Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 June 3

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 debate was Keep - no consensus to delete

--Papa November (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Time traveler paradox.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Paulyb (notify | contribs).

• Orphan since 8/2006 —G716 <^T·_C> 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 debate was

Deleted.  Orphaned, not public domain by any streach of anyone's imagination. WilyD 15:22, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pbx law.JPG

Image:Pbx law.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Paulyb (notify | contribs).

• Orphan —G716 <^T·_C> 04:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 debate was

Deleted.  Orphaned, dubious copyright tag indeed. WilyD 15:24, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nikkiaaa01.jpg

Image:Nikkiaaa01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Raghuvir18 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, dubious copyright tag. VegaDark (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 debate was

Deleted.  Orphaned, dubious copyright tag indeed. WilyD 15:25, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:0050 01 15sec 00.jpg

Image:0050 01 15sec 00.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Raghuvir18 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, dubious copyright tag. VegaDark (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 debate was

Deleted.  Orphaned, dubious copyright tag indeed. WilyD 15:26, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:3409-3-3.jpg

Image:3409-3-3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Raghuvir18 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, dubious copyright tag. VegaDark (talk) 06:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Tagged changed per discussion. -Nv8200p talk 21:02, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Donald G Barnhouse.jpg

Image:Donald G Barnhouse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JGHowes (notify | contribs).

• Question: This image claims to meet WP:NFCC, but on criterion #10, it uses {{Non-free magazine cover}} but then violates the note at the bottom of that template ("If the image depicts a person or persons on the cover, it is not acceptable to use the image in the article of the person or persons depicted on the cover, unless used to directly illustrate a point about the publication of the image. Use of the image merely to depict a person or persons in the image will be removed." [emphasis in original]) by using it to illustrate the person only. Is this valid? --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The image is not being used merely as a depiction of the person, Donald Barnhouse. As the original uploader, I believe that, in this instance, the usage fully complies with both the spirit and the letter of NFCC. In the first place, it should be noted that the individual is deceased (since 1960) and no free images are known to exist, despite a diligent search. Secondly, and more importantly, a close examination of the article content will indicate that the image is used precisely to "illustrate a point about the publication of the image". That is, the Eternity magazine's cover shown was the memorial issue published following Barnhouse's death, as the article states. Moreover, Barnhouse was the founder of Eternity magazine in 1931 and, as such, the magazine was the platform he used to espouse his theological views to the nation between 1931–1960, sometimes giving rise to controversy. All of this is expounded upon in the article and, therefore, the use of the magazine cover is essential to conveying to the reader the relationship between the biographee and Eternity magazine, thereby meeting NFCC within the article's context. JGHowes ^talk - 16:15, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I don't question any of this except whether the image in fact complies with the spirit and letter of NFCC#10. The coverage from the article related to that photo's publication consists of a single sentence: "Barnhouse founded Eternity magazine, which published a memorial issue in his memory shortly after his death." Does that qualify as "directly illustrat[ing] a point about the publication of the image" (emphasis mine)? --Flex (talk/contribs) 16:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Reply: Point taken. I've added some more article content to bolster the justification for fair use here. Suggest this IFD now be closed and further discussion concerning improvement of the article take place on the article's Talk page. JGHowes ^talk - 14:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I appreciate your additions, but I still wonder if they are enough to satisfy letter and spirit. Consequently, I'd still like to hear other opinions here. (FWIW, an image of Karl Barth on the cover of TIME was recently deleted for similar reasoning.) --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:37, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and change tag Why not keep it and change the tag to FUin since it is actually only a portion of the cover and not the full cover, listing the cover as a source? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: {{Non-free_fair_use_in}} seems like it would fix the problem, but does the fact that this is from a magazine cover mean that the more specific tag should be used (thus leaving the image's status in question)? --Flex (talk/contribs) 12:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. There is no evidence that the permission for use granted by Microsoft allows images to be used under a GFDL or Creative Commons license as tagged. -Nv8200p talk 21:18, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wbepic.gif

Image:Wbepic.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jtq4u (notify | contribs).

• There are two issues with this image. First, this image does not add anything to the article in which it is used which could not also be expressed (and in a more accessible fashion) in plain text. Second, the image contains likely unfree clip art for which no source or licensing information has been provided. KurtRaschke (talk) 23:27, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I beleive it's a matter of opinion as to whether the image adds value or not. I have been careful for reasons of accessibility to include the information in writing as well as in the picture. However it is much easier for a user to see and digest the flow of interactions in a diagramatic form than in a bulleted list. I have just checked the licensing terms of the clip art i used (in microsoft word) which states that it can be used in the creation of websites. I agree however that I need to list it's source with the image, and so I will do so. Your first point could be valid (depends on the consensus on this) but your second point shouldn't be valid once I have added this info. Cheers James

• Keep as discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 June 3#Image:Wbepic.gif Colonel Warden (talk) 15:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Colonel Warden and [1]. And I may be betraying my ignorance, but is it really necessary to put up two deletion discussions at once? --jonny-mt 01:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.