Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 February 29

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 : Local image page deleted, the actual image is from Commons (commons:Image:Flag of the Holy Roman Empire.png), we have no juristriction there, see commons:Commons:Deletion guidelines for how to request deletion at Commons. --Sherool (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag of the Holy Roman Empire.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CenturionZ 1 (notify | contribs).

• The image does not represent a flag or banner of the Holy Roman Empire. The image is not supported by any sources, and statements in the desciption indicate that it is a self-made image based on symbols of heraldry representing other entities that only came into existence after the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. -- Domino theory (talk) 15:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the image is hosted on the commons, so we can't delete it. Addhoc (talk) 20:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See long discussion and compromise reached here. Centy – reply• contribs – 21:18, 29 February 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 Delete , licensing is faulty, no fair use rationale, invalid claim of free use challenged and image deleted on Commons, use appears to be questionable per policy anyway and "found on the web somewhere" images require a lot better than that. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vincennes shot.jpg

Image:Vincennes shot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alborz Fallah (notify | contribs).

• Unencyclopedic. Wikipedia:Images#Pertinence and encyclopedicity states that the image origin must be properly referenced. "In the case of an image not directly attributed to its creator, it is not sufficient to merely indicate the image's immediate source (such as an URL), but the identity of the image's content must be given. Images that are not properly identified are unencyclopedic and hence not useful for Wikipedia." The image is being used on Iran Air Flight 655 and is said to represent a victim, however little is known about its origin or its subject. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This image was the subject of Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images/2008 February 4#Image:Vincennes shot.jpg as the proper license and author are not known. The PUI was closed without a determination of the proper license, but with no judgment on encyclopedicity due to the lack of a proper caption. --Dual Freq (talk) 00:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The licensing issue should not be a factor here since it appears to be of Iranian origin, which means it has no copyright protection in the United States. Without any decent source info, however, it's certainly questionable on an encyclopedic basis. -- Hux (talk) 02:57, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep please note that mentioned Wikipedia:Images is not a wikipolicy but it is a guideline and as the top of page says should be treated with common sense, and in the occasional situation where common sense tells you to do something else, you can be bold and ignore them.

In this case, we are facing a systematic censorship effort by few users who want this particular picture out of Iran Air Flight 655 article. Please see article's Talk:Iran Air Flight 655 and history page to see they have tried many venues to ensure the picture would not be in that article. This call for deletation is just the newest step.

Picture is from a legitimate and well-established government agancy in Iran which has the duty of publishing Iran-Iraq war related material (this incident happened during that war). As for the lack of info about the photographer, it is a historical photo, at the time it was not the practice of government to publish photographer info. The subject of photo is very clear, it is from a photo gallery named: "The American warship's attack on Iranian plane" with pictures all about Iran Air Flight 655 incident, see the gallery here [1].

I hope we all accept facing what has happened in past and learn from it rather than try to cover it up or ignore it. Farmanesh (talk) 04:01, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The web gallery that you describe is not an Iranian government website. See About page. "The Foundation for The Remembrance of The Holy Defence’s Monument Preservation and Sacred Values Propagation" (FRHDMPSVP) is not an Iranian government agency. The Iranian government would provide proper captions and would not have a blog section. Just because the site ends with .ir does not mean it is an official government website. This image could depict anything or anyone, and an encyclopedia can not use images that have no sources and do not describe what they depict. We can not play guess the caption games in an encyclopedia article. --Dual Freq (talk) 04:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am amazed you sound so sure about the nature of this foundation! This foundation is indeed a government foundation, I am not guessing here. It is a well-known government foundation in its feild. And just b/c they have a page which looks like blog to you won't change their nature! Here is the website of this foundation [2]. Here it says the head of it is General BagherZadeh (he is a general in Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution). There are thousends of sites refering to this foundation [3].

The gallery has clear title and subject. the only part you are right is that it does not give details about photographer and that is not enough to delete the picture.

I think both sides of argument have already given their side of reasoning clear enough if one reads the article talk page. I don't see any new points being said here. I wonder what would be the next move in the quest for cencorship of this picture.Farmanesh (talk) 04:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where you got that name, but the website we're talking about says it is directed by Hamid Davodabadi. This website also has a gallery of Rachel Corrie here, but none of those pictures were taken in, by or for Iran and some appear to be press photos from the US. I also do not know what Rachael Corrie has to do with the Holy Defence in the Iran Iraq war which this site is supposedly dedicated to. The image we're talking about is being used to depict a victim recovered from water several hours after being in an airplane traveling at 9,000+ feet and several hundred miles per hour which was hit and exploded by two missiles. With no caption, we are left to assume that this is true even though it seems unlikely. It is not censorship to remove a picture when we have no idea what it actually depicts. The image is unencyclopedic, we can not guess at captions in an encyclopedia. --Dual Freq (talk) 12:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is need for a clarification. I put it below.Farmanesh (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment and clarification Few clarifications:

Relation between "The Foundation for The Remembrance of The Holy Defence’s Monument Preservation and Sacred Values Propagation" (FRHDMPSVP) and Sajed.ir: Sajed.ir (which this photo comes from it) is a project of FRHDMPSVP, as About page says: "The Complete Website on The Holy Defence (Sajed)". Its Managing director is 'Hamid Davodabadi' but even in the same page it says "For this sake and by the thought and council of “Mirfeisal Bagherzadeh”, the headed guard and minister of the (FRHDMPSVP)". In fact 'Hamid Davodabadi' is a project director (Sajed.ir project) in FRHDMPSVP where “Mirfeisal Bagherzadeh” is the manager of whole FRHDMPSVP.

"The Foundation for The Remembrance of The Holy Defence’s Monument Preservation and Sacred Values Propagation" (FRHDMPSVP) or "بنیاد حفظ آثار و نشر ارزش های دفاع مقدس" in Persian is a 100% governmental foundation in Iran with a duty which is clear from foundation's long name. They are basically in charge of historical parts of Iran-Iraq war. The foundation's website is [4]. The head of foundation as mentioned above is General “Mirfeisal Bagherzadeh” (who is a General or سردار in Army of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution). Here is the contact form with him [5] wtith the title of (contact with the head of the foundation "تماس با ریاست بنیاد") and gives Bagherzadeh's email. Here is also a picture of him from that site: [6]. If you don't belive me you are welcome to ask from any Persian speaker to verify this. There are many of us on Wikipedia.

A clarification of the word "Foundation": A reason for the disbelief of our fellow wikipedians about nature of this website and whether it belongs to government or not may lie under the understanding of the word 'foundation'. In US and many countries Foundation (USA) means a non-governmental non-profit while in some other countries like Iran foundations are nonprofit but they are either governmental or non-governmental: Foundation (nonprofit organization). The are number of foundations in Iran which are 100% governmental, biggest of them is "Foundation for poor بنیاد مستضعفان" which is so large that is a big junk of Iran economy [7] [8] . FRHDMPSVP is one of these governmental nonprofit foundations in Iran which has started Sajed.ir as one of their projects. FRHDMPSVP is well-established and well-known in its feild. Again feel free to check any of these with others in wikipedia who know Iran or Persian language.Farmanesh (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The site it comes from is extremely questionable in the copyright department, for one thing you can't take a picture of an image on your TV and then release it under the {{GFDL}} as this site claims to, do:you can even see the interlacing. Then there are the secondary issues of it not being in English to identify what the image is of for those who don't read Persian or if it really is a victim of flight 655 not a Palestinian in the wrong place when fighting broke out. If this were an image from Al-jazeera or another major news source I'd happily discuss a fair use rationale (In hindsight the image appears to not really add anything to the article except bias, so arguing fair use for something that violates WP:NPOV would be dumb) but as I said on the article's talk page, we have no idea where this image came from before sajed.ir and just because we got it from Iran doesn't mean that's where it's from. Anynobody 06:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are major problems with the image itself

It doesn't identify the author of Image:Vincennes shot.jpg but claims he/she/it released the image under GFDL The image itself is not identified in any way, Who is this person? Where was it taken,? etc. It has the site's watermark The site it comes from claims images as it's own like photos of Rachel Corrie* ( Photo 2 and Photo 1) which CNN credits to someone else *Also the site is supposed to be about the Iran-Iraq war, what does she have to do with it?

• Here's what I mean by identifying an image, Airliners.net:EP-IBR This photo of an Iran Air Airbus A300B2-203 was teken by Shary(Shahram) in Iran, on June 2, 1987 at Tehran - Mehrabad International (THR / OIII), it is not Airliners.net's image as it clearly says on the image itself. (Airliners.net provides a watermark to help ensure people don't merely copy the image as their own.)

In short

Shary(Shahram) uploaded this picture to Airliners.net for the site to include in its photo library under these terms.
 ????? uploaded this picture to sajed.ir or sajed.ir download this image from ????? and if so did ????? grant permission to sajed.ir? Anynobody 04:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder why you used extremely big fonts? I guess you are trying to show your emotion on the matter. I think we would have given same respect to your point without usage of such font.

I think you are a bit mixing things here. There has already been a discussion about copyright of the picture before. Here as the lead says we are talking about Pertinence and encyclopedicity.Farmanesh (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess you are trying to show your emotion on the matter. Not really, guess you missed the edit summary. Honestly I wasn't talking to those who've been party to this debate from the beginning. For those just browisng the Images and media for deletion board big letters make that easier. I think we would have given same respect to your point without usage of such font. I really don't think you would regardless of how big the letters are, as it's the point I've been trying to make to you and others, yet we're still here discussing an image who's source is questionable. I understand it came from sajed.ir, but they didn't make the image did they? Rather it looks like they simply acquired images from various sources and included them in a gallery with their watermark.
• I think you are a bit mixing things here. There has already been a discussion about copyright of the picture before. Nope I'm not, you are and here's how. The discussion before was about whether or not this is an unfree image, after all look at the name of the board where the discussion occurred Possibly Unfree Images, it's where the copyright status of images is established not where decisions are made about keeping them. (Yes I know the closing editor said:Kept. The image may be in the public domain, or it may be GFDL, or failing that it may even be fair use. I see little danger in keeping this photo, and we try to Avoid copyright paranoia, so I'm keeping it. But they were obviously confusing that board with this one where images are either kept or not. Had the image been determined to be a copyrighted one that doesn't mean it must be deleted it just means a fair use rationale must exist. As you can see from the comment, they didn't help at all in deciding whether this is or is not a copyrighted image.) My point in that respect, copyright, is that for all we know this was a photo from some photographer's online portfolio that was appropriated by sajed.ir. They clearly don't concern themselves with copyright the same way we do, by posting images taken from a TV screen with a camera as well as posting images taken from major media in their Palestinian gallery. In short I want those who really don't feel like reading every post we've made to understand that the site has major issues. Anynobody 05:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Example of copyright issue with the site, here is a perfect example of it taking credit for other's work: Bulldozer photos, credited to the Int'l solidarity movement and AP Here we have the same pictures, credited to sajed.ir, Bottom CNN photo and Top CNN photo Anynobody 05:39, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, image's ultimate source and the validity of its license are both very unclear. Its encyclopedic value is also unclear, but since that's a matter of opinion, it's not as strong as an argument as the fact that there is a high probability of this image being a copyvio. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 07:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment sajeed.ir does indeed appear to be an Iranian government supported official archive, much to my surprise, dedicated to the memory of the Iran-Iraq war.[9] They appear to use blogging-type software to organise their website, but do not allow comments. I originally doubted the GFDL claim for this photo, but am now coming to the view that this claim is probably correct. WHOIS for this domain gives the registrant as "Foundation of Effects Protection and Publication of Holy Defence".[10] Rwendland (talk) 11:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say government of Iran on that page? What does Rachel Corrie have to do with the Iran/Iraq war? --Dual Freq (talk) 12:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(speculation) I'm wondering if, in part (eg Memories section), the website has an oral-history type project, where members can upload their own photos from the war. That could explain the blog-type software, registration option & use of GFDL. (government) Quite a lot of museums etc don't say they are government supported/owned on "About us" pages,[11] but they are. I don't think you should expect that to necessarily be plainly written on its English language page. Rwendland (talk) 14:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep,
  A-Pertinence A1-The web gallery is an Iranian government website A2- The image origin is relatively referenced (in Persian) in the page [12] "حمله نظامی ناو آمریکائی به هواپیما ایرباس جمهوری اسلامی ایران " Translated as :"American warship's attack to the airbus of Islamic republic of Iran"(All of the 16 picture in that gallery is about this accident and that itself shows the "pertinence")
  B-Copyright is no problem , discussed before
  C-Possible new facilities: The foundation (FRHDMPSVP) is an active one. I can contact with it and ask for detailed information, but the problem is indeed what if I ask them and the opposing group deny the genuineity of their answer? Is it sufficient to ask them for adding a more detailed information to the page or do am I supposed to ask for a sealed paper and scan it to show here? Would there be any doubt about the validity of the official seal of the foundation? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To show the "pertinence" ,please look at the other picture in that gallery : just one picture after our image .It is written in the paper "پیکر پاک شهید محمد کشکولی فرزند سیروس" that translates to "The holy body of martyr MOHAMMAD KASHKOULI son of CYRUS" , then now please look at this page :The list of the victims and the number 247 in the list is the MOHAMMAD KASHKOULI! That shows the validity and pertinence of that picture.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image you are linking is a different subject and does not appear to be the same as the image discussed here which has no caption. It has not been established that this is an "Iranian government website" as you suggest. Many foundations or groups separate from governments receive government money. That does not make the foundation a government website. --Dual Freq (talk) 23:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-Pertinence:
A1-The web gallery is an Iranian government website
Where does it say so, in English? (I hope you realize how inconsiderate to our readers it is to link pages they can't read, or to put it another way, how would people in Iran feel if we loaded up an encyclopedia of theirs with sources they can't read? This leads into your next point)
2- The image origin is relatively referenced (in Persian) in the page
B-Copyright is no problem ,
According to one person who admitted they didn't* know the copyright status.
C-Possible new facilities: The foundation (FRHDMPSVP) is an active one. I can contact with it and ask for detailed information...
Well now I know why they added GFDL to their site, but whether you can contact them or not is irrelevant to the fact we don't know where they got their images from. *That's really important as it was still a possibly unfree image after the debate. Anynobody 04:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if someone is doubting the copyright and/or genuineity of an image ,there should be a practical way of solving that problem :if contacting with the publishing foundation is not the answer , then what's your suggestion?! In short, you are doubting a government and you say "we don't know where they got their images from" even if the foundation itself officially write and announce it! If you think when it comes to other nations than western ones , there is no confidence and no authority for their official institutions, then that's a dead end and no further effort can do anything to solve it --Alborz Fallah (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been in contact with them though, where do they say it came from? (I'm not doubting the Iranian government, I am doubting the fact that the Iranian government really is involved with this website though.) Anynobody 05:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I provided a detailed explanation on why this is a government site above under 'comment and clarification', please refer to that. Farmanesh (talk) 15:11, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sure did, essentially saying: "بنیاد حفظ آثار و نشر ارزش های دفاع مقدس" means it's an Iranian gov't funded site. Here's the problems:

• 1. Most readers of the English Wikipedia don't read Persian.
• 2. Because the site makes erroneous claims elsewhere, such as the two Rachael Corrie images mentioned by Dual Freq which I found on CNN that sajed.ir is releasing as GFDL:CNN • Bottom CNN photo and Top CNN photo, even if that's what the Persian script says doesn't make it true*. (*Besides being funded by the government and a government site are actually two different things. For example USGS.gov is the US government's geology site and as such all images etc. are public domain, The Smithsonian Institution is a museum which receives government funds who's images etc. may be copyrighted.) Anynobody 04:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• 1. Feel free to check with many wikipedians who know persian about this, it is an easy thing to do.
• 2. We are talking about this particular picture, and we have no specific reason to belive there is any copyright problem with it. There are speculations one might always have but there have been enough reasoning offered here to counter those. I think by now your POV is clear as well as POV of those who don't agree with you.

I think we should now wait and see what others might have to add to the matter rather than we just say what we have already said again and again.Farmanesh (talk) 04:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to check with many wikipedians who know persian about this, it is an easy thing to do. So where should we note that in the article for anyone else who might wonder in the future? (Seriously I'm not speaking from my POV alone but also future skeptical readers.

We are talking about this particular picture... right, how do we know this picture isn't also appropriated from somewhere? Anynobody 05:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to add the translation beside it and mention it was checked by several wikipedians (naming their user name), if anyone doesn't belive is welcome to check with someone else. I don't think this part is specific to our case or a major difficulty here.

The website we are refering to is a government website from a well-established organization. If they claim an issue I think they have enough credibility to be taken by their words. If one wants to dispute that government claim, the burden of proof is with that one person. Going around and finding a completly seperate picture on the site and then start speculations on that is a diversion from the main topic and an unjustified generalization. In my view, if there is any claim directly relating to this particular photo, then it should be reviewed. An example of that is the lack of name of photographer which we have already discussed.Farmanesh (talk) 13:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bottom line is after all the speculation about who owns the site, we still have no idea what this image depicts. We can't represent an image as a picture of a victim when we do not know that to be true. Images that are not properly identified are unencyclopedic and hence not useful for Wikipedia. --Dual Freq (talk) 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How come you say "we still have no idea what this image depicts", we all know this is an image from a gallery with a very clear subject. Be fair, say we don't know who took the picture or who the girl is, but "we still have no idea" seems delibration in ignoring the facts. We have established the nature of site and the subject of picture. We however don't know the exact history of the picture and photographer. There are two POVs here, one sees the availble infomartion enough to keep the picture and other POV sees them inadequate. Farmanesh (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for a number of reasons: (1) Original source and circumstances of the photo remain unclear; (2) Copyright status of the photo remains unclear (the page of the web gallery in which the item appears has the footer "Copyright © 2006 - www.sajed.ir", creating a presumption of copyright, with no documentation to back up assertions of permissions by any rights holders; (3) Photo does not add anything particular to the encyclopedia, in that it simply depicts a deceased person with apparent traumatic injuries. --MCB (talk) 04:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all excellent points, especially 2 I can't believe I missed it claiming copyright in the same place it claims GFDL. Anynobody 05:53, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works released under the GFDL are still copyrighted. The GFDL is just a way of explaining the conditions under which the work can be reused and derivatives from it made. If someone reuses a GFDL work and does not follow the terms of the GFDL, it's a copyright violation. However, to be released under the GFDL, a copy of the entire GFDL has to be included with it. If this image has a copyright notice, but no mention of the GFDL, and no copy of the GFDL accompanies it (e.g. on a separate page at the same website), then it's just "conventionally" copyrighted. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:30, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to appear disagreeable, but that's actually incorrect. Copyright dictates the creator is allowed to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other, related rights. wheras the GFDL does not allow the creator such controls. (They do both say the creator should be credited though.) Anynobody 08:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, exactly. By releasing his work under the GFDL, the creator is determining "who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other, related rights", namely, anyone who follows the specifications of the GFDL. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that we have no idea who is the creator of this image or what it depicts since the source website does not provide any details about the image. --Dual Freq (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should be a bit more specific, Copyright is a law whereas a license, like GFDL or Creative Commons, are a facet of it. Material that is copyrighted can only be used if the creator grants license to do so (outside of fair use etc.). By releasing something as GFDL it gives anyone a blank check to use/modify the work provided credit is given to the creator. Whereas copyrighted material not released under such a license can't be used/modified legally whether credit is given or not without the owner grabting their own license. (Like licensing Warner bros. cartoon characters to sell stuff like minivans, snack food, etc. where royalties are paid.) They're claiming copyright without explaining terms of the GFDL, the license they're claiming to release the photos under. In other words enforcing something they give no info about. Anynobody 03:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree this photo is not GFDL. I'm just saying that the presence of a copyright notice is not inherently incompatible with release under the GFDL. If I wrote a book, I could release it under the GFDL and still write "© 2008 Angr" on it. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 06:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the copyright issue is still a case to worry about, you need to clarify the notion for deletation. This thread opened up as to review if picture is unencyclopedic or not. Farmanesh (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Angr I agree, GFDL isn't throwing away all of one's copyright. However on your book you'd also include the terms of GFDL, in addition to the copyright notice (I assume, correct me if I'm wrong).

Farmanesh we aren't required to agree with the nominator's reasons to think an image should be deleted. (If we were it would mean creating threads for every reason it should be deleted. In cases like this, that could be a tad excessive.) Anynobody 23:19, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Copyright is a matter that was discussed before.I don't think reopening it here is useful.--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alborz Fallah it was indeed discussed, and determined to still be a possibly unfree image, a discussion that determines nothing isn't very helpful so I don't really understand why you keep referring to it. Anynobody 03:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep rename. Our article Iran and copyright issues says "According to Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office, Iran has no official copyright relations whatsoever with the United States." Since this image appears to be of Iranian origin, there should not be a copyright issue here, as en.wikipedia operates under U.S. law. No one disputes the fact that children were killed in the shoot down of flight 655, nor that bodies were recovered, and is is not unreasonable to assume the bodies were photographed. So there is no reason to suspect the Iranian government has faked this image. I think the image serves to illustrate the true nature of this tragedy. Wikipedia is not censored and this image belongs here. However I would prefer a more descriptive name.--agr (talk) 14:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How can a more descriptive name be given since we don't know what this image actually depicts? Since "no one disputes the fact that children were killed in the shoot down of flight 655, nor that bodies were recovered, and is is not unreasonable to assume the bodies were photographed" then does that mean we can take any uncaptioned image from the internet and say they represent the casualties of this incident? No, we need reliable sourced images with proper captions otherwise we are just guessing, speculating and "assuming" what the image depicts. It is not encyclopedic to guess at an image's caption. --Dual Freq (talk) 02:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the image itself lacks certain information. However, Image belongs to a gallery which has clear subject and caption directly related which makes it completely clear this image is from the incident. Ignoring the gallery and its subject would not be useful. Farmanesh (talk) 02:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That gallery provides no caption for this image, only the gallery's name. Are we supposed to believe that this image depicts a victim recovered from water several hours after being in an airplane traveling at 9,000+ feet and several hundred miles per hour when it was hit and exploded by two missiles? This image could be anything, someone injured or killed during rescue/recovery operations or during protests related to the incident or tt could be placed in the wrong gallery by the webmaster of the site that hosts the image. We can't say this is a victim when we don't know anything about the image except that it came from that site. We don't know what the image depicts and that is the problem. Anyone can put an image gallery on the internet, the image is worthless to wikipedia and unencyclopedic without a proper caption. For us to guess at a caption is not proper and below wikipedia standards. We're not here to play guess the caption games with images. "Images that are not properly identified are unencyclopedic and hence not useful for Wikipedia." --Dual Freq (talk) 03:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too prefered if image had its own caption but you take it extreme by saying "we don't know anything about the image except that it came from that site", we at least know it is from a gallery with clear caption related to the incident.

Also when you say "Anyone can put an image gallery on the internet, the image is worthless to wikipedia " that is also extreme. We have given clear information above about this website that it is not just "any website" but it is a website owned by a government foundation which has the mandate of publishing these historicall images and stories. Farmanesh (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at this image in the context of the gallery in which it appears [13], it's significance is perfectly clear. There are images of aircraft fragments, bodies in the water, bodies on the shore, photographers taking pictures of a body, the Vincennes firing a missile. Captions are not needed here. I would note that the next image in the sequence is a body with a sign on it. A translation of that sign might be helpful. --agr (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. The image you mentioned [14] has a sign which can be translated as: "The pure body of martyr Mohammad Kashkooli son of Cyrus (Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting)". I don't realy have doubt about the direct relevence of this gallery and its pictures to the article but I am happy to clarify as far as I can. Farmanesh (talk) 20:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question for agr you said: Keep rename. Our article Iran and copyright issues says "According to Circular 38a of the U.S. Copyright Office, Iran has no official copyright relations whatsoever with the United States." What if they, sajed.ir, were to take a copyrighted image from an American source, posted it as their own, we used it, and then the owner came along to sue us because we used their image AND gave credit to a site in Iran which essentially stole it? They've done it before with other copyrighted images, note the images in this CNN article Bulldozer photos, credited to the Int'l solidarity movement and AP Here we have the same pictures, credited to sajed.ir, Bottom CNN photo and Top CNN photo. It's obvious that these images are not theirs to release. Since Iran doesn't have copyright relations here I doubt that sajed.ir would be affected by our copyright laws. Don't forget, Farmanesh and Alborz Fallah keep pointing to the discussion on possibly unfree images which determined that it's still a possibly unfree image. Anynobody 02:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I say above, the Web site is clearly asserting that the image was taken in the immediate aftermath of the shoot down as bodies were recovered. As such, the image could only have been taken in Iran. There is a fair question as to how much we can rely on the assertions of a Web site that we obtain images from. Certainly it is possible that any given Web site is misrepresenting the images it displays. But in this case it seems particularly unlikely. No one disputes the incident happened or that the Iranians recovered bodies. There is even an image of photographers photographing a body. One possible compromise, however, might be to substitute the next image, which is labeled, since its provenance is more clear cut (we could even check the name against a list of passengers).--agr (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As such, the image could only have been taken in Iran. There are so many problems with that statement, but let's say you're right, and the photo taken by a foreign journalist in Iran. The fact that the picture was taken in Iran doesn't make it theirs (Iranian). This photo was taken in Iran and it's also copyrighted. Where the image is taken is secondary to who took it, so even if we assume this was indeed a picture of a dead kid from the flight, we still don't know who took it and therefore who owns it. This board is actually for discussing deletion of the image, not its use in any particular article so points like No one disputes the incident happened or that the Iranians recovered bodies. and One possible compromise, however, might be to substitute the next image, which is labeled, since its provenance is more clear cut about the Iran Air article would be better addressed there. (Which I'm happy to do if you like, I just don't want to get too off topic here.) Anynobody 04:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible that a foreign photographer took this image, but that does not seem particularly likely. There would have been plenty of images taken by local photographers. Why would the Web site go out of its way to grab a foreign photographer's image? I don't think we should delete images based on merely hypothetical scenarios. As for my compromise proposal, I think attempts to find a consensus resolution of a controversy are always in order. If we can get the uploader to agree to substitute a better-attributed image, that would be one way to resolve the present dispute. --agr (talk) 14:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see enough reason why current picture should be deleted. That said, I agree with your compromise proposal. Our goal is to have a depiction of reality and [15] has that. It has more information in the picture (even better than a caption). Farmanesh (talk) 04:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly possible that a foreign photographer took this image, but that does not seem particularly likely. That's actually not my question though, I asked what if that possibility turned out to be true and we got sued for 1) Using someone's copyrighted photo without persmission 2) Giving credit for the photo to someone else.

Why would the Web site go out of its way to grab a foreign photographer's image? To answer your question, the same reason many people use copyrighted work on the web incorrectly; they simply don't know or understand how copyright works, I'm not saying they went out of their way to get the non-free images, just that they have some. (Like the photos of Rachel Corrie, I assume they found them on another website and simply downloaded them.)

I don't think we should delete images based on merely hypothetical scenarios. Please understand that because the site has already been shown to be using copyrighted photos elsewhere, not only without giving credit, but actually claiming it with their watermark the scenario is less hypothetical than one might think.
The copyright issues are inescapable:
*1 The photo is tagged as {{GFDL}} meaning the creator has released the image under it.
*2 The creator isn't identified, therefore we can't verify this status. Since the site has already been shown to use other's images, coupled with this contradiction, keeping the image to use in one article as somebodies WP:OR POV tool isn't worth the risk. Anynobody 04:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - And AFD is not a vote so we can safely use the arguments of POV and copyright issues to ignore the "Keep" arguments and delete right away. The image is guilty until proven innocent. Let's delete the image as soon as possible. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possible compromise?

First to address Anynobody last comment. We have no basis for assuming the site used the photos of Rachel Corrie without permission. The Iranian site http://www.sajed.ir/en/ does say "GFDL" in their copyright notice. I am not a lawyer, so I can't say to what extent we can rely on license assertions from another web site. That said, I suggest it would be preferable to use a photo with a better provenance and moot this discussion. If Farmanesh agrees, I would suggest he upload the image with the sign under a new name, perhaps IA655victim, or the person's name. Then we can delete this image without prejudice under G7--Author's request. The new image description should include a translation of the sign and a mention of the original language (Persian I assume). For license, it might say that the photo is a work of the Iranian broadcasting and the U.S. does not have copyright relations with Iran. It might also mention that the source site asserts a GFDL license. Is this generally acceptable?--agr (talk) 12:28, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should look for a compromise. Another possibility is this image [16] from video shown on TV at the time and referred to in the press ("Iranian television broadcast scenes of bodies floating amid scattered debris"[17] [18], "the videotape of bodies floating amid the wreckage was a horrifying reminder"[19]). It illustrates the horror of the incident without a close-up of anyone, or blood. The image was also likely taken by an Iranian govt employee on the rescue, released to the media. An historic-image fair use argument can be made for this image regardless of copyright issues. Rwendland (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with agr. Just as Alborz originally uploaded the main image, I will let him some time to both give us his feedback and if he wants upload the image. He would be around soon I hope.Farmanesh (talk) 13:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

agr, We have no basis for assuming the site used the photos of Rachel Corrie without permission. We actually do and it's related to what you said later: The Iranian site http://www.sajed.ir/en/ does say "GFDL" in their copyright notice. Here's a {{GFDL}} image, and its GNU Free Documentation License, note the terms are expressly discussed along with the author. Whenever someone applies this stamp to an image it means that they should be able to link to the actual license for that image like the one in the last link. This is not that information, it just says the uploader, Alborz, knows where to find it:

Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation; with no Invariant Sections, no Front-Cover Texts, and no Back-Cover Texts.

What does this have to do with the Corrie pics? If you look they too are being released by sajed.ir under a GFDL, the problem is they aren't sajed's images to release under GFDL (remember the author does that, and in this case it was International Solidarity Movement who took the picture.Sajed.ir doesn't mention whether it's been licensed to them or not and in fact doesn't even mention the owner, ISM.

Rwendland, Farmanesh, and agr I assume you mean an image to replace this one on Iran Air Flight 655? Proposing a substitute for an article's image is something you'd want to do on that article's talk page Talk:Iran Air Flight 655. Anynobody 02:54, 13 March 2008

I am proposing a compromise where the image so hotly debated here would be voluntarily withdrawn in favor of a new image that has a better provenance. This is the place to discuss whether this image belongs on Wikipedia. If we can get to a consensus that's is a good thing. What goes in the IA655 article is a separate matter.--agr (talk) 08:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are strictly right that a substitute image discussion should be on the talk page - I floated this idea over a month ago at Talk:Iran_Air_Flight_655#Possible_alternative. It didn't gain general support then, but I'm hoping after all this inconclusive discussion here it might be looked on more favourably now as a reasonable compromise? Rwendland (talk) 11:13, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my compromise. Delete this image immediately and instead find a reliably sourced image of Iranian family members protesting the shootdown or something like that. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:09, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rwendland I stand by what I said before about another image from the same site (it'd be a double standard to cite copyright issues as the reason to delete this image yet accept another with the same "baggage".) I can certainly go for something along the lines of what WhisperToMe proposed. Anynobody 06:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I've copied this to Commons at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Vincennes_shot.jpg. I see no compelling reason to not believe the open source/GFDL claim, and we don't delete free images for trivial, political, or POV reasons, no matter how distasteful they may be. Lawrence § t/e 15:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other people are saying that the website is not trustworthy with its licenses (See Anynobody's comments above) - I will let commons know about this dispute. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the copyright status has disputed I have used a typical commons deletion nomination process - Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Image:Vincennes shot.jpg WhisperToMe (talk) 15:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WhisperToMe, when you say "Other people are saying that the website is not trustworthy", do you consider that is just a POV and some others have other POV and have brought reasons for it? I would be happy to read your reasoning to the answers we have provided all above on the matter and the 'clarifications' we have made. Farmanesh (talk) 19:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as a Wikipedia:POV - I see it as a judgment of whether a source is reliable. How is that site a government site? How do we know that the girl is really an IR655 girl? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lets focus our discussion on one page, I propose finishing our talk on Article's talk page. Please see my answer to your comments there. Farmanesh (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence, this image isn't gonna last on the commons, someone's already nominated it for deletion there. They are way stricter about accepting only verified non-free content.

Farmanesh you're still missing the point about this discussion. It's not about using the image in the article, it's about keeping it on wikipedia here. Whether it's deleted or not doesn't dictate it must be used in the article, it's why I've been making WP:NPOV arguments there and copyright points here. Anynobody 05:07, 15 March 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 Delete (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Image:Rftr.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ledgers (notify | contribs).

• Duplicate of Image:Malcolm McFee.jpg, which has better licensing information Roleplayer (talk) 02:58, 29 February 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 Delete (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

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

• Duplicate of Image:Malcolm McFee.jpg, which has better licensing information Roleplayer (talk) 02:58, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:42, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ar15-2(1).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cavell (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE Undeath (talk) 03:24, 29 February 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. Image could be used in a separate article on the DVD or if there was significant commentary on the DVDs in this article but they were just decorative failing WP:NFCC #8. -Nv8200p talk 02:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dante's Cove DVD covers

Image:Dcdvd1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Otto4711 (notify | contribs).

Image:Dcdvd2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Otto4711 (notify | contribs).

Image:Dcboxset.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Otto4711 (notify | contribs).

• These images are being used at Dante's Cove#DVD releases in a table of DVD releases. This is the same as being used in a gallery or discography, where they fail the significance criterion of the non-free content policy; see "Images" under Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable use. Delete all. —Angr ^{If you've written a quality article...} 05:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and speedy close - it says right in the licensing tag that DVD cover images may be used, and I quote, "to illustrate the DVD in question". These images are being used to illustrate the DVDs in question. There is no reference to DVD covers at Wikipedia:NFC#Unacceptable use and if the nominator believes that this guideline should be expanded to address DVD covers then the nominator should take it up on the guideline's talk page instead of trying to backdoor it by nominating a few images. Otto4711 (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Angr is a deletionist. These images have Fair Use Rationales, and probably only need to be lowered in resolution quality to count. A movie poster for the movie would be preferable, however. Guroadrunner (talk) 15:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - doesn't meaningfully help the reader to understand the article. Addhoc (talk) 20:31, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fdgfds.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thomas W. White III (notify | contribs).

• Probably an image of the uploader. UE and OR. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:38, 29 February 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 Delete (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 00:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Image:Chinghai sidney1993.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Truthexplorer (notify | contribs).

• Not a bit-by-bit copy of Image:ChingHai Sydney in 1993.jpg but should be close enough in case of objections. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:49, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ResultsGraph_01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jamiearellanes1 (notify | contribs).

• Not used, no source is given for the image itself or the data used to create and and the license info only says "pd becaue educational purpose"... Sherool (talk) 10:45, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Catchlights-example-Pablo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Akb4 (notify | contribs).

• Not used, uploader claims the image is CC-BY licensed, however on Flickr the image is listed as "All rights reserved", guess it's possible the user changed it unfortunately we don't have a way to verify that. Sherool (talk) 12:21, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Campbell-hs.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sirwalt23 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:40, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ilyssa_and_Amanda_in_2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jasontoff (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:42, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Campers_Playing_Tennis_in_2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jasontoff (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:42, 29 February 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 Delete (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Image:Melissa_and_Megan_2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jasontoff (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete -- personal info is presented in description of non-notable/non-public figures. Guroadrunner (talk) 15:44, 29 February 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 Delete (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 00:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Image:Mike_and_Kevin_in_2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jasontoff (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - Ditto to one above. Guroadrunner (talk) 15:45, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Camppals2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jasontoff (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:46, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Camppals1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jasontoff (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:47, 29 February 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. Commons showing through -Nv8200p talk 02:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Appletree.jpg

Image:Appletree.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mistman123 (notify | contribs).

• Image now available on Wikimedia Commons as Appletree.jpg ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 15:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Camuyrivcaverns.jpg

Image:Camuyrivcaverns.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mistman123 (notify | contribs).

• Image now available on Wikimedia Commons as Camuyrivcaverns.jpg ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Curacaobridges.jpg

Image:Curacaobridges.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mistman123 (notify | contribs).

• Image now available on Wikimedia Commons as Curacaobridges.jpg ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 16:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dolphin.jpg

Image:Dolphin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mistman123 (notify | contribs).

• Image now available on Wikimedia Commons as Dolphin.jpg ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 16:14, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Orphaned, Absent uploader, maybe Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 18:07, 29 February 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 Delete (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 00:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Image:RetardoDeeDee.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jebus ShortBus (notify | contribs).

• non-encyclopedic Xiong Chiamiov ::contact:: ^help! 19:29, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Capt_Toms_World_Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cpttom1 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 19:34, 29 February 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 Delete (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Image:Capt._S.U.Aladeniya.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Lahiru_k (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 19:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Requested for CSD under G7. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie | tool box} 13:39, 1 March 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 Delete (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 00:38, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

Image:1166680203 dc0d7be415 o.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jbi56 (notify | contribs).

• Very dubious that this is a correct GNU license, no copyright info on the website in the summary. Polly (Parrot) 19:41, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This image will not be needed if article Gustaf K. Bissell is deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EyeCatcher Entertainment. Nv8200p talk 20:15, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nicklas-storyboard.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zweiunt (notify | contribs).

• This image will not be needed if article Nicklas Sternegård is deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EyeCatcher Entertainment Nv8200p talk 20:17, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Exp1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zweiunt (notify | contribs).

• This image will not be needed if article Experimentet is deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EyeCatcher Entertainment. Nv8200p talk 20:18, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• This image will not be needed if article Captive (film) is deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EyeCatcher Entertainment. Nv8200p talk 20:19, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Expr2.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zweiunt (notify | contribs).

• This image will not be needed if article Experimentet 2 is deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EyeCatcher Entertainment. Nv8200p talk 20:21, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Expr2a.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zweiunt (notify | contribs).

• This image will not be needed if article Experimentet 2 is deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EyeCatcher Entertainment. Nv8200p talk 20:22, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Caracas_Stadium.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cosmo.vnz (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Absent uploader, Summary suggests that the uploader is not the copyright holder as claimed Nv8200p talk 20:26, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Image037.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JamesPVFC (notify | contribs).

• Unused image of non-notable subject (the uploader himself). Image was previously used in the article James Higginson which had been vandalized by the user and made in to an autobiography. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 20:42, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Orphaned, Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 20:43, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Orphaned, Copyright violation, Absent uploader Image:Carnival Ride - Album.PNG being used instead. Nv8200p talk 21:36, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 01:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply] 

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

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 22:06, 29 February 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 Delete. (non admin close)

--Undeath (talk) 02:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 22:24, 29 February 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.