I'm not sure if the explanation for the ineligibility for copyright of the phishing e-mail is a joking one but if it isn't then it's wrong. Spammers are human just like all of us. It's highly unlikely, however, for a phisher to claim copyright over such an e-mail. Any phisher who would do this would basically admit to breaking the law so it is unlikely. Maybe we can have something similar to the pictures of Abu Ghraib or in a similar way to how we allow graffiti to be uploaded on commons. If not, this needs to be deleted or at the very least changed to a fair use tag.
Yonatantalk23:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Um... it says on the bottom, "Image created personally by me from the HTML souce of an actual paypal spoof e-mail. NO chrome or any other part of any application is present from any client software, therefore this is NOT a screenshot. Additions such as the simulated chrome indicating From and Subject, and the note indicating the actual URL were simulated by me. As for the content of the e-mail itself, it was generated by spammers, which, as non-humans, are ineligible for copyright protection under international laws." and there is a Public domain tag on the bottom
Did you actually create the original phishing e-mail? Obviously not, therefore, unless you significantly change the text (ie. completely rewrote it) the copyrights belong to the phisher who created the e-mail, or alternatively to PayPal. Either way, you are not the copyright holder. I have no problem with it being tagged as fair use but you need to remember that you can only use so many pictures on
phishing under the pretense of fair use.
Yonatantalk21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, I can find no external reference that uses this flag so it appears to be original research and, in any case,
Image:Gay flag.svg is currently in wide usage so this flag is somewhat unnecessary.
Iamunknown00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a
wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to
be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out
how to edit a page, or use the
sandbox to try out your editing skills.
New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to
log in (although there are
many reasons why you might want to). Error isn't a reason to delete, rather to edit and improve. --
AnonEMouse(squeak)19:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It isn't just a derivative work of "wordbaloon" as it claims, it includes the classic logo of Marvel Comics, wich is of course protected by copyright. The image is used for a template, not for an article, so fair use can not be called —
Perón02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com is not a source for promo material. Their images are produced to enhance their site, not others. By copying their content, we replace the original market role for their content. Abu badali(
talk)11:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The tv series and this image are two independently copyrighted works. This image is a posed photograph produced to increase the value of cbs.com's website. --Abu badali(
talk)20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
STRONG KEEP. There is no reason why this image should be deleted. Our use of the image does not limit CBS in any way (ie. it will not affect the amount of people who visit CBS.com). Besides, the same images are used a lot on other sites (soaps.com; soapcentral.com; etc).
Kogsquinge21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Contest. I have to disagree. If the most we copy content from cbs.com, the less useful the site becomes. Our copying does potentially affect the number of people that visit CBS.com. About other sites using their images, either these sites received "prior written permission" (as explained in Terms of Use) or are simply copyright violators. --Abu badali(
talk)22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com is not a source for promo material. Their images are produced to enhance their site, not others. By copying their content, we replace the original market role for their content. Abu badali(
talk)11:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The tv series and this image are two independently copyrighted works. This image is a posed photograph produced to increase the value of cbs.com's website. --Abu badali(
talk)20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
STRONG KEEP. There is no reason why this image should be deleted. Our use of the image does not limit CBS in any way (ie. it will not affect the amount of people who visit CBS.com). Besides, the same images are used a lot on other sites (soaps.com; soapcentral.com; etc).
Kogsquinge21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Not quite; it's used to illustrate the appearance of that person on that cover; that's an important part of that person's claim to notability. Could be lower resolution. --
AnonEMouse(squeak)20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
QuestionSara Jean Underwood discusses her appearing on this cover in some detail as a notable event in her life. If it had a rationale, I would interpret it as meeting all 10 points of the Fair Use policy. Can you elaborate on why you don't feel that it does? ~
BigrTex17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The article doesn't "discusses" the cover image. It simply describes it: "She appeared on the cover of the October 2005 issue holding a football with nothing but bodypaint on her to simulate her wearing a jersey similar in design to the ones worn by the OSU Beavers football team with matching bikini briefs". This is hardly critical commentary or a notability claim. Accurate detailed descriptions of non-notable unfree covers are usually not enough to justify it's use (see
this previous ifd, for instance). The image seems to be used solely as a living person illustration. Notable images have reliable sources discussing them at some length . This is not the case here. --Abu badali(
talk)18:51, 10 May 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.
Necessary and notable - This issue of LIFE contains the only color photographs ever taken of the Lakonia disaster, most notably the cover image. LIFE's photgraphic coverage of the event marked only the second time in history that a publication was able to offer hour-by-hour photographic coverage of a disaster at sea. The first time that a ship's sinking was photographically recorded was on Aug. 6, 1956, when LIFE ran a series of photos of the Andrea Doria sinking.
Jagvar16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep on the condition that the article actually say those sentences, cited to at least one reliable source reference. That does seem highly necessary and notable, but you have to prove it. --
AnonEMouse(squeak)18:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Agreed. If we have some reliable sources discussing the relevance of this image, we can/should discuss it as well. But, as I said in the nomination, the article currently doesn't even mention the magazine issue, let alone it's cover image. --Abu badali(
talk)18:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
You are right; the article definitely should have mentioned the publication and its photo coverage of the event. I have added the information to the article.
Jagvar21:26, 10 May 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
WITHDRAWN. Radioheadhst asserted the image's notability (there's a monument inspired on it) and the image is now mentioned in the article. Kudos to Radioheadhst!. --Abu badali(
talk)02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Necessary and Notable: This cover of Life Magazine related to the events on January 9 is very famous. A life-sized monument in the form of a lampost, with three figures climbing it to raise their flag, as documented on the cover of LIFE magazine was built. I think its a notable and famous image if a monument was built after it!!. You can see the monument images
here, at the end of this page. Radioheadhsttalk?07:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Was the monument built after the cover image or after the event the cover image depicts? If the monument was really built after the Life cover, I would believe the cover deserves some discussion. But that statement would have to be strongly sourced. --Abu badali(
talk)15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The monument WAS built after the cover image, because it was so famous and it was seen around the world in LIFE magazine, a magazine that was very big at that time. As exhibit A I offer you the
link I posted above, where next as caption to the image it says that "A life-sized monument in the form of a lampost, with three figures climbing it to raise their flag, as documented on the cover of LIFE magazine". As exhibit B, I offer the next newspaper cover of
La Prensa newspaper from Panama, dated January 9, 2004, that shows a picture of the top of the monument very prominently on the first page that day, when the monument was opened. If you don't know english, the caption says literally: "In honor to the heroes: In honor to the fallen on January 9, 1964, today a monument is inaugurated on the limits of the former Canal Zone and Panama City, next to the Legislative Assembly. The monument reflects the photograph that went around the world, in which three students climbed a lampost and the one in the top had a Panamanian flag". I understand this information is not included in the article, perhaps it should, but I have proven beyond doubt the notability of that important image, so I respectfully ask you to remove the delete tag, because the most famous image that came from that event, the picture that even has a monument built after it can't be deleted from that article. Radioheadhsttalk?22:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree that "exhibit B" is a good evidence that this image is notable, and that the monument seem to have been built to remember that day through a famous photograph. This information seems encyclopedic and as such, should be in the article (or maybe even in a article of itself), and the cover image should be used. Could you do that? Currently, the article doesn't even mentions the magazine issue or cover image, and it's use is unjustified. I will be glad to withdraw the nomination if the image notability is discussed somewhere. --Abu badali(
talk)16:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Glad you agree. I added info about the monuments built on Panama City to the article, including the lampost one. I think now pictures of these monuments are in order to enhance the description and to compare the monument and the picture. As I don't have the rights to the pictures available, I will try to take some pictures myself and add them later. Radioheadhsttalk?23:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Please, add sources to the section. Specially to the claims that the "the monument reflects the photograph" I believe the link you provided above is a good start. --Abu badali(
talk)02:30, 10 May 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - This cover is in fact notable because it essentially launched Rita's major movie career. Studio executives at Fox saw her magazine photos in Life and signed her.
[1] It is also significant that a Hispanic actress was on a national magazine cover in the 1950s. -
AKeen14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
You're claiming notability on the magazine issue, not it's (unfree) cover image. We don't use unfree magazine cover images everytime a magazine issue is mentioned. That would be a decorative use. The image itself must be notable. That said, I'm not fully convinced that Lifetimetv.com's is a reliable source to state the importance and influence of a given Life magazine image or cover. But that is irrelevant at this point. --Abu badali(
talk)19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: for further comment on the significance of this particular cover see Frances Negrón-Muntaner's book Boricua Pop: Puerto Ricans and American Culture from West Side Story to Jennifer Lopez - Page 79 (
ISBN0814758185). -
AKeen19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
keep it is used as an illustration of how the subject was trying to shed her innocent child actress reputation. Also, I did not add the alleged POV/OR language, but it accurately describes the contrast between her previous image and the one she was trying to attain. --
rogerd03:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - The POV-ness in the caption in the article have been removed, so that is no longer an issue. This particular cover is significant because it encapsulates a new stage in O'Brien's career and gained her a certain amount of notoriety -
AKeen14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The article
The Old Man and the Sea is about a novella that was (according to the article) first published in a given issue of Time Magazine. No notability claim for the cover image. The cover image has not won any award, caused any controversy or otherwise been discussed by any source. We don't use cover images every time a magazine issue is mentioned. --Abu badali(
talk)20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
unnecessary non-notable unfree image of a mazine's cover. the magazine issue existence is mentioned in the article, but the line itself doesn't seem to add nothing noteworthy. Abu badali(
talk)14:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
nnecessary non-notable unfree image of a mazine's cover. the magazine issue existence is mentioned in the article, but the line itself doesn't seem to add nothing noteworthy. image is being used to illustrate the person depicted Abu badali(
talk)14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Not so,- this image is highly notable because: It shows
Pamela Churchill plus her newborn son,
Winston Churchill Jr - certainly something that contributed to her fame (she had later other accomplishments), and ,also noteworthy, she was an object for
Cecil Beaton, and it was made shortly after giving birth. This is all discussed in the article, and if necessary, can be expanded. There is no replacement for that picture nor any better image to define her.
Ekem01:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
You say this image is "certainly something that contributed to her fame". Has that been discussed by
reliable sources or is just your
original research? Wikipedia can't be the first to assert some image's notability. If it's notable, someone wrote about it before us. Is it the case for this image? --Abu badali(
talk)01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The specific photosession and its significance are at length discussed in Reflected Glory:the Life of Pamela Churchill Harriman, Sally Bedel Smith, 1996. Simon & Schuster.
ISBN0-684-80950-8. The fact that this is the first LIFE cover with mother-baby content is noteworthy, too.
Ekem14:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This discussion about the cover's significance, if found to be relevant to her bio, should be added to the article (and properly sourced). In this case, we would be using a notable image in an article's section about the image itself (and it's significance). As the article currently reads, the image is serving no purpose (other than to show how Pamela Harriman looked like). As I haven't had the opportunity to read the book you mentioned, I currently don't have an opinion on the relevance to the book's discussion to her bio. --Abu badali(
talk)15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Nothing is neccessary. This image is doubly useful in the bio both as an image of the person shown, and as the magazine cover is specifically refered to in the text. It is indeed one of several in the article on Time magazine, but that is no valid reason for its deletion. Is it only this one you propose to delete, and why only this one?
Aodhdubh16:21, 7 May 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.
I didn't questioned it's importance. The point is that this image is likely from a source that makes a living from licensing images like this (a news or photo agency). If it's not the case, this nomination would be nullified. --Abu badali(
talk)21:02, 7 May 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Beautiful, but unnecessary unfree image, that doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already covered with text. Abu badali(
talk)17:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, it is necessary. It's used in multiple articles (I cannot find another picture of Cogny) and it adds significantly to the Dien Bien Phu article.
Raul65417:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I couldn't guess the image's necessity neither by reading the articles it's used in, nor by it's fair use rationale. Could you elaborate on that? --Abu badali(
talk)19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Do we need to depict the "command of one side of the very important battle" with an image? How much noteworthy information does it adds? --Abu badali(
talk)21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
At this point, you are simply
Begging the question. You say we don't need it, others respond that we need it because it illustrates an important part of the article, you say that's great, but do we really need it? Wash, rinse, and repeat.
Raul65421:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
If I'm repeating myself, that's because my question isn't really being answered. My concern at the nomination (if you allow me to repeat myself once more) was that the use of this unfree image wasn't adding enough to the article to justify it's use. It's a wonderful picture, but it's simply not necessary, just useful. The "answers" I got from you were "it is necessary" (but why?) or "it adds significantly to the Dien Bien Phu article" (why?). You may have not noticed that it was actually you repeating yourself with an empty argument ("it's necessary because I say so"). AnonEMouse added the image is irreplaceable (that is completely unrelated to the this conversation) and then described the image: "depicts the command of one side of the very important battle". How is that an answer to the concerns raised on the nomination? I still don't see why the articles
Battle of Dien Bien Phu and
René Cogny need so badly an image to depict "the command of one side of the very important battle" to the point that it justifies the use of unfree material for this purpose. --Abu badali(
talk)21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
See, if you said some of the text was ripped off of X scholarly article, we would gulp nervously and rewrite. You can do that with text, convey much the same information in a different way.... and yet the text can't be replaced with a picture. If you said an image of the battle map was stolen from Y archive, we would go to several other sources and put together a completely free map, because you can do that with maps ... and yet a map can't adequately be replaced with text. A picture of the command staff of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, certainly one of the most important battles of the twentieth century, simply can't be replaced by anything else. That's the whole idea of
Fair use#Nature of the copied work, that vital historical interest trumps copyright in highly limited cases. We're contending that due to the importance of the subject and the irreplaceability of the work, this is one of those cases. Follow that link for the specific example. To someone from either Vietnam or France, the battle of Dien Bien Phu is far more important than the mere assassination of John F. Kennedy.--
AnonEMouse(squeak)21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
You seem to insist in replaceability, that have never been an issue in this ifd. And then you go on to assert the battles's notability, that has also not been contested. The point is, is this image notable? Not every photo of Elvis is notable, although Elvis himself is surely notable. --Abu badali(
talk)23:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
As this image illustrates the person in the article
Rene Cogny, and he is dead, and because it is impossible to find a free equivalent, it is nescessary for the article.
Zeus123400:16, 8 May 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Beautiful, but unnecessary unfree image, that doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already covered with text. Abu badali(
talk)17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
There are ZERO free pictures of the battle. This is not replacable, and does add siginifcantly to the Battle of Dien Bien Phu article.
Raul65417:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Replaceability has not been questioned. The point is, do we need a picture of this battle? How much noteworthy information this pictures adds to the article by sitting on that infobox? I would love this image to be free material, but it isn't. And as such, we shouldn't be using it unless it's really necessary (other than just beaultiful/helpful/unique). --Abu badali(
talk)19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, we need a picture of the battle. The job of the article is to inform the reader. An article with thousands of words (this is a featured article) and no illustrative pictures is wrong.
Raul65419:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Your argument basically boils down to "I don't think an illustration is needed for this article", which is both generic, subjective, and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, which allows non-free images for historic events where no free image is available or creatable.
Raul65403:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Right, and then you go and try to define "necessary" both subjectively and so stringently that no one agrees with you. In the case of a major historical event for which you conceed there are no free images, you still want no images in the article - a position you have failed to convince a single person of the merit of.
Raul65401:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I never said I "want no images in the article". Please, please avoid this path. I'm saying that we don't have enough justification to use this specific unfree image in the article. This image neither identifies the subject of an article, (as it's not an article about the picture) nor illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text (as it's just one out of many possible general pictures from the battle, instead of a illustration of a specific point in the text). That's what I meant by "necessary". --Abu badali(
talk)15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, it specifically illustrates the sentence: "The air strip was put out of commission, forcing the French to deliver all supplies by parachute."Raul65418:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
But the picture doesn't help the reader to understand this sentence at all. If it was a free image, it would be surely something nice to have. But as unfree material, we shouldn't use it unless it's more than useful. --Abu badali(
talk)15:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, this picture illustrates a unique historical event which cannot be shown with a free use image, thus this qualifies as fair use.
KnightLago01:38, 11 May 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence that the copyright holder "irrevocably released all rights" for this image. If some evidence is give, I will withdraw the nomination Abu badali(
talk)20:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
CV - appears at the
school district's webpage, with copyright notice visible beneath it. Many, many students attend that high school so a free alternative should be easily available.
I'm not sure if the explanation for the ineligibility for copyright of the phishing e-mail is a joking one but if it isn't then it's wrong. Spammers are human just like all of us. It's highly unlikely, however, for a phisher to claim copyright over such an e-mail. Any phisher who would do this would basically admit to breaking the law so it is unlikely. Maybe we can have something similar to the pictures of Abu Ghraib or in a similar way to how we allow graffiti to be uploaded on commons. If not, this needs to be deleted or at the very least changed to a fair use tag.
Yonatantalk23:48, 6 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Um... it says on the bottom, "Image created personally by me from the HTML souce of an actual paypal spoof e-mail. NO chrome or any other part of any application is present from any client software, therefore this is NOT a screenshot. Additions such as the simulated chrome indicating From and Subject, and the note indicating the actual URL were simulated by me. As for the content of the e-mail itself, it was generated by spammers, which, as non-humans, are ineligible for copyright protection under international laws." and there is a Public domain tag on the bottom
Did you actually create the original phishing e-mail? Obviously not, therefore, unless you significantly change the text (ie. completely rewrote it) the copyrights belong to the phisher who created the e-mail, or alternatively to PayPal. Either way, you are not the copyright holder. I have no problem with it being tagged as fair use but you need to remember that you can only use so many pictures on
phishing under the pretense of fair use.
Yonatantalk21:56, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, I can find no external reference that uses this flag so it appears to be original research and, in any case,
Image:Gay flag.svg is currently in wide usage so this flag is somewhat unnecessary.
Iamunknown00:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Thank you for your suggestion. When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a
wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. The Wikipedia community encourages you to
be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out
how to edit a page, or use the
sandbox to try out your editing skills.
New contributors are always welcome. You don't even need to
log in (although there are
many reasons why you might want to). Error isn't a reason to delete, rather to edit and improve. --
AnonEMouse(squeak)19:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
It isn't just a derivative work of "wordbaloon" as it claims, it includes the classic logo of Marvel Comics, wich is of course protected by copyright. The image is used for a template, not for an article, so fair use can not be called —
Perón02:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com is not a source for promo material. Their images are produced to enhance their site, not others. By copying their content, we replace the original market role for their content. Abu badali(
talk)11:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The tv series and this image are two independently copyrighted works. This image is a posed photograph produced to increase the value of cbs.com's website. --Abu badali(
talk)20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
STRONG KEEP. There is no reason why this image should be deleted. Our use of the image does not limit CBS in any way (ie. it will not affect the amount of people who visit CBS.com). Besides, the same images are used a lot on other sites (soaps.com; soapcentral.com; etc).
Kogsquinge21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Contest. I have to disagree. If the most we copy content from cbs.com, the less useful the site becomes. Our copying does potentially affect the number of people that visit CBS.com. About other sites using their images, either these sites received "prior written permission" (as explained in Terms of Use) or are simply copyright violators. --Abu badali(
talk)22:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
cbs.com is not a source for promo material. Their images are produced to enhance their site, not others. By copying their content, we replace the original market role for their content. Abu badali(
talk)11:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The tv series and this image are two independently copyrighted works. This image is a posed photograph produced to increase the value of cbs.com's website. --Abu badali(
talk)20:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
STRONG KEEP. There is no reason why this image should be deleted. Our use of the image does not limit CBS in any way (ie. it will not affect the amount of people who visit CBS.com). Besides, the same images are used a lot on other sites (soaps.com; soapcentral.com; etc).
Kogsquinge21:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Not quite; it's used to illustrate the appearance of that person on that cover; that's an important part of that person's claim to notability. Could be lower resolution. --
AnonEMouse(squeak)20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
QuestionSara Jean Underwood discusses her appearing on this cover in some detail as a notable event in her life. If it had a rationale, I would interpret it as meeting all 10 points of the Fair Use policy. Can you elaborate on why you don't feel that it does? ~
BigrTex17:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The article doesn't "discusses" the cover image. It simply describes it: "She appeared on the cover of the October 2005 issue holding a football with nothing but bodypaint on her to simulate her wearing a jersey similar in design to the ones worn by the OSU Beavers football team with matching bikini briefs". This is hardly critical commentary or a notability claim. Accurate detailed descriptions of non-notable unfree covers are usually not enough to justify it's use (see
this previous ifd, for instance). The image seems to be used solely as a living person illustration. Notable images have reliable sources discussing them at some length . This is not the case here. --Abu badali(
talk)18:51, 10 May 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.
Necessary and notable - This issue of LIFE contains the only color photographs ever taken of the Lakonia disaster, most notably the cover image. LIFE's photgraphic coverage of the event marked only the second time in history that a publication was able to offer hour-by-hour photographic coverage of a disaster at sea. The first time that a ship's sinking was photographically recorded was on Aug. 6, 1956, when LIFE ran a series of photos of the Andrea Doria sinking.
Jagvar16:29, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep on the condition that the article actually say those sentences, cited to at least one reliable source reference. That does seem highly necessary and notable, but you have to prove it. --
AnonEMouse(squeak)18:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Agreed. If we have some reliable sources discussing the relevance of this image, we can/should discuss it as well. But, as I said in the nomination, the article currently doesn't even mention the magazine issue, let alone it's cover image. --Abu badali(
talk)18:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
You are right; the article definitely should have mentioned the publication and its photo coverage of the event. I have added the information to the article.
Jagvar21:26, 10 May 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
WITHDRAWN. Radioheadhst asserted the image's notability (there's a monument inspired on it) and the image is now mentioned in the article. Kudos to Radioheadhst!. --Abu badali(
talk)02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Necessary and Notable: This cover of Life Magazine related to the events on January 9 is very famous. A life-sized monument in the form of a lampost, with three figures climbing it to raise their flag, as documented on the cover of LIFE magazine was built. I think its a notable and famous image if a monument was built after it!!. You can see the monument images
here, at the end of this page. Radioheadhsttalk?07:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Was the monument built after the cover image or after the event the cover image depicts? If the monument was really built after the Life cover, I would believe the cover deserves some discussion. But that statement would have to be strongly sourced. --Abu badali(
talk)15:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The monument WAS built after the cover image, because it was so famous and it was seen around the world in LIFE magazine, a magazine that was very big at that time. As exhibit A I offer you the
link I posted above, where next as caption to the image it says that "A life-sized monument in the form of a lampost, with three figures climbing it to raise their flag, as documented on the cover of LIFE magazine". As exhibit B, I offer the next newspaper cover of
La Prensa newspaper from Panama, dated January 9, 2004, that shows a picture of the top of the monument very prominently on the first page that day, when the monument was opened. If you don't know english, the caption says literally: "In honor to the heroes: In honor to the fallen on January 9, 1964, today a monument is inaugurated on the limits of the former Canal Zone and Panama City, next to the Legislative Assembly. The monument reflects the photograph that went around the world, in which three students climbed a lampost and the one in the top had a Panamanian flag". I understand this information is not included in the article, perhaps it should, but I have proven beyond doubt the notability of that important image, so I respectfully ask you to remove the delete tag, because the most famous image that came from that event, the picture that even has a monument built after it can't be deleted from that article. Radioheadhsttalk?22:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree that "exhibit B" is a good evidence that this image is notable, and that the monument seem to have been built to remember that day through a famous photograph. This information seems encyclopedic and as such, should be in the article (or maybe even in a article of itself), and the cover image should be used. Could you do that? Currently, the article doesn't even mentions the magazine issue or cover image, and it's use is unjustified. I will be glad to withdraw the nomination if the image notability is discussed somewhere. --Abu badali(
talk)16:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Glad you agree. I added info about the monuments built on Panama City to the article, including the lampost one. I think now pictures of these monuments are in order to enhance the description and to compare the monument and the picture. As I don't have the rights to the pictures available, I will try to take some pictures myself and add them later. Radioheadhsttalk?23:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Please, add sources to the section. Specially to the claims that the "the monument reflects the photograph" I believe the link you provided above is a good start. --Abu badali(
talk)02:30, 10 May 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep - This cover is in fact notable because it essentially launched Rita's major movie career. Studio executives at Fox saw her magazine photos in Life and signed her.
[1] It is also significant that a Hispanic actress was on a national magazine cover in the 1950s. -
AKeen14:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
You're claiming notability on the magazine issue, not it's (unfree) cover image. We don't use unfree magazine cover images everytime a magazine issue is mentioned. That would be a decorative use. The image itself must be notable. That said, I'm not fully convinced that Lifetimetv.com's is a reliable source to state the importance and influence of a given Life magazine image or cover. But that is irrelevant at this point. --Abu badali(
talk)19:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment: for further comment on the significance of this particular cover see Frances Negrón-Muntaner's book Boricua Pop: Puerto Ricans and American Culture from West Side Story to Jennifer Lopez - Page 79 (
ISBN0814758185). -
AKeen19:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
keep it is used as an illustration of how the subject was trying to shed her innocent child actress reputation. Also, I did not add the alleged POV/OR language, but it accurately describes the contrast between her previous image and the one she was trying to attain. --
rogerd03:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep - The POV-ness in the caption in the article have been removed, so that is no longer an issue. This particular cover is significant because it encapsulates a new stage in O'Brien's career and gained her a certain amount of notoriety -
AKeen14:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The article
The Old Man and the Sea is about a novella that was (according to the article) first published in a given issue of Time Magazine. No notability claim for the cover image. The cover image has not won any award, caused any controversy or otherwise been discussed by any source. We don't use cover images every time a magazine issue is mentioned. --Abu badali(
talk)20:59, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
unnecessary non-notable unfree image of a mazine's cover. the magazine issue existence is mentioned in the article, but the line itself doesn't seem to add nothing noteworthy. Abu badali(
talk)14:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
nnecessary non-notable unfree image of a mazine's cover. the magazine issue existence is mentioned in the article, but the line itself doesn't seem to add nothing noteworthy. image is being used to illustrate the person depicted Abu badali(
talk)14:32, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Not so,- this image is highly notable because: It shows
Pamela Churchill plus her newborn son,
Winston Churchill Jr - certainly something that contributed to her fame (she had later other accomplishments), and ,also noteworthy, she was an object for
Cecil Beaton, and it was made shortly after giving birth. This is all discussed in the article, and if necessary, can be expanded. There is no replacement for that picture nor any better image to define her.
Ekem01:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
You say this image is "certainly something that contributed to her fame". Has that been discussed by
reliable sources or is just your
original research? Wikipedia can't be the first to assert some image's notability. If it's notable, someone wrote about it before us. Is it the case for this image? --Abu badali(
talk)01:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
The specific photosession and its significance are at length discussed in Reflected Glory:the Life of Pamela Churchill Harriman, Sally Bedel Smith, 1996. Simon & Schuster.
ISBN0-684-80950-8. The fact that this is the first LIFE cover with mother-baby content is noteworthy, too.
Ekem14:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
This discussion about the cover's significance, if found to be relevant to her bio, should be added to the article (and properly sourced). In this case, we would be using a notable image in an article's section about the image itself (and it's significance). As the article currently reads, the image is serving no purpose (other than to show how Pamela Harriman looked like). As I haven't had the opportunity to read the book you mentioned, I currently don't have an opinion on the relevance to the book's discussion to her bio. --Abu badali(
talk)15:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Nothing is neccessary. This image is doubly useful in the bio both as an image of the person shown, and as the magazine cover is specifically refered to in the text. It is indeed one of several in the article on Time magazine, but that is no valid reason for its deletion. Is it only this one you propose to delete, and why only this one?
Aodhdubh16:21, 7 May 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.
I didn't questioned it's importance. The point is that this image is likely from a source that makes a living from licensing images like this (a news or photo agency). If it's not the case, this nomination would be nullified. --Abu badali(
talk)21:02, 7 May 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Beautiful, but unnecessary unfree image, that doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already covered with text. Abu badali(
talk)17:25, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, it is necessary. It's used in multiple articles (I cannot find another picture of Cogny) and it adds significantly to the Dien Bien Phu article.
Raul65417:27, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I couldn't guess the image's necessity neither by reading the articles it's used in, nor by it's fair use rationale. Could you elaborate on that? --Abu badali(
talk)19:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Do we need to depict the "command of one side of the very important battle" with an image? How much noteworthy information does it adds? --Abu badali(
talk)21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
At this point, you are simply
Begging the question. You say we don't need it, others respond that we need it because it illustrates an important part of the article, you say that's great, but do we really need it? Wash, rinse, and repeat.
Raul65421:07, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
If I'm repeating myself, that's because my question isn't really being answered. My concern at the nomination (if you allow me to repeat myself once more) was that the use of this unfree image wasn't adding enough to the article to justify it's use. It's a wonderful picture, but it's simply not necessary, just useful. The "answers" I got from you were "it is necessary" (but why?) or "it adds significantly to the Dien Bien Phu article" (why?). You may have not noticed that it was actually you repeating yourself with an empty argument ("it's necessary because I say so"). AnonEMouse added the image is irreplaceable (that is completely unrelated to the this conversation) and then described the image: "depicts the command of one side of the very important battle". How is that an answer to the concerns raised on the nomination? I still don't see why the articles
Battle of Dien Bien Phu and
René Cogny need so badly an image to depict "the command of one side of the very important battle" to the point that it justifies the use of unfree material for this purpose. --Abu badali(
talk)21:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
See, if you said some of the text was ripped off of X scholarly article, we would gulp nervously and rewrite. You can do that with text, convey much the same information in a different way.... and yet the text can't be replaced with a picture. If you said an image of the battle map was stolen from Y archive, we would go to several other sources and put together a completely free map, because you can do that with maps ... and yet a map can't adequately be replaced with text. A picture of the command staff of the Battle of Dien Bien Phu, certainly one of the most important battles of the twentieth century, simply can't be replaced by anything else. That's the whole idea of
Fair use#Nature of the copied work, that vital historical interest trumps copyright in highly limited cases. We're contending that due to the importance of the subject and the irreplaceability of the work, this is one of those cases. Follow that link for the specific example. To someone from either Vietnam or France, the battle of Dien Bien Phu is far more important than the mere assassination of John F. Kennedy.--
AnonEMouse(squeak)21:56, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
You seem to insist in replaceability, that have never been an issue in this ifd. And then you go on to assert the battles's notability, that has also not been contested. The point is, is this image notable? Not every photo of Elvis is notable, although Elvis himself is surely notable. --Abu badali(
talk)23:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
As this image illustrates the person in the article
Rene Cogny, and he is dead, and because it is impossible to find a free equivalent, it is nescessary for the article.
Zeus123400:16, 8 May 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Beautiful, but unnecessary unfree image, that doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already covered with text. Abu badali(
talk)17:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
There are ZERO free pictures of the battle. This is not replacable, and does add siginifcantly to the Battle of Dien Bien Phu article.
Raul65417:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Replaceability has not been questioned. The point is, do we need a picture of this battle? How much noteworthy information this pictures adds to the article by sitting on that infobox? I would love this image to be free material, but it isn't. And as such, we shouldn't be using it unless it's really necessary (other than just beaultiful/helpful/unique). --Abu badali(
talk)19:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Yes, we need a picture of the battle. The job of the article is to inform the reader. An article with thousands of words (this is a featured article) and no illustrative pictures is wrong.
Raul65419:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Your argument basically boils down to "I don't think an illustration is needed for this article", which is both generic, subjective, and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy, which allows non-free images for historic events where no free image is available or creatable.
Raul65403:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Right, and then you go and try to define "necessary" both subjectively and so stringently that no one agrees with you. In the case of a major historical event for which you conceed there are no free images, you still want no images in the article - a position you have failed to convince a single person of the merit of.
Raul65401:30, 11 May 2007 (UTC)reply
I never said I "want no images in the article". Please, please avoid this path. I'm saying that we don't have enough justification to use this specific unfree image in the article. This image neither identifies the subject of an article, (as it's not an article about the picture) nor illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text (as it's just one out of many possible general pictures from the battle, instead of a illustration of a specific point in the text). That's what I meant by "necessary". --Abu badali(
talk)15:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Actually, it specifically illustrates the sentence: "The air strip was put out of commission, forcing the French to deliver all supplies by parachute."Raul65418:23, 13 May 2007 (UTC)reply
But the picture doesn't help the reader to understand this sentence at all. If it was a free image, it would be surely something nice to have. But as unfree material, we shouldn't use it unless it's more than useful. --Abu badali(
talk)15:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, this picture illustrates a unique historical event which cannot be shown with a free use image, thus this qualifies as fair use.
KnightLago01:38, 11 May 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
No evidence that the copyright holder "irrevocably released all rights" for this image. If some evidence is give, I will withdraw the nomination Abu badali(
talk)20:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)reply
CV - appears at the
school district's webpage, with copyright notice visible beneath it. Many, many students attend that high school so a free alternative should be easily available.