Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 July 10

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

Kept.  There was a huge issue with Library and Archives Canada adding "No restrictions on use" to images where they didn't own the copyright, but they (eventually) made it clear they didn't own the copyright and only meant they didn't add any restrictions on use (not that they could).  Here they assert copyright and allow unrestricted use, although the confusion is understandable. WilyD 13:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ouellet_approaches_to_sign_the_Constitution.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zzyzx11 (notify | contribs).

• Sadly this image is not "free" even though the source says nil restrictions. Please see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Collard#Image:Ouellet_approaches_to_sign_the_Constitution.jpg -Nard 15:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this appears to be copyrighted. I believe it should be retained with a fair use claim for a couple of its current uses. I don't know how or if this would work for its current use in the Featured article summary, however. Rmhermen (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The version that was originally uploaded here locally by myself at 00:47, 1 August 2006 UTC was a {{c-uploaded}} image, temporary for main page protection.[1] IMO, it should have never been undeleted and restored by User:Rmhermen at 18:57, 9 July 2008, and all undeletion discussions should have remained on Commons, not here on en.wiki. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, the image can be uploaded again using Special:upload, but IMO, it was an improper undeletion to bypass a good faith, deletion on commons[2] (and this en.wiki admin did not even enter a comment in the deletion log[3] which on a first impression or glance makes it even more appear like it was improper) and I should not be the one in the current image page history, for all users to see, who is credited with the original {{c-uploaded}} version.[4] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nothing sinister here. I saw a redlink in a high visibility page (Featured Content) and restored the image. I had no reason to doubt the claim of public domain on the Library of Canada page; and, as Commons has divergent policies from English Wikipedia in several respects, there was no reason to beleive it was ineligible here. In addition, I tried to determine why it had been deleted from Commons as shown in the link above. It appears that Commons did not follow their own procedures by deleting images without removing them from the articles. Rmhermen (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently this page was not first uploaded here or was under a different title, so any additional details would have to be recovered from the deleted page on Commons by a Commons admin. Rmhermen (talk) 18:11, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable event with no free alternative available. Meets WP:NFCC in general, but needs a FUR for each instance on Wikipedia. Proper copyright notice. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per note above from — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC) --Achim (talk) 21:41, 20 July 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 per NFCC#1, replaceability, which can't be overridden even by a numeric majority of IfD voters. Nothing in the article(s) in which it is used depends for its understanding on whatever minor changes in physical appearance this person may have undergone with age, hence, a present-day free image would be perfectly adequate. (Note that WP:NFC lists the exception where "for some [...] retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career" – but the decisive thing here is "notability rests on". The guy wasn't made prime minister because of his youthful looks, presumably.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PaulKeatingPEO.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).

• Picture of a living Australian Damiens.rf 19:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not an expert on copyright law, but if a government org took the photo, then this may be a PD image. If no rationale can be made for PD, then delete. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a criticism, but I'm curious - if you don't understand copyright, why do you participate here? Do you follow the nominator's decision in just about every deletion debate? (That seems to be the case here). JRG (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said I wasn't an expert on copyright law (especially in another country); I never said I didn't understand it in general. I really don't need to be one as images must meet Wikipedia's justification for inclusion. I'm not saying that consensus is correct on this issue, but I am abiding by WP:CONSENSUS. If an exception or clarification needs to be made, the it needs to be made at WP:NFCC, not here. This page is an application of that policy. Like I said, I'm welcome to change, but the change in policy needs to be made first, then the images can be kept/resurrected by an admin. Realize that the Wikipedia servers are also in Florida and are subject to U.S. law and not Australia's. Something perfectly legal there could be illegal here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that's the case - a public domain declaration in Australia is supposed to be in effect worldwide, or at least applies in the US (IIRC that was something that was clarified by the US-AU Free Trade Agreement). You need to be careful in implying that a photo is "illegal" either - placing the photos on Wikipedia is a perfectly justified usage under both Australian and United States copyright legislation under "fair use" or "fair dealing" because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of sorts and is an educational usage under the terms of fair use images placed on the website. Wikipedia's policies are NOT fair use or dealing standards - they are much stricter (and completely farcical and unworkable IMO). Unfortunately the policy is controlled by a number of strong deletionists who have written the policy from an American perspective where all public and government images are freely available; this doesn't apply for British Commonwealth countries which largely have Crown Copyright and due to modernday security arrangements for politicians, judges and the like have immensely hard, if not impossible, chances of getting photos - but they won't understand that and no amount of argument will convice them. And I suspect there are people who agree with me on this, but no one wants to listen to us, because we are seen to want to allow illegal photo hosting on WP (which is not the case). To have to start deleting reasonable and fair images which show accurate portrayals of public figures while in office in favour of inaccurate ones is plainly ridiculous and unworkable. JRG (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please understand, I was not attempting to imply that the photo was "illegal" in any way, only describing our differences in law as a point at which there might be some confusion/contention and things under your laws are treated differently. It is no different from any country to any other; some laws are simply different with neither being "wrong" or "right". I also agree that these photos can be used in general under fair use criteria anywhere. This opens copyrights up a little to use outside their originally intended venues. That said, I also agree with you: "Wikipedia's policies are NOT fair use or dealing standards - they are much stricter..." I couldn't have said it better myself! I also agree that it is a narrow interpretation of the law (as I understand it...I'm not an expert in this area, as I stated before). That said, the policy needs to be changed on Wikipedia before these images are to be allowed to be kept. It's a matter of putting the cart before the horse...hmm, that might be an American idiom, but I think you get the point. These concerns should be addressed at Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content. If that doesn't work, you can go to a Request for comment as an attempt to illicit wider opinion from the WIkipedia Community. From there it can go all the way up to Jimbo himself, if you want to, but I recommend starting at the talk page. All of these images can be restored later by an admin if consensus changes. If you don't mind, I'd like to ask a couple admins for their opinions and see if they can't shed some light on the subject (no, not the ones that pretty much dominate here). Your thoughts. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - although Keating is still alive, he has aged significantly and no contemporary picture could do justice to what he looked like whilst in politics. His official portrait is the best thing to show that. Let's be reasonable here and have some common sense. The nominator has also been making consistent nominations of Australian images possibly in violation of WP:POINT. I ask the closing nominator to stop this nonsense and allow this image. JRG (talk) 05:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I concur with your basic assertion that the image depicts him in such a manner, but the policies of Wikipedia don't allow such wiggle room and explicitly state that the image must go if it doesn't meet certain criteria. As I said above, you are welcome to try and get the policy changed, but until such a time as that policy changes, this image (and others like it) needs to go. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:24, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this does fit with the criteria - it asks "is there a replacement for the image"? The answer is yes for Keating in general, but it's a different matter for a picture of when Keating was Prime Minister which is necessary for the article. After all, it's a matter of accuracy that we portray people properly as fitting the specific parts of an article. I'm happy for the photo to be taken out of the infobox if it is there, but as a matter of a reflective record of Keating as Prime Minister it is more important that we maintain an accurate historical record for our images. As Orderinchaos says below, Keating was Prime Minister only as the internet was starting to begin and before Wikipedia started up, so there was no chance of us being able to get a free image of him in office. A contemporary picture for the infobox is another story. I'll have a go at rearranging some of the images in the article, but I Wikipedia policy stresses accuracy as much as any other policy. JRG (talk) 08:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a photo of Paul Keating as prime minister, and the official portrait is the best we can get given his retirement from politics occurred before the Internet era began. Orderinchaos 05:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets the exception mentioned in Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 #12. This should be extended to a single image on the page, not 80 bazillion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Here's a link to a current picture of the man. He barely looks anything like the picture here, so a single image should be fine as a picture of him now would not serve an appropriate purpose. — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Nonfree image of a living person. Policy is pretty clear on this point. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 15:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Any particular policy? Which part? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  <crickets chirping>?

  • • As we thought, another person who just quotes "policy" and can't back it up. JRG (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there's noting historically significant about his appearance. So what if we use an image of him at 62 as opposed to 50? It doesn't matter. We can and should obtain a free license image of him at 62, and it will serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy is very clear on this. He's living. We don't accept fair use images of living people. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, but it should be noted, for identification purposes, if his appearance has changed it would not be accurate to show a picture of him now. Case in point. Now I realize this is an extreme example and may not exactly apply here, but where do we draw the line? Showing a picture of any child actor would defeat the purpose of identifying him. Likewise, if a clearly notable politician's appearance has changed, then why not include the previous image? It's been nearly 2 decades since his service to Australia as the Prime Minister and even more from his service in the treasury. A picture now may not reflect his image during his term as Prime Minister and not be useful. That said, there is no reason for all of these images and at least 3 need to go. I've got no problem with deleting this image if consensus sends it that way, but it is not so simply cut & dry here. The policy states "for some...retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case 'the use would be acceptable." Where do we draw the line? I don't think this is the case here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That guideline entry you quote is in dispute and likely to be removed. There are times when it is appropriate to use an image of a living person from earlier in their lives, even if the image is fair use. For example, Lakshmi Tatma. Those extra limbs have been removed, and they're not growing back. Contrast the image on John Wooden, which was taken three decades after he retired. So what if it doesn't look like how he looked 30 years ago? It's free licensed, and it's *him*. There's nothing historically significant about this prime minister's appearance that was reported in secondary sources that needs to have an image to convey the encyclopedic purpose of depiction. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• However, until it is removed, it is still a guideline which we may follow. Grk1011 (talk) 23:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Exactly. And Keating was Prime Minister when he was 50, not at 62. ONE historical photo of him when he was PM is necessary to improve the article, and since it is free to use on an encyclopedic site like WP for the purposes of research, it is the best photo to get. A general one for the infobox can be any photo of him, but not in the middle of the article. There are exceptions for fair use, and they need to be followed if Wikipedia is to have any credibility. JRG (talk) 02:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You accept a picture of him at his 50, but not at his 62? Give me a break. --Damiens.rf 06:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about what I accept. He was Prime Minister in this photo, which makes it a contemporaneously accurate portrayal of him while Prime Minister which is necessary for the article. I'm quite happy for it to be taken out of the infobox (and the 1977 photo deleted because it IS unnecessary) but it should be in the article somewhere, probably better in the section portraying his Prime Ministership. If you don't understand accuracy then you need to go away and think about why we need that, and stop participating in debates where you understand nothing about the person or the picture. JRG (talk) 06:22, 29 July 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, as per the compelling arguments given by howcheng. NFCC #8 has to be interpreted in a restrictive way in conformance with the spirit of the project's policy, which is that non-free image use must be minimal and narrowly restricted. Hence, a high threshold of significance must be used in assessing #8, and that typically can't be met if an image is simply shown as an illustration and is not itself the object of encyclopedic discussion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PaulKeatingAPEC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).

• A Copyrighted picture documenting the meeting of a couple of man. Unsure how this significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Damiens.rf 19:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Invalid source information. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how the source information is invalid? There is a valid infobox with the source listed and everything, and fair use rationales for 2 of the articles in which it is used (I will add one for the third)? JRG (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the boxes filled in doesn't equal a valid source. In this case [www.primeministers.naa.gov.au the given page] doesn't exist. It is impossible to verify the copyright status. Accordingly, the image should be deleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 15:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image now sourced. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - the image is used in three articles and the nominators concerns only arise for one of those three articles. I still think it's relevant for all three. Keating was instrumental in the early years of APEC and this will add significantly to the part of the article discussing this. On the APEC page it also fits with the discussion of the 1994 Bogor Trade Goals, and on Dr Mahathir's page it aids an understanding of how Mahathir improved Malaysia-Australia relationships (of which the APEC meetings were a large part). There is definite scope for increasing readers' understanding. This nomination is spurious at worst, and even if Damiens.rf's concerns are met (which I dispute) then it should at best only be removed from the Keating page. JRG (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - picture of a specific event (the APEC leaders' meeting) and hence not replaceable by a free image. Orderinchaos 07:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Who's talking about replaceable images? Read the nomination. --Damiens.rf 01:27, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep removed spurious images from articles and it meets all criteria now. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Strongly fails NFCC #8. A photo of a bunch of men in Indonesian shirts does not add understanding to the article at all. This may have been a historic event but there's nothing in the article that indicates this is a historic image. howcheng {chat} 21:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rubbish. Nothing says that the image itself needs to be significant - the event, an early APEC meeting where the Bogo trade agreements were signed, is a significant event, and this is one of the only photos available of an early APEC (there are definitely no free ones). The picture adds to our understanding of the early APEC events. It also one of the only early APEC photos available and needs to be kept at least on the APEC page. If you don't understand that and don't understand why we need a picture to improve our coverage of early APEC meetings (which is lacking and dominated by pictures and discussion of the latest meetings on that page) then you shouldn't be participating in deletion debates. On the Keating page, it is there because Keating was instrumental in getting APEC set up and it's important to reflect that in his article. JRG (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policies are made so that they can be applied to all articles, regardless of subject matter, in an equal manner. NFCC 8 is clear: Non-free content may be used only when it increases reader understanding in a significant manner and if it were to be omitted, reader understanding would be harmed. The article needs statements backed with reliable sources such that the image is required to fully comprehend that portion of the article. This almost always occurs when the image itself is significant. The burden of proof lies upon those who wish to keep non-free content. Your statement implies that people need to understand the context of APEC in order to understand why the image is necessary to the article, but that really makes no sense at all, because you have to imagine that a fair number of people reading the article lack such knowledge. As such, you have just proven my argument that their understanding of the topic wouldn't be helped one whit by the inclusion of the image! The scenario envisioned by NFCC 8 goes something like this: The reader goes through that portion of the article and gets some mental image about what was discussed. Then s/he sees the non-free image and suddenly the light bulb turns on above the head, "Ohhhh, I see what they're getting at now!" Again, I ask you, how does a photo of a bunch of men standing accomplish this? howcheng {chat} 08:00, 3 August 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. The exception JRG refers to is only where the appearance is notable in and of itself. howcheng  {chat} 20:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GougWhit.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).

• Copyright free image available: Image:Whitlam1955.jpg Damiens.rf 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No free alternative available. The alternative presented may not be free under US law as it was taken after 1938, and besides, is blatantly ridiculous as it was taken 17 years before he became Prime Minister, and hence risks distorting any article in which it is used. Orderinchaos 05:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Orderinchaos. The fact he is not a living person is very pertinent to this debate, and there is a severe risk of distoring Wikipedia articles. Note the NFCC now includes an exception for photos showing people in an historical view that is no longer possible. JRG (talk) 02:49, 29 July 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. JRG's argument that the official portrait is better is irrelevant. Free images must be used when available. howcheng  {chat} 20:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:William McMahon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).

• Copyright free image available: Image:Nla.pic-an23458756-v.jpg Damiens.rf 19:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - not a living person No free alternative can be obtained, the "alternative" provided (which is not absolutely certain as free under US copyright law, as it was taken after 1938) is not useful as it was taken over 20 years before the person became Prime Minister, and hence risks distorting any article in which it is used. Orderinchaos 05:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Orderinchaos. The fact he is not a living person is very pertinent to this debate, and there is a severe risk of distoring Wikipedia articles. Note the NFCC now includes an exception for photos showing people in an historical view that is no longer possible. JRG (talk) 02:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  He only looks a little older in this photo. The older one where he appears younger is sufficient for identification, IMHO — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:15, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the official photo will always be a better choice than a non-official one. JRG (talk) 06:27, 29 July 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 per NFCC#1, replaceability, which cannot be overriden by local consensus even of a numerical majority at IFD. Our rules are very clear here. The person in question, according to the article, gives public lectures, so opportunities for taking a free image exist. Nothing in the article depends on whatever minor changes in appearance may have occured with age. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nla.pic-an23505002-v.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).

• Copyrighted image showing a living Australian. Damiens.rf 19:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - The image shows Hewson during his time in office, which he is no longer there. While it should not be used as an infobox image, there is more than enough reason to keep the image as part of an article showing him during his time in office as Leader of the Opposition. The nominator has also been making consistent nominations of Australian images possiblly in violation of WP:POINT. We need some common sense here, not pure and simple black letter rule deletionism without common sense. JRG (talk) 05:18, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep - despite it being a copyright image of a living Australian, and was taken in 2001, not during his time as leader, I still am strongly against the mass deletions going on at the moment. Just because someone is living, does not mean there is any possibility of gaining a free image of them. Timeshift (talk) 01:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep --Grutness...wha? 05:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BillySnedden.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).

• Alternative available: Image:Billy Snedden.jpg Damiens.rf 19:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep This guy's appearance has changed significantly from his earlier photo. Identifying him from the older photo would not be useful in this context. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  And why is his look in the copyrighted image more important than his look on the public-domain image? He was himself in both occasions. --Damiens.rf 06:01, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - not a living person No free alternative available. The alternative presented may not be free under US law as it was taken after 1938, and besides, is blatantly ridiculous as it was taken over 20 years before he became Opposition Leader, and hence risks distorting any article in which it is used. Orderinchaos 05:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Orderinchaos. The fact he is not a living person is very pertinent to this debate, and there is a severe risk of distoring Wikipedia articles. Note the NFCC now includes an exception for photos showing people in an historical view that is no longer possible. JRG (talk) 02:46, 29 July 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.