NFCC#8 in all articles where it is used. —Angr 21:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Per reasons already given at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2007_August_19#Image:Time_evolution_wars.jpg and above at Image:Darwin_on_Trial.jpg. This IFD nom ignores the judgement already passed on this image's inclusion by an uninvolved admin and appears to be yet another example of Videmus Omnia violating WP:POINT on his binge to settle up with regulars at the ID articles for opposing his first ID image IFD. This is becoming disruptive and needs to stop. Odd nature 23:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't see how an administrator who is one of the main contributors to Intelligent design and wants the images to stay in that article qualifies as uninvolved. Bringing it here means that input can come from people who are interested in and active in image policy work, and who have a good understanding of the policy. It's quite disturbing, in fact, that a non-free image of a living person was in the article for over two weeks[8] before it was rightly removed by Abu badali[9], and that none of the regular editors said, "Hey, wait a minute, we can't have non-free images of living people." I'd also point out that one of the regular editors, who has been explaining over and over again on these pages how Abu's and Videmus's understanding of policy is wrong, had non-free images in his user space from 31 July to 19 August. I wasn't snooping by the way — I saw it when I was looking at the image pages after this row broke out. The editor in question removed them before I got round to it, but it's clear he did so because he had finished with the draft, not because he suddenly realised, to his horror and distress, that he was violating a policy! ElinorD (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a pretty cheap shot, I must say, that reflects only a search for dirt and no attention to the ongoing discussion about that Dembski image. Oh, the shame of it, that a low-resolution PR photo, a nice self-complimentary photo presented on Mr. Dembski's website, had remained in the article for over two weeks. Perhaps go back and read the discussion which reflects the ongoing search, including a lengthy email exchange I conducted with the photographer of another image of Dembski while awaiting his return from a trip slated to happen in approximately the third week of August. In the meantime, someone else called to my attention another already free-licensed image of Dembski. I'll get back to this after I cool off a bit. ... Kenosis 17:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. My rationale was already given in greater detail at Wikipedia:Fair use review#Intelligent design, which was brought with respect to this image along with two others. It complies fully with all 10 of the NFCCs. To which I would add, NFCC#8 is a straightforward editorial judgment that is decided by the local consensus, unless, of course, an overriding consensus is achieved in a process such as this. If the editors of the article on intelligent design and irreducible complexity had not already decided that the readers' understanding of the topic was significantly enhanced by the image along with a brief caption, the image would not have remained there in the first place. I must say that two simultaneous procedures per image is a bit ridiculous. Would an administrator please step in here and consolidate these or otherwise implement some sensible way of discussing the three book-cover images as a group? Oh, I remember now--that's what the Wikipedia:Fair use review#Intelligent design was supposed to be for, wasn't it? Hardly believable, but obviously here we are discussing the same issue(s) again. ... Kenosis 23:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Just to be clearer, as the Fair-use review is becoming an long agumentative mess with no forseeable consensus and with two opposing positions about NFCC#8, I'm adding a modified version of my comments here.
  ........This image is entirely valid fair use and is fully compliant with all WP:NFCC. The image substantially increases readers' understanding by giving them a far better sense of the particular aspects of the topic, a visual reference with a relevant caption, the combination of which adds to the understanding in a way that merely including a verbal description of the book could not do, and which the words in the image caption could not do on their own by merely replacing them with text in the article. It gives gives the reader a marker of an important and interesting aspect of the topic. The basic fact of how thoughtfully chosen images add explanatory power to a written presentation are widely agreed in the professional publishing community, whether profit or non-profit, whether freely licensed or copyrighted. The reason that visual images, not just charts and graphs, are used, e.g. in college textbooks and other material where you might expect that text should suffice is that they are understood and widely agreed to substantially increase explanatory power and thus substantially enhance readers' understanding of the topic. The use of this image in intelligent design also gives readers a sense of how the particular book approaches the topic by showing what the authors/publishers choose to depict to represent their particular slant on the topic in a way that mere words cannot possibly (in this case the monkey and man back-to-back on the cover).
  ........The manner of presentation chosen by the author/publisher is not merely a visual nicety. Rather, it provides valuable emphasis on this book, along with two other, seminal works on intelligent design, in a way that a mere verbal statement could never come close to achieving. The image along with the caption serves a valuable function as a "call-out" for the reader, thus significantly enhancing readers' understanding in a way that a mere textual callout box could never come close to doing. Moreover, all three of these important markers, this and the other two book images presently used w.r.t. this complex topic called "intelligent design", allow those readers who give a quick scan of the article to far more easily discern these markers, or "watershed events", so to speak, in the earlier development of intelligent design in a way that a mere sidebar or callout box could never do without appearing trite.The visual image of the book cover, in conjunction with its brief caption, thus adds significant explanatory power to the article, and significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic. Viewed the other way around, its exclusion would detract from the explanatory power of the article, and thus its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.... Kenosis 00:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove as proposed: If anyone has trouble understanding the article without that picture, the article is either poorly written or the reader doesn't have a basic understanding of English. Anrie 13:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • To get less information from the article and to not understand the article at all are two very different things.SuperElephant 18:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Raul654 01:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Odd nature, Kenosis, and our previous discussion. Why are we having the same conversation twice? Seems to be a waste of time and a vio of WP:Point. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 10:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove, I don't see any encyclopedic information that this cover adds to the articles (other than the article on the book itself). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible Keep per above.--Filll 15:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove from Intelligent design and Irreducible complexity, but keep in article about the book. I won't clutter up the page by repeating what I said elsewhere, but would just refer people to my remarks here. They apply equally to this case. ElinorD (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Stop the insanity. I don't mind having a discussion about keeping or deleting images, but please can someone nail down the policy before we erupt into yet another series of endless disruptive circles wasting everyone's time sorting out what it means to give a significant increase in understanding. This is out of hand, wasting everyones time (not because it is a waste of time to consider deletion of images, but because of the time wasted in a hundred parallel discussions on policy). The current situation is injurious to the atmosphere within the project, insecure for obtaining consistent policy, and highly disruptive of the day to day work of building the encyclopedia. FWIW, in my view the policy as currently worded makes this an easy keep. Others disagree. The fundamental point of disagreement does not center on the particular image or the use to which it is placed in the article. It is disagreement over the actual meaning of the policy itself. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nominator, fully justifiable use on Darwin's Black Box. Usage on other articles should be discussed on the talk pages of these articles. .. dave souza, talk 18:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep What a ridiculous nomination! Fair use is fully justified on the books article. The question of whether fair use is justified on ID or IC, is a matter for a different venue. ornis (t) 22:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep This image is valid fair use and is compliant with WP:NFCC as I read it. Pasado 02:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Very similar case to Darwin on trial image. Shame so much of contributors' time and energy has to be wasted on this.—DCGeist 07:04, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Policy issues have been addressed by article editors. Image useful to narrative of article. Regardless, debate about usefulness belongs on talk page, not on IfD. Misuse of WP:NFCC#8.-Nodekeeper 10:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a relevant image and it's informative of the significance of the issue where it's used. Whatever policy issues that the nom may have had appear to be fixed now. FeloniousMonk 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I find it ridiculous that this nomination even exists. -Amatulic 22:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove from articles other than Darwin's black box. Clear as sky violation of NFCC#8 on those cases. Borisblue 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images removed from articles per Wikipedia policy on non-free content and image copyright tag requirements. -Nv8200p talk 15:53, 4 September 2007 (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.

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:

Image:Hoary marmot 1926.jpg

:Image:Hoary marmot 1926.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blade Hirato (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, absentee uploader, source info is insufficient to verify PD status. —Angr 21:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Information I must like Marmots; I went to check this one out. I don't know if this image is in the public domain; but it is over eighty years old and included within a US federal government publication. Someone who understands such things may comment on the implications for copyright. The information given by the uploader was sufficient to track down the source, and it is an official government publication. The image itself was taken in 1926. It is part of an official US government publication produced in 1938, and now placed online at the National Parks and Wildlife Service. The book is Dixon, Joseph S. (1938), Fauna of the National Parks of the United States: Birds and Mammals of Mount McKinley National Park, United States Government Printing Office. The image itself is found on this page: in the chapter on mammals. The caption of the picture in this source is just as provided by the original uploader. Figure 53.—An old male northern hoary marmot at bay. Photograph taken June 13, 1926, Savage River. M. V. Z. No. 5018. —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 11:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yup it's public domain. But it's also not being used anywhere esp. Hoary marmot, so a prime candidate for deletion. I bet that this image was used in earlier versions of the article though. -Nodekeeper 11:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if it's verifiably public domain, it's a prime candidate for being moved to Commons. —Angr 18:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's already at this name at Commons, and has been since August 2005! I've updated the info there thanks to Duae Quartunciae's research and deleted the dupe here at en-wiki. —Angr 18:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Thanks! —Duae Quartunciae (talk · cont) 22:22, 23 August 2007 (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.