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:

speedily deleted per 
WP:CSD#I1. 
matt
br 
11:02, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Valures Party logo.gif ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Alan Liefting ( notify | contribs).

• I made a spelling error wen I uploaded it. Correctly named image at Image:Values Party logo.gif.
• Delete incorectly named, therefore duplicate and uploader-requested deletion. abf /talk to me/ 16:51, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Tagged for speedy deletion as the page now meets WP:CSD#I1 and WP:CSD#G7. - Icewedge ( talk) 22:53, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Fails WP:NFCC#2 as the source`is an encyclopedia or almanac which is similar in nature to Wikipedia and created to make money for the copyright holder. The use may not even be transformative enough to qualify as fair use. - Nv8200p talk 19:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:MS 04302005 0036.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blatantdream ( notify | contribs).

• The image runs counter to the information here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Images which cannot be "fair use" and the underlying principle of not using material copied from existing encyclopedias and encyclopedia-like works. The image was created and used in such a context where originally published in the Official Handbook to the Marvel Universe J Greb ( talk) 12:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails NFCC 2. Protonk ( talk) 22:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Cannot meet NFCC, including NFCC 8 without independent reliable sources directly discussing the image and it seems unlikely that any independent reliable sources directly discuss the image. -- Suntag ☼ 15:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep an image of a cartoon character on the article about the character is fair use. - Nard 20:27, 2 October 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 - I cannot see a strong argument of how the reader's understanding is significantly increased by this image. Per some discussion below and at the prior DrV there is text in the article that describes the banner, to the point that image is redundant to the text. - Peripitus (Talk) 11:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

• Speedy deleted on September 14 per WP:CSD#I7 (invalid fair use rationale). Considered at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 September 22 over double the usual time, where a fragile consensus emerged to list it here, even though there was a sense it would probably be deleted anyway. Since the subject is the (copyrighted) banner rather than Mr. Shearer, its use to illustrate Alan Shearer has never been well established. Chick Bowen 19:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. With respect to whether this image meets the Non-free content criteria (NFCC) policy about use of copyrighted images:
  • 1. No free equivalent (image is replaceable by a free version) - The image is not being used to illustrate the person, it is being used to illustrate the installation of a banner with accompanying article text. It is not replaceable by finding a free image of the living person.
  • 1. No free equivalent (subject can be adequately conveyed by text) - The image is of a fairly unique event, it has likely never happened before, and it is not comprised of common elements that would be easily understood by all readers. If you asked ten people to recreate the scene from a text description alone, you would get 10 wildly different versions. Replacing the image with text would vastly reduce the quality of the information being conveyed by the related article text. It is quite easy to assert that you know what is being described by the text when you already have access to the image.
  • 2. Respect for commercial opportunities - This image is a low quality photograph of a banner which was created using a copyrighted photograph and logo. The image is not a direct reproduction of that copyrighted logo or photograph. In terms of legal copyright protection, photographs of this public exhibit are not a realistic threat to any commercial use of the copyrighted source images that were used to create the banner. I can see no scenario where for example, a person selling t-shirts with this photo on it would receive a cease and desist letter, let alone be prosecuted. If really necessary the resolution could be reduced even further and still retain the original purpose of use. Seeking permission from the holder would likely be impossible, given the upheavals at NUFC / Northern Rock since the banner was created.
  • 3. Minimal usage - not applicable.
  • 4. Previous publication - Images of the banner have been published in a variety of other sources.
  • 5. Content - The image as content is notable and encyclopedic
  • 6. Media-specific policy - Image meets the Image use policy, specifically it meets the policy's subsidiary non-free image guideline's criteria for acceptable use of non-free images under criteria 8: Images with iconic status or historical importance. As far as I know, no other football club has ever paid tribute to a player in this manner, the historical significance and importance of this image to the article is demonstrated.
  • 7. One-article minimum Image is currently used in Alan Shearer only.
  • 8. Significance - The image, and accompanying explanatory text, contributes greatly to the understanding of the topic of perception, analysis and understanding of Alan Shearer's career contribution to NUFC, an essential part of a biography of a football player. It is also a historic, notable and possibly unique image in the world of football generally, see point 6. I am not sure if this clause is still supposed to cover the text desription relplacement clause of NFCC1, so if it is, see the defence at point 1.
  • 9. Restrictions on location. The image is used in article space only.
  • 10. Image description page - The image description page has a source, a valid copyright tag, and a correclty formed non-free use rationale guideline, uniquely worded to the justification of use for this image.

MickMacNee ( talk) 21:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete - doesn't meaningfully add to the reader's understanding of the article. The text explaining there was a banner is sufficient. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:32, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I just don't see the logic here. To make this statement to my mind requires a very big assumption about the imagination and level of subject knowledge of all readers. To me, no two readers would be able to describe the same thing if asked to expand on what the text describes alone. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:25, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Replaceable by text. One of the things to realize here is that like it or lump it, wikipedia has pretty restrictive fair use guidelines. We are the free encyclopedia and as a result rules about fair use images are applied that would not be applied to free images. I couldn't remove a free image from an article solely because I felt that text did an ok job instead but this is a perfectly reasonable reason to remove a fair use image. Protonk ( talk) 05:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • But it doesn't replace it, it is an extremely poor second best. Reducing quality is not the goal of the fair use rules when all other criteria and image use content guidelines are met, which they are. A 'free encyclopoedia' is a goal of some users, it is not official policy. MickMacNee ( talk) 10:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Are you serious? It's a foundation issue and Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is a policy. Protonk ( talk) 16:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • A free encyclopoedia above all else is not policy, fair use is allowed per the very policy you point out, which as explained is met here. Any assertion that an image has to be replaced by text because this is a free encyclopoedia is just wrong. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Yes it very much is policy. We include fair use images when they significantly improve the encyclopedia and are otherwise allowed by our Fair Use content guidelines (the NFC) and policy (the NFCC). In this case, this image does not significantly improve the encyclopedia. I said it fails NFCC 1. It also fails NFCC 8. I'm not going to continue gainsaying this. There is room for discussion that the NFCC can be interpreted in different ways (that room for interpretation is part of the reason why this is listed here, which I voted to do, BTW), but I'm just telling you that the outcome is going to be deleted. The sooner you understand why the less angry you will be over that eventuality. Protonk ( talk) 23:34, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply
          • I'm not angry, I'm just pointing out that a free encyclopoedia is not policy. Fair use is allowed when it meets policy, and I disagree with your assessment that this image does not improve this article or is replaceable by text. It simply cannot be said at all that anybody could realisticaly picture the scene being described through words alone. And it is a significant image, that also just cannot be argued. These are basic facts. People are acting as if this is just another unimportant Simpsons screen shot. It clearly isn't. MickMacNee ( talk) 00:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unnecessary non-free content image. Protonk sums it up nicely. Garion96 (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Note:I have only just realised, and added, IFD warnings to the image at the article it appears in, so I would ask anybody considering closing this bang on the 5 days from its initial listing to give thought to the principle of due notice as laid out in the IFD listing procedure. As far as I know, the only people likely to have been aware of this listing would be anybody watchlisting the image, or casually perusing this extremely long IFD page stuffed with logo nominations to the very bottom (i.e. very likely nobody falling into the category of a general reader) MickMacNee ( talk) 00:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• And we're back again. Delete as per my previous rationales — irredeemably fails NFCC8 as it does not contribute to readers' understanding of the article. I know you disagree with me, MickMacNee, but save your own time by not replying to this as I do not intend to change my mind. Stifle ( talk) 14:21, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • This opinion is just a vague wave. How can you even act surprised anybody could disagree with you, especially when they have at least given coherent and reasonable assertions with respect to the specific article and image being discussed as to why they are simply 'right' also. MickMacNee ( talk) 23:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Meets NFCC 1, obviously, since the poster is copyrighted itself and any photos of it do not change that copyright status. The issue rests on NFCC 8, "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." Wikipedia:Nfc#Images#4 expands on NFCC 8: Other promotional material: Posters, programs, billboards, ads. For critical commentary. In other words, sourced critical commentary concerning the image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. "Critical" doesn't necessarily mean negative, it means evaluation/judgment. Source material cited to and used in the article for evaluation/judgment of the image is at [1], [2], [3], and/or [4]. Since there is sourced critical commentary concerning the image in the article, that sourced critical commentary would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. Since the image meets NFCC 8 and all other Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, there is no basis to delete the image. -- Suntag ☼ 14:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Also, an argument that the image is adequately replaced by text and therefore fails NFCC 1 seems misplaced because it uses the sourced critical commentary text required to meet NFCC 8 as a way of failing NFCC 1. In other words, if you meet NFCC 8 with text, that text is enough to fail NFCC 1. That does not see logical or consistent with NFCC. -- Suntag ☼ 14:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. At least for me, it added to my understanding of the article in the section where this banner is discussed. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 04:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep Good fair use which is not replaceable. Colonel Warden ( talk) 18:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Talk page moved. - Nv8200p talk 20:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David.Monniaux ( notify | contribs).

• Unused, redundant with Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.png. Garion96 (talk) 20:08, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep file contains version history essential for GFDL compliance and a talk page essential for establishing the medal is public domain in the United States.

Since it is not a GFDL image, the history is not essential for GFDL reasons. If the talk page is essential, that one could be kept or moved to Image talk:Nobel medal dsc06171.png. The image itself can go. Garion96 (talk) 21:28, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually the photograph of the medal is GFDL licensed. OTH all the changes are minor (cropping and changes to transparency) and may not constitute the creation of new works. I agree the talk page should be moved. - Nard 22:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Delete the .jpg image itself since is an inferior, redundant version of the used .png image. Move the talk page (233 edits!) to Image talk:Nobel medal dsc06171.png. As for keeping/deleting an image file page lacking an image to maintain User:David.Monniaux's GFDL history rights, I can't answer that (particularly since no link was provided to establish that David.Monniaux's photograph of the medal was GFDL licensed.) There are 165 edits (yes, 165!) in the Image:Nobel_medal_dsc06171.jpg history, so it couldn't hurt to preserve this information so that we don't have to debate the GFDL issue in this deletion discussion. I think that once the .jpg itself is deleted, Image:Nobel medal dsc06171.png should be moved to File:Nobel medal dsc06171.png/Wikipedia image history with a note on Image talk:Nobel medal dsc06171.png explaining why the .png page has a subpage. -- Suntag ☼ 14:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
  • The GFDL license is right on the page. It's just wrapped in {{tl}}. - Nard 20:30, 2 October 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.