The result of the discussion was: delete. The bottom line appears to be that the image is replaceable with a free image, which those that have advocated for deletion have argued successfully. Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, aka WP:NFCC, does not indicate that a free equivalent must be readily available. To fail WP:NFCC#1 means that the possibility exists to create a free image, even if one does not currently exist. That's like why we can't use non-free pictures for biographies of living people if the main purpose of the picture is to show what the subject looks like. It's because it is presumed that non-free photos of living people are always considered replaceable, because one could just say, "SAY CHEESE!" and get a photo. It seems to be the case that the image can be replaced, even with a line drawing, as several mentioned. Thus we cannot keep the non-free image around. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
@ Brianann MacAmhlaidh The rational was always that FREE images did not exist, if you read through the discussion it is readily apparent that there were always multiple images. Also the video clips have the same problem; there are the same clips posted in several places so it is impossible to tell who is the owner. The videos on Youtube are uploaded by people in Taiwan and Singapore, even if they claimed to be the original owners there would be much to discredit it. The argument that we are all just being lazy is becoming ridiculous. If you want me to ask a random Chinese person if the picture in his blog actually belongs to him, ignoring the fact that he/she cant speak English, and accept the answer as a definitive "yes" then fine. But it wont be any more official than if I randomly grab a photo from google and put it in my photobucket and claim ownership. - Nem1yan ( talk) 16:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: both files moved to Commons under same names. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Speedy - Author supports deletion. Admrboltz ( talk) 05:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I was the one who removed it from the only article that it was in Polar bear. I don't have an opinion about the deleiton, but would like to provide the following information. My notes on this were as follows:
North8000 ( talk) 12:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. No valid reason was given to retain this non-free image. As an orphaned non-free image, it must go. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 15:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. The bottom line appears to be that the image is replaceable with a free image, which those that have advocated for deletion have argued successfully. Wikipedia's non-free content criteria, aka WP:NFCC, does not indicate that a free equivalent must be readily available. To fail WP:NFCC#1 means that the possibility exists to create a free image, even if one does not currently exist. That's like why we can't use non-free pictures for biographies of living people if the main purpose of the picture is to show what the subject looks like. It's because it is presumed that non-free photos of living people are always considered replaceable, because one could just say, "SAY CHEESE!" and get a photo. It seems to be the case that the image can be replaced, even with a line drawing, as several mentioned. Thus we cannot keep the non-free image around. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
@ Brianann MacAmhlaidh The rational was always that FREE images did not exist, if you read through the discussion it is readily apparent that there were always multiple images. Also the video clips have the same problem; there are the same clips posted in several places so it is impossible to tell who is the owner. The videos on Youtube are uploaded by people in Taiwan and Singapore, even if they claimed to be the original owners there would be much to discredit it. The argument that we are all just being lazy is becoming ridiculous. If you want me to ask a random Chinese person if the picture in his blog actually belongs to him, ignoring the fact that he/she cant speak English, and accept the answer as a definitive "yes" then fine. But it wont be any more official than if I randomly grab a photo from google and put it in my photobucket and claim ownership. - Nem1yan ( talk) 16:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: both files moved to Commons under same names. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 01:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Speedy - Author supports deletion. Admrboltz ( talk) 05:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
I was the one who removed it from the only article that it was in Polar bear. I don't have an opinion about the deleiton, but would like to provide the following information. My notes on this were as follows:
North8000 ( talk) 12:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: delete. No valid reason was given to retain this non-free image. As an orphaned non-free image, it must go. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 15:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:13, 13 January 2011 (UTC) reply