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.
Sourced to a copyrighted website, no indication uploader is copyright owner. Looks like s/he's had several similar problems w/ other images. --Mangostar (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold off on deletion for now, I'll try and get in touch with the photographer - if I can confirm, I'll file an OTRS ticket and move the images out to the Commons. If not, I'll drop a note here confirming that they can be deleted. Videmus OmniaTalk12:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was fast! I got a reply from the photographer confirming her identity. I am working with her to upload future images to Wikimedia Commons. I will Commons-ize the above images and place her e-mail on file with the OTRS folks. Videmus OmniaTalk14:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Probably bad tagging. CBS press photos are probably not PD, and this file isn't used anywhere. (I doubt that even if the uploader is Mr. Fields, he has the legal right to release the image. --—Scott5114↗[EXACT CHANGE ONLY]04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image is a screencap of 4chan which claims to show Robert Hawkins posting his plans about the Westroads Mall shooting on /b/. Image is sole upload of user whose sole edit inserted material about 4chan's involvement to the same article. No source was provided and the image is likely photoshopped, but in light of any source to the contrary, I'm posting it here for review instead of requesting a speedy delete. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Facebook photo is impossible to verify if this is actually Kercher. For example, I cannot add her as a friend to see her photos (what I think is her account is locked). And even if I can see the photo, I cannot be certain that the account is actually her account. Being the victim of a murder, it's important to get this one right. I would be more comfortable with a fair use photo from a news site or a verifiable free photo released through alternative channels. Kelvinc (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Found it. Thanks for the hint CC. Personally, I'd still prefer something like [1], which clearly states that the source comes from police. Ultimately it seems that even the news media these days aren't much more worth their salt than the citizen mob of Wikipedia. ;-) I've decided to overwrite the existing photo with the one linked above, and thus I will withdraw this nomination. Kelvinc (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I actually uploaded another image, but now that the image has been changed to one more acceptable by someone else, it is even more important to keep. I think it's quite obvious for the image to be kept. It is of small resolution, has 0 commercial value since they have already been very widely dissimenated, and make a contribution to the article. EgraS (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
How do pictures of a program not add value to the article? A picture is worth a thousand words. You don't think this or this increases understanding of the software at all? Rettetast asked me for a rationale at first, but that wasn't good enough after all? He owes me a very big explanation why he chose to act in bad faith by going back on his word.--Gnfgb2 (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I asked for a rationale because it had no rationale at the time. Later I saw your editwar with BCB and invedtigated further if your claim of fair use satiesfied WP:NFCC. I does not. If you want to keep this image for the infobox, and remove the rest, you can do that. Rettetast (talk) 01:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above image, I think, does add to understanding that SAP ERP is used in an enterprise setting, having uses in HR as an example (as shown). But the menu bar, About screen, and Easy Access tree do not add value: Wikipedia is not a manual, so we don't need a clearly labelled diagram of the toolbar, and IIRC the functionality in the Easy Access tree is modular and customizable anyways so showing it, without any idea as to what the modules actually do, do not really help. Kelvinc (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Probable false license. Replaceable as well since the construction appears to be finished so an actual photo can now be used. --Metros (talk) 20:07, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Fair use image of a living person. Uploader keepsdeleting the "replaceable fair use" tag and comments that he does not agree with, without addressing the concerns raised there, and violating policy (the tag clearly states that it should not be removed by the uploader). To quote from the license template used for the image:
Warning sign Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project.
Merely claiming that "The photo represents a notable player at a certain signifigant [sic] point in his career (high school) that he will never be at again" does not override this. Every image of a living person shows them in a moment that they "will never be at again". The article does not need an image for every specific "point in his career". It does need an image which shows how this person looks like, but as he is only 24 years old, it is hard to understand why an image which shows him a few years younger is absolutely necessary. Besides, the image description doesn't even state which "point in his career" this was - not which game, not even which year - which raises doubts if its presence in the article "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding" (the requirement of WP:NFCC#8). High on a tree (talk) 21:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Warning sign Please note that this image of a living person is not being used to merely show what they look like and cannot be replaced by a free-licensed image and is suitable for the project.
The summary and fair use rationale already adresses the concern. You are right every image of a person shows them at a moment they will never be at again. What is important is if it is a sigfigant moment or not that is being illustrated in the image. Since we have an entire section of the article dedicated to his high school career it is obviously a signifigant point in time and including an image adds something to the article. Unless you have invented a time machine there is no way that anyone can go back in time and snap a free use image of him during that signifigant time period. What don't you understand about this? Saying that we don't need an image of him at certain points in his career is mereley your opinion and we don't absolutely need images of anything on wikipedia if you want to use that as your argument. --E tac (talk) 04:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: But what would be so "detrimental to that understanding" about Mauer if I didn't see the photo? That he played baseball in high school can be readily deduced from the text, so what's the added value of the photo? Kelvinc (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remark:The reason we have images, is to illustrate concepts which cannot be easily conveyed through text. Consider, for example, the Symantec article. How would you describe that logo to someone who has not had any previous experience with Symantec or its products? This adds a great deal of understanding to the article — it helps the reader to understand it, and to recognise the logo should they encounter it in the future! You posited that we don't need images of absolutely everything on Wikipedia. Imagine trying to describe a book cover for potential readers. Or an animal from the remote regions of Africa. While there are free images available for the latter, it is usually impossible to obtain a free book cover image. "A picture is worth a thousand words." This is true, but unfortunately, people own those pictures, so we have to tread lightly around that so as not to appear to be stealing it.Jame§ugrono08:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Remark: The addition of the image to the article does not seem to add any encyclopaedic value to it. Consider the article without the image, and no real information beyond a supplementary and decorational photograph will have been lost. Jame§ugrono07:23, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Remark:The reason we have images, is to illustrate concepts which cannot be easily conveyed through text. Consider, for example, the Symantec article. How would you describe that logo to someone who has not had any previous experience with Symantec or its products? This adds a great deal of understanding to the article — it helps the reader to understand it, and to recognise the logo should they encounter it in the future! You posited that we don't need images of absolutely everything on Wikipedia. Imagine trying to describe a book cover for potential readers. Or an animal from the remote regions of Africa. While there are free images available for the latter, it is usually impossible to obtain a free book cover image. "A picture is worth a thousand words." This is true, but unfortunately, people own those pictures, so we have to tread lightly around that so as not to appear to be stealing it.Jame§ugrono 08:43, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
