Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 June 11

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian Postage Stamp issued on Mayo College, Ajmer, India in 1986.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Atulsnischal (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Indian stamps are copyright for 60 years and this 1986 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 03:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:50, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: All Indian stamps are copyright for 60 years and this 1984 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 03:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mgsetustamp.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Devesh.bhatta (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Indian stamps are copyright for 60 years and this 2007 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. Also there is no attempt at a fair use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 03:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Postage stamp on Jain Acharya Tulsi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Terapanth (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Indian stamps are copyright for 60 years and this 1988 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. Also there is no attempt at a fair use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamp Ranganathananda 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nvineeth (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Indian stamps are copyright for 60 years and this 2008 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. The fair use rationale claims there are no public domain photographs available but that does not permit the use of a stamp instead. ww2censor (talk) 03:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stamp on Acharya Bhikshu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Terapanth (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Indian stamps are copyright for 60 years and this 2004 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. Also there is no attempt at a fair use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dula Bhaya Kag.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pruthvi.Vallabh (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Indian US stamps are copyright for 60 years and this 2004 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 03:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 03:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: All Indian stamps are copyright and this one fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. Because there is no free alternative is not a justifiable fair-use rationale to using a non-free stamp. ww2censor (talk) 03:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. The article isn't about the stamp, and the article can be fully understood without showing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:50 years of Prithvi Theatre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ekabhishek (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Indian stamps are copyright and this 1995 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 03:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Since it is an historic event, namely 50 years of Prithvi Theatre, perhaps a change to {{Non-free historic image}} template can be used instead?! --Ekabhishek (talk) 06:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You still run into the same issue. With the stamp tag the stamp itself must be the subject of discussion. With the historic photo tag, the photo itself must be the subject of discussion. Jay32183 (talk) 07:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. The article isn't about the stamp, and the article can be fully understood without showing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RCAC Stamp.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quadra (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Canadian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 2005 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. Also there is no attempt at a fair use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 03:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your rationale is wrong. It is being used in the article to illustrate the stamp, in a section that talks about the stamp. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. The article isn't about the stamp, and the article can be fully understood without showing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: All Canadian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 2005 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 03:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. The article isn't about the stamp, and the article can be fully understood without showing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gilles Villeneuve Stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TvKimi (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Canadian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 1997 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 03:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've removed the image from the article and personally have no objection to its deletion. 4u1e (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Stamp illustrates an iconic driver in whose honour stamps were issued and helps get the encyclopaedic point across. Such low resolution images aren't considered as copyright infringement in any sane society and court IMHO.

Such copyrights are intended to ensure that people don't make copies of the stamp designs and your interpretation of the whole issue according to me is a little skewed. These aren't meant to suffocate such fair uses.

As a separate issue, where does it state that Canada Post copyrights its stamps and prohibits its use ?--TvKimi (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While Gilles Villeneuve is an iconic driver, Canadian stamp are copyright for 50 years per commons:Commons:Stamps/Public domain templates. Do you have any reliable sources to support your claims about the use of stamps? If not then you must comply with the Wikipedia policy and criteria because we take copyright very seriously and are very stringent about the use of non-free images. I suggest you read WP:NFCC which is policy and the use of any non-free image must comply with all 10 criteria and also WP:NFC to understand that my view is not skewed but just enforcing policy on the improper use of non-free stamps. ww2censor (talk) 03:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the article can be fully understood without reproducing this non-free image; therefore it fails NFCC#8. – Quadell ^(talk) 04:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:George-vancouver-1988-stamp.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Luxduke (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Canadian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 1988 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. Also there is no attempt at a fair use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your rationale is wrong. It is being used in the article to illustrate the stamp, in a section that talks about the stamp. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. The article isn't about the stamp, and the article can be fully understood without showing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:George Vancouer Canada Post Stamp 2007-0622.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Canuckle (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Canadian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 2007 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 04:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your rationale is wrong. It is being used in the article to illustrate the stamp, in a section that talks about the stamp. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The stamp is barely mentioned. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I oppose cookie-cutter rationales when it doesn't make sense and are contradictory to actual material. The rationales should actually fit what's being considered. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 03:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. The article isn't about the stamp, and the article can be fully understood without showing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flanders Fields Stamp (Canadian).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pjamescowie (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Canadian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 1968 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence could be described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. The article isn't about the stamp, and the article can be fully understood without showing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The article is not dependent on the picture.--gordonrox24 (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: All Canadian stamps are copyright for 50 years. This 2003 stamp fails WP:NFCC#1 and because there are plenty of freely licenced Canadian stamps available to use in this article. ww2censor (talk) 04:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, replaceable by a free stamp image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gv-fdc-20070622.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Luxduke (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Canadian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 2007 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence can be described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. Also there is no attempt at a fair use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 04:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your rationale is wrong. It is being used in the article to illustrate the stamp, in a section that talks about the stamp. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. The article isn't about the stamp, and the article can be fully understood without showing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Delete: All Canadian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence can be described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. The article isn't about the stamp, and the article can be fully understood without showing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Y karsh postage stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Canadian Girl Scout (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Canadian stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 2008 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence is already described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 04:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Your rationale is wrong. It is being used in the article to illustrate the stamp, in a section that talks about the stamp. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The image is a valuable addition to the section discussing issuance of postage stamps to commemorate a major figure in the artistic history of Canada, a man recognized throughout the world. No possible infringement on commercial use by the owning party is possible and the artist images are sufficiently iconic to have been reproduced onto postage stamps. The Churchill image is world-famous and surely adds encyclopedic value to the Karsh article, as a re-reproduction of a significant work, presented in appropriate context, Franamax (talk) 06:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: While both Churchill and Karsh are indeed iconic no attempt has been made to provide any critical commentary about the miniature sheet itself, which would need to be verified by reliable sources. That is what would be required to justify its inclusion. Merely indicating the stamp exists, what it displays and some production information is not sufficient as a rationale for keeping it. How is this valuable to the article? All it is doing is decorating the prose and that is not allowed. No commercial use infringement of the stamp is justification to keep it either. Sorry ww2censor (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, fails NFCC#8 and #3. We already have an image of the artist, and a representative image of his work. This additional non-free image is not needed to fully understand the article. (It certainly isn't needed to fully understand the fact that his work was used on a stamp. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Irish st Patricks battalion stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fennessy (notify | contribs).

• Delete: All Irish stamps are copyright for 50 years and this 1997 stamp fails WP:NFC#Images because it is being used in a non-stamp article to illustrate the subject of that article and also fails WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence can be described quite well in the prose and the removal of the image will not decrease the reader's understanding of the topic. ww2censor (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails NFCC#8. The article isn't about the stamp, and the article can be fully understood without showing this non-free image. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment — There is a Mexican version of this stamp virtually identical to the Irish one. If I go to the trouble of uploading that one instead, would the laws be any different? Images add to an articles quality, and I have been hoping to improve this article for a better rating on the quality scale for some time now. ʄ!•¿talk? 13:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid not. Mexico protects copyright for 99 years p.m.a., as opposed to Ireland's 70. It would be great to improve the article with relevant images, but it's better to use free images. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Irish stamps are copyright for 50 years per commons:Template:PD-IrishGov. ww2censor (talk) 15:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Not deleted, moved to Commons

File:PAA San Francisco - Manila - Hong Kong Clipper Schedule.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Centpacrr (notify | contribs).

• Non-free image that does not significantly increase the readers' understanding. Any particular scheduling point can be fully understood without an image. Rationale appears like an attempt to justify decoration. Jay32183 (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: This schedule is hardly "decoration" as it succinctly details how the establishment of the first transpacific air mail and passenger air service by the M-130 China Clipper in 1935 greatly cut the time of transit between the United States and Asia much the same way that the Pacific Railroad did for North American transcontinental travel in 1869. This was a huge technical accomplishment for PAA, and at the time was the subject of immense public interest. It made the covers of both TIME and LIFE magazines as well as being the subject of a 1936 Warner Brothers feature film"China Clipper" staring Humphrey Bogart and Pat O'Brien.
• Nothing in the text of the timetable can be construed as constituting either editorial or literary material, but instead provides only straight forward schedule information in a common tabular format and relates only to the identity of the origin, way points, and destination of the service and the times of departure from and arrival at each during the course of transit. That being the case, I doubt very much that the table was really ever even copyrightable in the first place. (No copyright notice appears anywhere on original printed timetable.) The information it contains, however, is both highly relevant to the history of PAA, and is historically significant in that it illustrates how and why this service was such a key and transformational milestone in the development of world aviation. (Centpacrr (talk) 10:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• There's no discussion of that in the article. Nor have you explained how seeing this image helps understand the article. You're also the one who marked the image as copyrighted. Even if the image isn't copyrighted it doesn't help the article. The image is useless. Text is a more efficient way of explaining any information other than the exact appearance, which isn't being discussed, nor is there reason to discuss it. Jay32183 (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The only reason that I used this paticular tag was out of an abundance of caution and because it is the only Wikitag that I have found that refers to an "image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product," and not because I thought there really is a strong case for copyright which I have now expanded upon in the FUR box I added. (I am always looking for other tags that better fit the status of the images like this that I contribute, however if you have a better suggestion to fit this particular case I would be pleased to change it.)
• As for its relation to the article, the China Clipper is mentioned in the text immediately next to the location of the image, but as this service is one of long personal interest to me I have it on my list of things to expand upon in this section as it was such a central part of PAA's identity and world fame at the time. (The importance of the establishment and expansion of PAA's China Clipper service is also discussed at great length in a link that I have now added to the caption on the image.)
• There are no doubt tens of thousands of images on Wikipedia which each reader thinks are "useless" to them individually, but that does not mean that even one such image is useless to everybody -- far from it. If you think this particular image is of no use to you, that does not mean that it is of no interest to countless others who want to know more about this particular subject to which the image would then be of considerable assistance. If encyclopedias were written and illustrated to appeal only to the lowest common denominator then they would be barren-- and useless -- exercises indeed. In other words, encyclopedias are meant to expand one's knowledge, not restrict it.
• As both a professional writer (including four published books) and illustrator/image restorer of more than forty years experience I can attest to the absolute truth of the ancient Chinese adage that "A picture is worth a thousand words" of which this image is an excellent example. The undisputed reason for PAA establishing its transpacific (and later transatlantic) Air Mail and passenger "Clipper" flying boat service was the speed it provided in relation to travel over this route by sea. This is much more clearly and efficiently demonstrated through a period primary source image of PAA's own timetable than it is by writing a long and necessarily convoluted paragraph to attempt to convey the same information. (Centpacrr (talk) 23:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Replaced incorrect © tag with the correct "Pre 1978 Public Domain" tag. (Centpacrr (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Even with the free license, I'm against using the image. Having too many images decreases their effectiveness. This image isn't really encyclopedic, because there's nothing to look at. This image is useless to everyone. It doesn't aide in understanding the topic, it doesn't even make the topic seem more interesting. It's a table containing only text, but it doesn't have the fancy table formatting of Wikipedia. The exact text in that table isn't actually important to the article either. A well written paragraph with a footnote to a reliable source would be far more effective for the point you're trying to make. Jay32183 (talk) 07:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You have made it abundantly clear that this particular image is not useful to you, but it puzzles me on what basis you feel that such a personal view would entitle any editor to unilaterally declare that this or any other image is therefore "useless to everyone." I, for instance, personally find the image entitled "MegaMan2 Teleporte Room" completely "useless" to me, but I would never propose removing it from Wikipedia for that reason because I am sure that it is quite useful to those who are interested in the subject that it illustrates. I have now explained above three times why I placed the image in the article and what it adds to the understanding of the circumstances and reasons for PAA's establishing and operating the first transpacific Air Mail and passenger service. That being the case I will not repeat them again here. If for some reason (or even no reason) you feel that it does not personally assist you, however, that hardly means that it is de facto unhelpful to others.

• As far as I can tell from your comments, your main complaints about the timetable image seem to be that it a) "only has text"; b) doesn't have the "fancy table formatting of Wikipedia" (whatever that is supposed to mean); c) that it "isn't really encyclopedic" because "there's nothing to look at" (by which I guess you mean it is not pretty); d) it doesn't "make the topic seem more interesting" to you; e) having "too many images decreases their effectiveness"; and, f) you think it is only there as "decoration." Even if any (or all) of these personal views of yours were true, none would constitute a legitimate reason under any Wikipedia policy or guideline to remove this or any of the thousands of other similar images of original source documents which include text (including many of schedules and time tables) found throughout Wikipedia from an article anymore than the personal "uselessness" to me of the "Teleporte Room" image would remotely constitute a legitimate reason for me or any other editor to remove that one from the article it illustrates either.

• As the copyright issue that you originally raised as the reason for proposed deletion of the image file has now been affirmatively resolved, and it clearly does not violate any of the other Wikipedia:Deletion policy's stated Reasons for deletion, I don't really see any reason to continue discussion of that question any further. You are, of course, certainly welcome to your personal view that the 1937 PAA "China Clipper" schedule does not "speak" to you, but no editor is free to then unilaterally impose such a personal view on the entire universe of Wikipedia readership by denying them access to the image by deleting it. That instead would require the achievement of the clear and unambiguous consensus of the Wikipedia community based on some demonstrable violation of one or more Wikipedia policies or guidelines. (Centpacrr (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]

• Oppose deletion Clearly the copyright has run out by now. As it has run out, moving to Commons is an idea to consider. 70.29.210.174 (talk) 03:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, PD as published before 1978 in the USA without a copyright notice. Stifle (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 - fails NFCC#3 (excessive use of non-free content) - Peripitus (Talk) 12:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kirk collage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:EEMIV (notify | contribs).

• This is a clear fair use violation. Though not a gallery, this is still a collection of 6 non-free images, which is not minimal usage. Sharp962 (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• That's a delete, Spock. Stifle (talk) 13:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Though I'm not one to use the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument... other stuff exists, and you can generally find collages on any list of characters page. I'm going to go through NFCC and see if it breaks any one of the requirements for NFCC:
  1. Doesn't fail.
  2. Doesn't fail.
  3. Doesn't fail a, as it would otherwise be difficult to convey the looks and appearances of every Kirk there has been, and doesn't fail b, it is of decidedly low resolution.
  4. Doesn't fail, as all parts of the image have been published previously.
  5. Doesn't fail.
  6. Doesn't fail.
  7. Doesn't fail.
  8. Definitely does not fail. It quite explicitly and expertly conveys how Kirk has looked over the many years.
  9. Doesn't fail.
  10. Doesn't fail.
• As it does not violate NFCC, that being the primary reason stated for deletion, then this image should be kept for the encyclopedic value it gives to Kirk's article. If you somehow believe me to have erred, please, inform me, and we'll work to see if we can fix that. --Izno (talk) 15:51, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't meet minimal usage, doesn't significantly improve readers' understanding, and has no non-free content rationale. So the image quite blatantly fails WP:NFCC#10. Jay32183 (talk) 21:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commentary, which is in the article, is usually sufficient to significantly improve 'readers' understanding'; there's an entire section on his depiction! If the caption needs rewriting, that can be done. There is now an explicit rationale; I'm not sure why you would say there wasn't one before. I don't understand how this is an issue of minimum usage as well; the number of images is decreased comparatively to an article where there might be multiple images. Which would you rather have, 1 minimum resolution of all the known Kirks or 5 of them at full face-minimum resolution? --Izno (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of files doesn't make a difference. We're borrowing the same amount of copyrighted material whether the images are combined or separated. Talking about an image and significant;y increasing readers' understanding are not the same. The rationale is still not sufficient. It basically explains that the image is decorative, but non-free content is allowed. The rationale needs to explain how the image improves the readers' understanding. "There are six versions of Kirk" is understood without an image. SNL is not discussed to the point of justifying the non-free image of Belushi. There's already an image of Shatner in the article; no point in having two. The only one that you might be able to justify is Pine, but the article would probably suffer from recentism in that case. Jay32183 (talk) 07:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I disagree with that assessment so much my blood pressure just shot up twenty points. Kirk isn't the only person to portray Kirk, and any such argument that he's the only one that should be depicted is simply incorrect and riddled with bias. While I don't agree with the inclusion of all the images - only Shatner, Cawley and Pine should be shown, and that the comic representations were in fact spoofs of Shatner's performance, as the cartoon and toy references are facsimiles of Shatner's appearance. Also dead in the water is the argument of recentism; the film was made, and is part of the Trek universe, so its quite simply going to stand the test of time.

• Keep The pictures are freely available, well within public access, and not large enough to be reproduced for anything other than the thumbnail in the article. Erikeltic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:39, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • The pictures are not freely available. They are copyrighted and must meet WP:NFCC Jay32183 (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• ModifyDelete the collage, orand replace with individual images of Shatner (perhaps unnecessary as Shatner's image is in the infobox), Cawley and Pine. If the image of the toy serves any purpose, it would be in a merchandising section. The arguments for deletion are substantially less than compelling, but clearly, there is a problem here.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am against replacing the lead picture with the collage. Also, there is now a picture of Pine by himself in the article... so even keeping Pine in the collage is unnecessary. Maybe we could modify it w/ Cawley, the Cartoon, Belushi, and possibly Carrey since he is also mentioned in the article? Erikeltic (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously noted, Belushi and Carrey weren't actual portrayals but instead spoofs on Shatner's performance, they don't belong. The only three that do are Shatner, Cawley and Pine. If this is a sticking point - the retention of non-portrayals, I am prepared to change my vote to delete: if the collage is to have any value, it has to actually depict those portrayals which speak to the character, not to the hamming up on one actor's acting style. The comedic portrayals have no value in the article. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Erikeltic. One image shows the notable portrayals in a much more compact form than multiple cluttered images, which is the alternative. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, Mike. See, your semantic failure is in believing that two copywritten images is more cluttered and presents less fair-use dilemmas than a collage of six fair-use images, many of which wouldn't be allowed on their own. It isn't. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • The modification of the image would be a deletion of the current image, just to note. Questions on how to utized future images, I would move to be brought to the Kirk talk page. Regardless, the availability of the images does not change the fact that they are all copywritten (which in turn is non-free), and thus have specific guidelines that need to be upheld. -Sharp962 (talk) 18:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough; I've altered my vote accordingly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Heartbroke Kid.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Keyser_Söze (notify | contribs).

• Doesn't significantly add to the reader's understanding. PhilKnight (talk) 12:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golub na krovu.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stefanmg (notify | contribs).

• Orphan, Shot taken from far with zoom, makes it grainy, No description, Many images already available in pigeon and sub-articles. Jay (talk) 13:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Michalia Coat of Arms.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MetroStar (notify | contribs).

• Speedy as hoax declined. Coat of arms of an alleged micronation that turned out to be a hoax: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michalia. KuyaBriBri^Talk 13:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:06, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coat of arms of Australia.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Botev (notify | contribs).

• The file is over 10 MB, and can cause huge waste of bandwidth: browsers can completely jam for several minutes if the file is displayed at full size. A much smaller file showing the same coat of arms exists (Australian_Coat_of_Arms.png), and all pages which used the large file have had their links changed to use the smaller one, so the large file is completely redundant. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cold Glass.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Semisonic30 (notify | contribs).

• Uploaded in connection with article about non-notable amateur film, which has been deleted - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold Glass. JohnCD (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LSM (download cover).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lil-unique1 (notify | contribs).

• Since the tag keeps being removed, I'll bring it here. This image fails WP:NFCC#3a as multiple non-free images are being used when one would suffice. It also fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — Σxplicit 18:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP:

I think a digital cover is just a prominent in identifying the song as the physical cover, it should not be deleted. For example is somebody uses Wikipedia to find and identify new music and goes to buy a song and find the song with a different cover they may think they are purchasing the wrong thing also digital downloads in music account for over 96% of the market and the cover is actually crucial in identifying the song. Why has Wikipedia been deleting CD2's and Promo Covers? - Jay —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayy008 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can identify the song by its title and the artist. Removing the digital cover from an article doesn't make it impossible for someone identify the song on an online music store. — Σxplicit 22:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we only need one cover to identify it, so it fails NFCC#3. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a. You don't need multiple covers to identify the song. People identify songs by their title and artist. I rather doubt one would use Wikipedia to "find and identify new music". Although that said, this is a better cover than the other one so it might be worth keeping this and deleting the other. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

REPLY: I see all your comments, I just think that even if a song has 20 covers all should be shown because that is part of identifying the song. One still of the video, a live performance still, and all the covers give as much information to the page as anyone would need - Jayy009

The point of the main cover is to identify the subject at hand. If you read WP:NFCC#3a, it states: Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. Using multiple covers to a single doesn't convey significant information. Adding additional covers won't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and omitting additional covers would not be detrimental to that understanding. Within the same policy, it also states: To minimize legal exposure by limiting the amount of non-free content, using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under United States fair use law. Our criteria is intentionally more restrictive than law, which limits the use of various non-free images in an article. Music video screen shots work a bit differently, as they may or may not add to the readers' understanding, meaning that some articles include them, while others don't; free images of live performances don't fall under this policy. — Σxplicit 23:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eurovision 2004 postcard.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Turkish Flame (notify | contribs).

• The postcards/the subject of the image are not discussed in the article at all outside of the image caption. The use of a non-free image is not justified. J Milburn (talk) 19:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rolled7.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jrmoriarty (notify | contribs).

• I doubt the uploader owns the rights to the video from which the image was taken. J Milburn (talk) 20:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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