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: Keep - Nyttend is correct (is may be deleted soon because of lack of license, however). Calliopejen1 ( talk) 13:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Slavezanzibar.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DavidYork71 ( notify | contribs).

• This image was not taken in the United States nor EU therefore it cannot be used with the PD-US and PD-EU. NisarPakistani ( talk) 16:32, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Nom's reason is invalid, as these tags mean simply that the file is PD in the USA and EU; they do not mean that the image was produced there. Nyttend ( talk) 19:44, 4 November 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: Keep - Nyttend is correct (is may be deleted soon because of lack of license, however). Calliopejen1 ( talk) 13:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

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

• This image was not taken in the United States and cannot be used under this PD-US license. NisarPakistani ( talk) 16:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: {{ PD-US}} does not apply simply to images taken in the United States: it means that the image, regardless of its source, is old enough that it is public domain in the United States. Nyttend ( talk) 19:43, 4 November 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: Keep - Nyttend is correct. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 13:23, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Samuel Adjai Crowther 1888.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mark Dingemanse ( notify | contribs).

• This image was not taken in the United States therefore it cannot be used under this PD-US license. NisarPakistani ( talk) 16:38, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: {{ PD-US}} does not apply simply to images taken in the United States: it means that the image, regardless of its source, is old enough that it is public domain in the United States. Moreover, the image comes from a PD book published in the USA. Nyttend ( talk) 19:43, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Regardless of its source, it so old that it is public domain in the United States. Also NisarPakistani, perhaps you can't believe it because nowadays everyone just copies stuff from websites, but I think I actually scanned this image from the PD book that is given as the source, which I had access to at the time (now two years ago). — mark ✎ 15:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

[In general I have to say that I dislike this method of proposing sth for deletion that is properly sourced just because you disagree somehow with the template used or because you think someone copied it from a website. Care to specify which website you think it's from?] — mark ✎ 15:42, 6 November 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: Keep It's no longer orphaned. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 13:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:EJ liar.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dan arndt ( notify | contribs).

• Very low resolution, orphaned Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{( Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. ErikTheBikeMan ( talk) 17:51, 4 November 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, despite overwhelming vote count to the contrary. As pointed out below several times, this is not a poll, and the keep comments did not rise to the level of any substantial argument under WP:NFCC. Arguments by Danny, Calliopejen, Howcheng and others carry the day here. Somebody go and contact Barack on his flickr page (yes, he has one) and ask them for a few freebies. Peace to all. -- Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Barack-obama-mother.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carmouche ( notify | contribs).

• Beautiful but unnecessary image showing Obama and his mother. This copyrighted picture adds no new important information to the articles (i.e., a does not passes WP:NFCC#8). Some people may notice that the image is used in on a featured article and survived peer review. But I found no discussion about the suitability of this image on the many FA reviews the article passed. Damiens.rf 18:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Note: The image is protected right now and I couldn't paste the ifd tag. Will do that as soon as the image is unprotected. If I forget it, just do it! -- Damiens.rf 19:02, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Useful picture showing connection between mother and son: they're both important, unlike (say) a copyrighted picture of a similar anthropologist with an altogether unremarkable son. See the quote on Dunham's article: "In an interview, Senator Obama referred to his mother as 'the dominant figure in my formative years...The values she taught me continue to be my touchstone when it comes to how I go about the world of politics.'" By including this picture, we get an example of those "formative years" that can't be represented otherwise. Nyttend ( talk) 19:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I have to disagree. There are a thousand other ways to represent theses "formative years" with no picture at all. I'm affraid our criteria for using non-free content is stronger than that. The reader doesn't have to see a picture of a smiling infant Obama with his mother to read and understand a good and informative text about his childhood or his relation with his mother. This picture says nothing special about their relationship. It's just a happy mother and a happy child, like a thousand other pictures worldwide, no matter what the familiar background was. -- Damiens.rf 19:56, 4 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • How so? The photo just conveys a happy mother and child. You don't need a photo to tell you that Obama has a happy childhood and good relationship with your mother. Or if you do, I would say it's your own problem Nil Einne ( talk) 08:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's a good picture of an increasingly important person, and fills in a bit of his life. However this photo got online, it isn't the kind of photo that anyone would claim rights to -- if that person is even alive today. A useful historical photo. Pmbcomm ( talk) 19:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep I don’t get it. You must be a bitter republican. This picture conveys a tremendous amount of information that a thousand lines of text never could. I wonder if you may have thought differently if his mother had been African American. Please leave this picture as is. Thank you.-- calyponte 05:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.150.172 ( talk) reply

Keep. That photo provides commentary and insight on both the background of the President-elect, and on his campaign. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.190.7.45 ( talk) 05:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep This is an important photo that conveys very much. The only reason there is an article about this woman is because of who her son is. This picture illustrates their relationship in a candid and meaningful way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.212.98.26 ( talk) 06:21, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Useful photo for portraying the particular familial relationship of a highly notable person; moreover, as stated, it is not feasibly replaceable, and appears to fit well within fair use criteria generally and WP's specifically. — Ryanaxp ( talk) 06:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Shows family relations, espescially in an kind of patchwork-family, with a seemingly close connection between mother and son.+, giving insight in Obama's socializing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.149.245.150 ( talk) 07:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Ann Dunham's notability is specifically due to her relationship (as mother) to Obama; this photo is a clear illustration of this. 153.108.64.1 ( talk) 09:05, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: This photo is part of US history now. It only shows the greatness of this country in its simplicity. A common mother with her happy son enjoying there simple life. Only to become the most powerful man on earth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.194.107 ( talk) 15:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • If it's so common, then you don't need a photo to illustrate it Nil Einne ( talk) 08:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is an important picture where few exist in Obama's childhood. While the copyright question is legitimate, I think it's fair to say no one will ever claim copyright to it. Obama himself has released these images and without any stated copyright that I know of, and this picture is in the public conscious and history whether it's on Wikipedia or not. - Flying Toaster 23:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

If this image is copyrighted and used in violation, then unfortunately it does need to be deleted. However, there is no solid argument that I can see as to why the image should not be used otherwise. Some things written tend to be conveyed only intelligently, but pictures like this usually convey emotion that the written word is unable to. This is why body language holds such a high value in human communication as opposed to spoken or written words. Sometimes, trying to define such emotional ties is like explaining to someone who has never tasted salt, what salt tastes like. This gives the image a defining purpose, and isn't the reason for an encyclopedia to define? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.28.224 ( talk • contribs)

• Keep:There´s always talk about racism, here we have a happy white mother with her happy black boy. This image is worth a thousand words. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Editsometimes ( talk • contribs) 12:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC) — Editsometimes ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Keep! It is a compelling and inspiring photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.127.241.2 ( talk • contribs)

NOTE to all anonymous and single-purpose-accounts above: First of all, welcome to Wikipedia. If you decide to stay, you may want to get acquainted to our politic on Non-free content, that happens to be very material to this discussion. For instance, it says that non-free images (like this wonderful picture of Obama and his mother) can only be used in situations where the relevant information it contains that can't be expressed by text. And that's what not being addressed in none of yours votes above. Yes, this images shows his relation with his mother. Yes this relation can be expressed with text (and already is).

"Oh, and as a last reminder, unlike America, Wikipedia is not a democracy. It's not the number of keeps or deletes that will determine the ultimate fate of this file on Wikipedia's servers. The arguments exposed will be weight on their value. Thanks, -- Damiens.rf 18:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep! The photo illustrates, at the very least, the difference in race between mother and son, while also demonstrating the positive emotions between mother and son. -K — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.214.34.206 ( talk • contribs)
• Why on earth do you need a photo to illustrate the difference in race between mother and son? Obama has a Kenyan father and a white (of Irish descent I believe) mother. You don't need a photo to illustrate that difference. Nor do you need a photo to tell you that Obama and his mother had happy times together. Are American families really so screwed up they can't imagine a mother and child being happy together and are Americans really so screwed up they can't imagine a biracial child and his white mother without a photo? Nil Einne ( talk) 08:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep per calyponte. That photo is beautiful and it does speak a thousand words. It's useful because it shows Obama as a baby so let's keep that picture. EconomistBR 19:36, 5 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep per missy1234. This photo is great and it is one of the few photos on here of his mom.

*Strong Keep - gimmie a break - non replaceable fair use, illustrates the president-elect of the US (who by default is a public figure), it illustrates a major event in Obama's life - there's no rationale for deleting this one. -- Tawker ( talk) 00:37, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

In light of the other arguments, I can see where it's coming from. Let's get this one released for free and solve the entire problem. Someone want to OTRS ask? -- Tawker ( talk) 22:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. In order for this image to be kept and used in our articles, there must be a visual requirement for this specific image, and that requirement must be backed up with citations to reliable sources. There is simply no need to see a young Obama with his mother -- it adds nothing of substance to the article and the article is no worse off without it. howcheng { chat} 00:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Please don't make up new rules. Wikipedia NFCC has never noted for a "visual requirement", and likewise there is no strict rule regarding citations to reliable sources. While you may complain that this image may lack these at the moment, still these are not sufficient reasons to altogether delete the image. Other potential NFCC violations can be addressed by simply using the image only where it belongs ( Ann Dunham as the sole picture ( NFCC#3), Barack Obama's early life as compliment to the childhood section ( NFCC#8), etc). -- Aeon17x ( talk) 21:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I'm not making up any rules. As stated below, I'm paraphrasing. I have been enforcing NFCC for years and this happens to be the clearest way of making people understand NFCC 8. howcheng { chat} 19:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I like the photo, but it's a copyvio. I don't see the legitimate fair use argument. The current page claims irreplacability because she died, but that's not legitimate; irreplacability is for a 1-time event. In any case the photo is not iconic. Since this is a copyvio, I don't even think this is a matter for AFD. I could be convinced away from all of this if someone could frame a real justification for fair use. Tempshill ( talk) 00:42, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• • PS: It might be possible for an editor to actually ask the campaign PR machine (quick! before it's all dismantled!) to get Obama to release this photo into the public domain.... Tempshill ( talk) 00:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Regrettably, like the two previous commenters, this is a clear violation of copyright, and does not pass the fair use doctrine sniff test. If this photo were to one day be reissued by the Smithsonian, White House or US government agency under public domain, then it could be included. It's rather clear that this is gratuitous use of the photo. -- Fuzheado | Talk 00:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Sorry, but the fair use contenders seem to be saying can be boiled down to "It's a nice picture of my current hero." and that is not fair use rationale. Actually, it is to Wikipedia's advantage to delete this image, and make it known why it is deleted. Perhaps that would encourage the Obama family to release it. Danny ( talk) 01:32, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep if possible, and if there is no similar replacement. It does lots more than the text to portray the emotional and physical relationship, and the biracial nature of the President-Elect. Bellagio99 ( talk) 02:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • How so? Perhaps this is something unique to the US, but definitely for me, being biracial myself, as with everyone else I've ever known, they don't need a photo to show them Obama's mother is white. The text is sufficient. If you can't imagine a white mother with a biracial son, perhaps it's a short-falling of your own Nil Einne ( talk) 08:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - As the deletion discussion for the other Obama family picture was also a keep, and I don't see any significant differences between the reasons for deletion outlined there and here. -- Aeon17x ( talk) 06:01, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - For reasons stated above; this is redundant deletion discussion. Unak78 ( talk) 02:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a wonderful & informative photo. All the hand-wringing about copyright in this case seems misguided and beside the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Proyster ( talk • contribs) 06:29, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• KeepIt is fair use of a photo which is not easily replaceable and which illustrates the primary focus of the article, Ann Dunham. Yes, there are two photos of her, but this one is of distinctly better quality. It is also significant that she is the mother of the new President Elect--otherwise I doubt this article (and debate) would exist--making the photo further germane to the featured text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.242.245 ( talk) 06:50, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I see no reason to have two photos under NFCC to convey what she looks like. Will you at least concede to deleting the other photo? BTW, I suspect whatever the case we have to reduce the size of this photo, so if by better quality you mean it's larger, then think again Nil Einne ( talk) 08:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • A possible compromise - I suppose that can be done. In the Barack Obama, Sr. article it uses a picture where he and and the senator are shown together, instead of a cropped photo like in the Ann Dunham article. We can delete the cropped photo, and use this picture instead to primarily illustrate Ann Dunham. We can remove this picture from the Barack Obama article as well since they already have a family picture there, and place it instead in the Barack Obama's early life article. -- Aeon17x ( talk) 09:07, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - this doesn't appear to illustrate anything that can't be conveyed by text and there doesn't even appear to be any sort of commetary on the photo in either article that uses it. The fact that some people like it is of course irrelevant, since this is a NFCC discussion. So far, I've read no argument to keep from anyone who actually appears to understand our NFCC criteria. If this photo is not deleted, it should at least be reduced in size. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:05, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep I think wiki should keep this picture, you shouldnt be so controversial in this regard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.181.17 ( talk) 08:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Wikipedia has a clear NFCC policy, if you don't understand that policy and it appears haven't even read that policy, then you shouldn't comment since this isn't a vote Nil Einne ( talk) 08:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

Folks, play by the Wiki rules. However, rules are meant to be amended if they don't make sense. I believe this picture is very telling. It reveals a very happy little boy and his mother. However, look at the body language in the picture. Pictures are worth more than 1000 words. KEEP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabiehl ( talk • contribs) 08:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC) I agree with this picture being on this webpage...it's not like he didn't want it out there, it was in one of his campaign adds. I think the American people need to see this to know he is just a regular guy, who is doing an extrodinary thing. Please keep it, It's time for change! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.196.57.204 ( talk) 02:49, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Regretful delete I like Obama as much as the next commenter, and it's a nice photo, but it simply fails WP:NFCC8 - that is, readers could understand Barack Obama and Ann Dunham perfectly well without seeing this photo. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 13:40, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - If WP:NFCC#8 is the problem (significance), then that can be solved by only using the picture where it is significant such as Barack Obama's early life article. Right now it's lacking a picture of his mother, and unlike George W. Bush there are no known family pictures where Barack's biological parents are together. -- Aeon17x ( talk) 14:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Even if it were moved to the other article, you still need to a have a visual requirement for the image, some concrete reason why the article could not be as easily understood without the image. In order to accomplish this, imagine it not having the photo. The reader then would have to read it and think to himself, "Boy, I really wish I could see a photo of this so I could see what they're talking about." That is the bar for inclusion. howcheng { chat} 16:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Nowhere in the NFCC does it speak of a 'visual requirement', as given enough creative writing you can skip pictures altogether. NFCC#8 in particular just notes that a picture is only used in an article if it "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". And this is one such case: a side-by-side display of his black father and white mother (as Barack wrote in his books, something he could not "register in his mind") would certainly tell the audience just how much of a race disparity there is between his parents. -- Aeon17x ( talk) 20:52, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
        • I'm paraphrasing. See the excellent Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-09-22/Dispatches, a guide to reviewing non-free images. And I think you have this image confused with another: this one is of Obama and his mother. Even if it were of his parents, I don't see why it would be difficult to picture two people of different skin colors together such that you would need a photo to explain it to you. howcheng { chat} 22:45, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
          • Good for you, you do not actively think of race. But there are some -- maybe even quite a lot -- of people who do. This Time article discusses this issue a bit more. (On a sidenote, that article does have a picture of his parents together.)

          One more thing: that particular Wikipedia Signpost dispatch shows that NFCC#8 applies on a per-article basis. Are we sure that there is absolutely no article where this picture may be significant? -- Aeon17x ( talk) 12:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

          There could be, but again, the article would need to make a case for it, and the most certain way of doing that is making sure that there is a concrete reason in the article itself why we need that article. As an example, look at Stonewall riots. Some time ago, I nominated Image:Stonewall riots.jpg for deletion because it wasn't necessary for the article (see this version). During the IFD discussion, User:Moni3 added a lot of detail about that specific photo (see diff). Notice that by the time she was done, the article itself made its own case. It became obvious exactly why the photo was necessary. If you can do this for one of the Obama articles, then great, and our rules will allow its usage. howcheng { chat} 19:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

          I'll get right over that. For now I'm going to fix the image page itself, such as uploading a lower resolution version and including some reliable sources as requested. The article improvement will come soon after. -- Aeon17x ( talk) 10:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

          Done with the new rationale and lower resolution version. At least it's clear that the photo does come from the Obama campaign. -- Aeon17x ( talk) 11:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

          Well, that was harder than I thought. I don't have any Obama primary source material at hand (his books, etc.) other than what else can be found on the Internet. I think we'll have to rely on someone who does and loves writing about Obama's childhood to note how important his mother was during those early years. -- Aeon17x ( talk) 12:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There seems to be no reason to delete the image given the fair use rationale cited on the image page. It illustrates historically notable persons and no free alternative exists or could be created. End of story, as far as I'm concerned. -- Richardrj ^{talk email} 08:54, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. this image es necesary for remember that the mother is a light in our lives and that her love and tenderly are a base for being more human. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.240.56.251 ( talk) 17:12, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• KEEP BIG TIME This image is NOT replaceable. This is a photo of Obama (and his mother) in history, and therefore this photo CANNOT be replaced. KoshVorlon > rm -r WP:F.U.R 19:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep! This image relays nostalgia, you can't express that with text. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.153.125.126 ( talk) 04:28, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep This image improves the article for all but a minority of readers. It is unlikely that the inclusion of this image will ever be objected to by anyone who retains any rights to it - there is a high probability that the original copyright holder is dead. Only in the unlikely event of an objection being made by the copyright holder would my view change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.1.151.34 ( talk) 09:53, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep This image is a faithful digitalization of a unique historic image. It depicts a historically notable person, and no free alternative exists or can be created. The image is low resolution and of no larger and of no higher quality than is necessary for the illustration of the article, and the use of the image on Wikipedia is not expected to decrease the value of the copyright. Finally, it is on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation. Thus it not only meets the criteria for fair, but also serves a legitimate purpose on Wikipedia.
  My personal feeling is that this photo is beautiful, touching, serves its purpose, adds signficantly to the article, and would never even be considered for deletion were it not for over-zealous ideological arguments. 153.108.64.1 ( talk) 10:05, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is yet another example of overzealous Wikipedians trying to invent their own copyright law. This is fair use. As best as I can tell from the derivation and the context, the copyright holder for this image is the President-Elect himself, by virtue of inheritance. If he wants to ask Wikipedia to take down the image or bring him royalties, bring it on, I'll pay for the legal fees myself. -- M @ r ē ino 20:18, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It's not a matter of covering our legal asses, it's about our free content mission and the mandate from the Foundation to use as little non-free material as possible. howcheng { chat} 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is absurd. I don't understand the desire of Wikipedia editors to create a ridiculously narrow definition of fair use. There is absolutely no way that Wikipedia will ever get into trouble for using this image, and of course it adds information to articles that would not be possible without the picture. 20:30, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
• Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.239.235 ( talk) 23:30, 6 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep: Obamas life is really extraordinary. Such pictures bring his early life alive. The important leader he is today, the picture shows how a simple child grew up to be a big figure in world leadership.
• Keep: Obamas life is really extraordinary. Such pictures bring his early life alive. The important leader he is today, the picture shows how a simple child grew up to be a big figure in world leadership.
• Keep: There is much speculation on the biological parentage of Barak Obama. There are several web sites comparing the adult appearance of Barak Obama to his father and his brother, and the lack of similarity is striking. His adult appearance is also compared on the internet to another man, a 'friend of the family' with amazing similarity. There are even doubts expressed on the internet that Stanley Dunham Obama did not appear to be pregnant a few months prior to his birth, and the speculation that his birth mother might actually have been the woman referred to as his grandmother. This photograph is a valuable resource, for computerized 'aging' of this photograph and comparing it to the adult Barak Obama. There even are some who are speculating that the Barak Obama who traveled to Pakistan and Indonesia in 1981 is not the same person who returned later in 19981, traveling under that same passport and using that ID since 1981. Any photograph of Barak Obama taken prior to 1981 could be of great value to either validate or quell the doubts as to who he is. Of all people elected to the presidency of the USA, Barak Obama certainly is the person with the most doubts, the most unanswered questions, and the least background information. Any piece of verified information about Barak Obama is a valuable piece of history, and there is too little to discard what there is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.245.8.65 ( talk) 23:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Non-replaceable image that has valuable fair-use purposes on one or more articles. LotLE× talk 20:33, 8 November 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.