WIKIPEDIA:FILES FOR DELETION 2010 MAY 31

< May 30	June 1 >

May 31

File:DSC00111 edited.JPG

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; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Unused file, nothing that identifies who it is so that it could be used in any article. – MuZemike 01:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep as it could be used on various pages such as hippies, hair, fashions.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 09:29, 7 June 2010 (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.

File:DSC00121.jpg

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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Unused file, no description, no encyclopedic value. – MuZemike 01:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Note – also added File:DSC00122.jpg for the exact same reason as above; exact same picture. – MuZemike 01:33, 31 May 2010 (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.

File:DSC00129.jpg

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: deleted because it is now on Commons as File:Westernghats in Theni District.jpg -- B ( talk) 12:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Unused file, no description, generic title, no encyclopedic purpose. – MuZemike 01:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete, although it's a beautiful photo, it has no description so it cannot be used anywhere at Wikipedia.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 09:27, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep * Please, before nominating a picture for deletion, check the user's activity right after they uploaded (even on deleted articles). It will almost always give you more information about the image, because people usually try to get their images into articles. See its usage and description in this old version of an article. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 09:54, 7 June 2010 (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.

File:DSC00146.JPG

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; deleted by DragonflySixtyseven ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Unused file, duplicate of many other files used elsewhere, no encyclopedic value. – MuZemike 01:53, 31 May 2010 (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.

File:DSC001541.jpg

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:08, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Unused file, no description (besides in a questionable, juvenile way), and no encyclopedic value. – MuZemike 01:55, 31 May 2010 (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.

File:Sunglasses50.png

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude ( talk) 04:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:03, 31 May 2010 (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.

File:Swallowsm.png

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

orphaned, target article/encyc. use unclear Skier Dude ( talk) 04:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:07, 31 May 2010 (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.

File:T3commonareaseats2.jpg

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC) reply

OR, UE, use not stated. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 09:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:05, 31 May 2010 (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.

File:Image-Meteorite-hunters-full.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 17:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Move to commons shows a meteorite, shows it was dug out of the ground, so I don't see how it couldn't be used in some context; what do you mean by low quality? Why is almost every image called "low quality" ? Explain how VGA resolution is low quality? That's higher than standard def TV! 76.66.193.224 ( talk) 06:17, 1 June 2010 (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.

File:Cheryl Cole performing on X Factor.jpg

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: No Consensus. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply

This image of Cheryl Crow is being used to show an outfit. The image is redundant if it were properly described. Further, since the image is not historical or critical to the subject of the article, and feasibly replaceable by any audience member with a camera, it should be deleted Matthewedwards : Chat 00:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Disagree numerous articles use snaps from recordings of TV performances. The outfit is integral to the millatary theme which has become synonymous with the song and live performances of it. The outfit recieved a lot of media attention and it clearly sourced within the article. I admit that perhaps an audience snap might be more appropriate however we currently don't have one. Lil-unique1 ( talk) 13:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC) reply

And just because we don't have one, doesn't mean one doesn't exist. If you watch the episode, you can see plenty of camera flashes from the audience. Any one of these pictures could be freely licensed and used. Just because we don't have one yet, doesn't mean we should go around using copyrighted images instead. Matthewedwards : Chat 22:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC) reply

i've revised the non-free usuage criteria and still believe that its use is justified. whilst it could probably be lower the image did recieve lots media coverage which does make it notable. The non-free image criteria states that non-free images can only be used in the absense of free images providing there is a strong description of why the image is required. I believe we satisfy WP:NFCC because the image adds significantly to reader's understanding of the subject matter. Regards, Lil-unique1 ( talk) 16:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

It's still not enough to justify using a copyrighted image where a free-licensed alternative could be available. The image did not receive lots of media coverage, her performance and outfit did, and the image shows the performance and outfit, but the text in the article She adorned a military-themed outfit by Welsh fashion designer Julien MacDonald. It consisted of a sheer bodysuit^[14], a red military jacket with black epaulettes as well as other details other detail, black harem trousers^[15] and Alexander Wang boots.^[16]describes the outfit perfectly, so using a copyrighted image does not significantly add to the reader's understanding. Matthewedwards : Chat 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I meant what the image is depicting recieved a lot of media attention. The outfit itself became synonymous with the performance of the song. She appeared in the same outfit numerous times including in white and blue variation for the BRIT Awards. Though i agree it is well explained it still add to reader understanding because the image shows the outfit together demonstrating the military theme which was effectively being used to promote the song. Regards, Lil-unique1 ( talk) 17:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

NFCC #1 says "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" Free equivalents are available. Audience members took photos of the performance, and one of those could be licensed for use on Wikipedia. While WP doesn't have access to one of those photos yet, that doesn't justify using a non-free image. It goes on to say "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by text without using the non-free content at all?" And yes, it could -- see the quote from the article in my previous post.
The image is of a living person, and we rarely allow copyrighted images of living people.
The image is too big, anyway. It should be a maximum of 300px on its largest side to meet "low resolution". Matthewedwards : Chat 17:39, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

is there any way we can save this image? i will upload a smaller one now. regards, Lil-unique1 ( talk) 22:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep. I think this image is useful to Wikipedia.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 16:45, 7 June 2010 (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.

File:Norton-RichardArthur 1958 1966b.jpg

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: Keep; early closure. I have been monitoring a series of discussions bearing upon this nomination, on various talkpages and on ANI. It appears that for whatever reason, perhaps based on a good-faith concern that Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) had uploaded other problematic images, TreasuryTag nominated for deletion substantially every image that R.A. Norton had ever uploaded, and that an administrator had encouraged him in this endeavor. While it is legitimate for image-patrollers to pay special attention to images uploaded by users who have made mistakes in the past, in this instance this precept was taken to an extreme with this nomination of this school photograph of the editor taken at age 8, in 1966. It is highly questionable that such a nomination would ever have been made if any other user had been the uploader. Under all the circumstances, and in the context of the sprawling dispute involving these editors and the ongoing contentiousness, I find that this nomination is unhelpful and that the debate should be closed. I am confirmed in this conclusion by the fact that there appears to be no substantial basis for a copyright concern here. We are dealing with a school photograph taken in 1966. (For editors in locations where school photographs are unfamiliar, there is a custom in the United States that the school employs a photographer to take snapshots of all the children, which are then offered to the parents for sale over a period of a few days or weeks.) As a practical matter, no photographer, who presumably would have held the copyright to the photograph, would be concerned about an uploading of such a photograph of a non-notable individual some 44 years after the fact. Even as a formal or legal matter, this image being United States and pre-1978, any copyright registration would have required renewal and I find as a fact that there is no possibility that a school photographer would have filed with the copyright office and paid the fees associated with renewing the copyright on the tens of thousands of school photos that he or she would have taken over the years. There are interesting philosophical and legal debates to be had about how vigilant Wikipedia should be in protecting notional copyright claims, meaning claims in which there is little real possibility that a copyright-holder would be affected or concerned by our reuse of material that might formally be under copyright, but in this case my conclusion is that there is no meaningful possibility that copyright still exists. The combination of all these factors leads to the inexorable conclusion that this debate should be closed at this time with a Keep result. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 14:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The previous deletion discussion closed as "no consensus"—however, I do think that there is an issue there that needs sorting out. The closing admin advised that I relist. Read over last time's debacle, and it would perhaps be best if people who didn't comment last time gave their views now, so as to try and build a consensus on the issues raised in the last round? ╟─ Treasury Tag► Tellers' wands─╢ 18:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Of course, as the nominator 7 days ago, that caveat would include yourself. I would think any who commented in the last discussion, whether for delete or keep, should be informed that the file that was kept less than 24 hours ago has been again sent to deltion discussion, and so be and encouraged to ofer an opinion as to the image being {{ PD-Pre1978}} or not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Well, I can't stop you!, though everyone who commented has already commented, and I fear that this new discussion would be derailed if they all piled on again with their respective views. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Counsellor of State─╢ 19:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
For the purposes of this discussion, you may think of it as a relist to obtain a more lucid consensus. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
If it were a relist, editors would be seeing the original discussions and the little relist notice. However many times something is sent to deletion discussion, every instance is a new discussion. This is now a new discussion, on a recently closed file... and not simply a relist. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Fair enough. Being the original closing admin, would it please you if I were to add a little notice? - FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not wanting to seem flippant, for that is not my intent, but why did you close and then suggest a relisting on the nominator's talk page, rather than simply relist the ongoing discussion to get continued input Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The nominator explained to me that they were not happy with the original result, and I agreed that by relisting the file, more decisive action could be taken. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

That would seem to encourage nominators to do an end-run around the WP:DRV process. If a nominator does not agree with a close, the prescribed proceedure is to go to Deletion Review so the close could be dicsussed. With respects, sugesting a hurried renomination encourages any nominator anywhere to renominate any deletion discussion as many times as he wishes until he decides he is satisfied. Perhaps this hurried return to deletion should be procedurally closed and we all go to DRV instead. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:29, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

DRV is for where someone feels there was a procedural error in the closure of the discussion. I don't think there was; Fastily acted properly. However, in this situation, "no consensus" is not good enough, so I relisted. Since there are now !votes on both sides, a procedural close would be contrary to WP:IAR at best, and POINTy at worst. ╟─ Treasury Tag► voice vote─╢ 22:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You did not "relist", else we'd be seeing all the previous discussions. You re-nominated... and then suggested that all those who opined earlier not opine here. Ouch. The closer could have simply re-opened the earlier closed discussion, specially since it was so very recent, and tagged the earlier and ogonig discussion as relisted. That was not done. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You see Michael, DRV would only be applicable if I did not agree with TT or refused to take action in response to his query. But as you can clearly see, he has my support. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

WP:DRV is for when someone disgrees with a close. I respect that you closed as no-consensus, even when you yoursef agreed with the nominator, as that shows integrity and respect for consensus. It is his renomination after 17 hours and without going through the DRV process that is the flaw. And (elephant in the room) the nominator's ongoing disagreemnets with RAN seem to make this seem a bit personal. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Yes, DRV is for when someone disagrees with the close. Yes, the close was correct. So yes, DRV was not the right avenue. The rest of your argument, in which you baselessly allege that I am purusing a vendetta against Richard, is not only a personal attack but also irrelevant. WP:DR is right over there... > ╟─ Treasury Tag► quaestor─╢ 22:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

If the close was correct, why did you decide to renominate 17 hours later? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

To obtain a more lucid consensus. Simple as that. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

@ Fastily: The nominator has now stated that your close was correct. His renomination 17 hours later simply because he disaagreed with a correct close is out of process. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

With all due respect, the nominator never disagreed with my close. All he wants is more definitive action. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Then you as closer should have reopened and relisted.. but that boat has sailed. The new deletion nomination 17 hours later is out of process, specially as the one person best able to ofer evidence is blocked and unable to participate. Had it been 17 weeks, I'd not have a valid complaint, would I? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Like I said above - If you like, I can add the little notice. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

@ Fastily: The notice would have gone on the earlier discusion it it were at-the-time relisted... and editors would see it at the base of the previous discussion. For good or bad, what we have here now is a new AFD, and I do not envy the headaches. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

@ TreasuryTag: A procedural close can happen anytime it is deemed appropriate, delete votes or not. Surely you recall the very recent numerous procedural closes of AFD's of many of RAN's artcles? Closes that happened even with delete votes offered? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

And please... I did not use the term "vendetta" nor make a personal attack. I was referring to edit histories that show ongoing disagreements between you and RAN and spoke toward a possible seeming perception. Nor did I say that your renomination was POINTY. Just as someone remarked above toward RAN and AGF, if a pattern of behavior from anyone, RAN included, is seen as disruptive, behavior becomes relevant. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete. Per user's past history with uploading copyright violations. I like to AGF, but I find it difficult to give credibility to many of Mr. Norton's copyright claims. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 18:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep We're talking here about this one image, not others debated in other discussions. So let's make the discussion about the image and not the editor. AGF is AGF. ABF is ABF. An image that was taken and published in the US prior to 1978 without a copyright notice falls into the public domain. There is no copyright notice splashed across the image in question. Grade school yearbooks in the U.S. are published specifically so that parents of these children will not only purchase additional images, but distribute those images to friends and relatives, and place such images on Christmas cards, etc... the intent of such being to specificaly allow disemination of such images. The photographer that took the series of pictures for that grade school did so so in order to create images specifically for distribution and disemination. If he did not intend distribution, he'd be quickly out of business. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Although, if you read the previous discussion as I suggested, you'll find that multiple editors observed, many if not most school photographs are distributed with prominent copyright notices. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Lord Speaker─╢ 18:52, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
You provided the link and I most definitely read that very recent discussion. I read an unfounded claim that "several of us have seen them arrive with copyright notices attached". Who? When? Where? Is this claim being made for all grade school yearbook photographs taken in 1966 or '67, or only that some have seen some copyrights on more recent grade school pictures somewhere in the world? Moot question. All that statement would indicate is that a few of the many thousands of grade school yearbook photographers might have decided at some point to copyright their images. That some might have done so is no indicator that all these thousands in the U.S. must have automaticallly done so throughout all time. {{ PD-Pre1978}} exists because many hundreds of thousands of images were indeed taken and published withot a copyright notice prior to 1978. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Actually, TT is right. Many school yearbooks are published with copyright restrictions in some form, especially considering this yearbook was published after 1923; it's ludicrous to believe that this photo is in the public domain. Now the possibility exists that the yearbook was published without a copyright notice between 1923 and 1977 but by your own logic, do we know this for sure? This file is possibly unfree at best. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
With respects, his generalazation is not correct. And barring evidence to the contrary, I see it far more likely that this file is indeed {{ PD-Pre1978}}, and perhaps even more likely that yearbooks... specially gradeschool yearbooks in 1966 and 1967... were not published with copyright notices. Heck, I just went through my own highschool yearbooks from 1967 through 1971 and none of them have such notices... and I attended a school in a litigious Southern California. So that some "may have" does not allow a presumption that all absolutely did so, as my own eyes see evidence that all did not. What some may see in an occasional yearbook in 2010 is not an indicator of what one might have existed in 1966 or '67. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}
I echo my point above. Without hard evidence, this file is possibly unfree at best. Just because we are unsure of the copyright status of a file does not mean the copyright status should automatically default to Public Domain. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
And I re-echo my own point. When I look in my highschool yearbooks covering a 4-year period 40+ years ago, I specifically do NOT any assertion of copyright. Why would I then presume that yearbooks from an earlier period grade school would contain what my own later highschool yearbooks do not? Please... can anyone show a copyright assertion in any 45-year-old US grade school yearbook? Or are presumptions being based upon something far more recent. If assertions are made based upon observations of gradeschool yearbooks from the last few years, they have little bearing upon {{ PD-Pre1978}}. Common sense folks... common sense. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
You keep using your yearbook as an example upon which you base your argument but you fail to note how your yearbook is one of millions. Where is the common sense in that? - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
You make my point. My 40+ year-old yearbooks are only 4 of millions... but at least these I have seen and can judge. Above there are uncited assertions that several here have seen yearbooks that contained copyight assertions... "several" out of the millions you have pointed out. "Several" is not a large enough database from which to make presumptuions about those millions. I have seen my own, and so I have 4 pre-1978 yearbooks that do not assert copyright. So to those asserting above, just which of you can provide evidence of a pre-1978 United States gradeschool yearbook that does contain a copyright assertion? Or are presumptions being made about pre-1978 gradeschool yearbooks based upon something post-1978? Post-1988? Post 1998? Post 2008? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I am sorry, but I do not see how I make your point. The sampling you have at hand is <0.00001% of all yearbooks in existence. You cannot really be basing your entire argument on such a minute sample. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

And are you? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Negative my good man. My argument is based on the fact 4 yearbooks are not an accurate representation of all the yearbooks in existence. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:43, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Eaxctly. A very few out of millions is not a representative sample. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I think we shall need to wait for input from Mr. Norton. This discussion is going in circles at present. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:59, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete. In my prior experience with these sorts of images, the uploader likely thinks he owns the copyright and can make it PD but the photographer, as previously mentioned, of school photos takes these to own make a profit and they own the photo, not the subject. — Rlevse • Talk • 19:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
@ Rlevse: With respects, if this were an image taken in the last few years, I would tend to agree... but for a likley-deceased photographer who took a picture for gradeschool yearbook 45 years ago? Is it the asssertion that the photographer's heirs and assigns own an as-yet-unestablished copyright in perpetuity? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not perpetuity, no. I believe that copyright, where it exists, subsists for 20-70 years after death, depending on date and jurisdiction. To assume that the date, copyright labelling on the yearbook, health of photographer (!) and location all conveniently align exactly so as to qualify this image as PD is a ludicrous notion. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 21:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep and end this retarded waste of editors' time.-- Milowent ( talk) 20:18, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
No reason based on Wikipedia policies provided. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Tellers' wands─╢ 21:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Do we really have to go through the same dance again, TT? You offered the same crappy response to my !vote at the last discussion. My comment is the same, since you force me: "I find your nomination of a picture of RAN when he was 8 years old to be rubbish. If there is some technical inaccuracy in the permissions and such, perhaps you can help right that egregious wrong. I appreciate your comment of WP:JUSTAVOTE because it serves to illustrate what a load of bollocks this particular nomination is.... Do you work for the RIAA, or whatever its equivalent is for 1966 grade school photos? I am absolutely in favor of the concept of copyright, but the overzealous supposed "enforcement" of US copyright law I see on wikipedia from time to time -- asserting, for example, interpretations that even Wikimedia's own attorneys say go too far (See comment of Mike Godwin at [1]), is ridiculous. Its like editors think they are empowered to make citizen arrests or something, and go giddy with this supposed power, enforcing the law in such a way that no sane government official would ever suggest or pursue. If Richard Alan Norton (1958- ) should go to prison for posting his 2nd grade school photo on Wikipedia, send me with him! Our Letter from Birmingham Jail awaits!"-- Milowent ( talk) 03:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

{{ PD-Pre1978}}. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Without a valid source, the copyright status of the file cannot be determined, so it is possibly unfree and should be deleted on that basis. Everything posted to Wikipedia must be verifiable. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

WP:AGF. The subject of the image was present when it was taken. ~~You~~ The nominator was not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

And what does that have to do with any of the above? - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Was meant to the nominator. The new deletion nomination 17 hours later is out of process, specially as the one person best able to offer evidence is blocked and unable to participate. Had it been 17 weeks, I'd not have a valid complaint, would I?

Keep This renomination seems to be deliberate disruption contrary to WP:DEL. As it seems to be in furtherance of a personal vendetta, it is also a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:POINT. The grounds for the nomination seem to be entirely speculative. Per WP:AGF, I see no reason to dispute the statement made by the uploader regarding its copyright status. We have to rely upon such statements for most of our images and the practical onus is upon the nay-sayers to disprove them. Colonel Warden ( talk) 21:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Let's try to keep discussion civil here. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Fastily's position in this matter seems unusual - trying to be both a participant and a moderator of this extended discussion. This seems unsatisfactory. Colonel Warden ( talk) 22:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

I was the moderator in the last discussion. I am a participant in this discussion. Quite satisfactory if you ask me. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 22:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

You state above that this should be considered a relisting of the first discussion and so they are not separate. Procedurally, this is now quite a mess. Colonel Warden ( talk) 23:02, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Technicalities my friend. While these are indeed two separate discussions, you may consider the last discussion as a precursor to this one. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 23:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

First, Colonel, if you think that I am pursuing a vendetta and being deliberately disruptive, then file for arbitration against me. This is not the venue to discuss that.

It is quite proper. Numerous other AFDs of RAN's contributions have recently been struck down for similar reasons and it would be sensible if the same were to happen in this case too. Colonel Warden ( talk) 22:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

As for your claim that we should treat Richard's claim of no-copyright-notice as true, nothing in WP:AGF suggests that we assume good faith where there is extensive evidence of lying in parallel situations. He's uploaded images with dodgy at best, false at worst, copyright claims before. Why should we believe him this time? ╟─ Treasury Tag► stannator─╢ 22:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

The claim made in this case seems quite plausible, given the uploader's date of birth. He seems to use his real identity and so would be subject to real-world sanctions if he were to improperly misrepresent copyright. For the same reason, we should avoid accusing him of lying without any evidence. Colonel Warden ( talk) 22:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Earlier it is suggested that pattern of behavior is irrelevant, and then arguments return to patterns of behavior in lack of good faith. It can't be had both ways. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.}

Keep image - In the absence of an objection from someone claiming copyright, I can't see any good reason not to assume good faith and accept the assertions of the person depicted (being RAN) that the image is in fact in the public domain. To do otherwise - and in fact, the nomination of the image in the first place - verges on harassment. - DustFormsWords ( talk) 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

While I would love to endorse your theory, the thing with media files, is that if the file is in fact copyrighted but posted on Wikipedia as free, then copyright holder has a pretty strong legal case against us. The project could potentially be sued to the ground, and then there wouldn't be a Wikipedia for you to edit. - FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

A principle supported by law... and were anyone to cut-n-paste an image off this month's cover of Time, I could see how the project would have major problems if the image were allowed to remain. However, we are not speaking about the generalities of media file issues, but about a specific file... a particular image of a certain individual from a 1966/67 gradeschool yearbook where that individual himself declares {{ PD-Pre1978}}. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

(Agreeing with MichaelQSchmidt) My understanding is that the Wikimedia Foundation asks us to let Wikipedia's lawyers worry about Wikipedia's legal position, and us editors just stick to enforcing the current policy. Here we have a claim by RAN that the image is in the public domain, and nothing but speculation to counter that. Wikipedia policy asks us to assume good faith in the absence of firm evidence to the contrary. - DustFormsWords ( talk) 03:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep per MichaelQSchmidt. Unless someone can provide hard evidence that grade school year books in the 60s came with a copyright notice, I see no point in assuming this one actually did. – sgeureka ^t•
c 06:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete; our copyright principles are that we assume images are copyrighted until proof to the contrary is provided. Stifle ( talk) 08:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Please cite a detailed policy to this effect. The National Portrait Gallery case indicates otherwise. Colonel Warden ( talk) 11:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Not literally what you're after, but Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations#Accepted cases declares that, "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations." ╟─ Treasury Tag► consulate─╢ 11:32, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

CCI seems to have no record of this user. My impression is that they are concerned with more extensive cases. Also, please note their guidance: "A CCI is a serious accusation, and doing so frivolously is a breach of the "no personal attacks" policy. In general, if you have an on-going dispute with another editor, you should avoid filing a CCI case against that editor...". Colonel Warden ( talk) 12:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

CCI focuses mainly on text issues, but if there is a legitimate concern about extensive copyright problems (which appears to be the case judging from the flood of FfDs), then a request can certainly be filed. We generally ask for only 5+ examples of problems before we open a case. VernoWhitney ( talk) 18:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Speedy Keep file is marked as public domain and being used legitimatly for Richards user page. No policy based reason to delete. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 10:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep This is a harmless photograph being used in a harmless way. Which is a lot more than can be said of the nomination. It's my view that this editor is being harassed and bullied. I doubt anyone here seriously beleives this unremarkable photograph of an unremarkable schoolchild who as far as we know grew up to be unremarkable adult is likely to result in court cases damaging the project or is contravening any copyright law that anyone is likely to care about. This is an unpleasant, mendacious nomination and the nominator and his cohorts should be ashamed of themselves. Giacomo 13:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Comment inre renomination 17 hours after a close: " After a deletion debate concludes and the page is kept, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome." So the question becomes, is 17 hours reasonable? Further, as the nominator above agrees that the close was correct but that he disagrees with it (irony?), let's look at Wikipedia:Deletion policy: " If you believe a page was wrongly deleted, or should have been deleted but wasn't, or a deletion discussion improperly closed, you should discuss this with the person who performed the deletion, or closed the debate, on their talk page. If this fails to resolve the issue, you can request review of the closure at Wikipedia:Deletion review." Since the nominator feels the file "should have been deleted but wasn't", he should have taken his disagreement to Deletion Review, and not simply renominated 17 hours after the close. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:09, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Since the nominator feels the file "should have been deleted but wasn't", he should have taken his disagreement to Deletion Review. Wrong – that is not what DRV is for. How many times do you have to be told? If you disagree with this nomination, then open an RfC against me, but I acted according to the closing admin's advice, so stop interrupting this discussion by pointing erroneously to more and more rules. Please! ╟─ Treasury Tag► presiding officer─╢ 21:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Read the policies, and then please review WP:CIV. You will learn that per the above quoted text from " Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Deletion review, that is EXACTLY what deletion review is for. And the renomination 17 hours later, whether you were advised to do so or not, is yet another fact under consideration. I will not file an RFC over a perhaps misunderstanding of deletion policy. However, you are always welcome to file one against me for very politely pointing out relevant policy, or please... show how the policies are erroneous. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
I was not incivil. The situation has been made abundantly clear. Numerous editors have expressed opinions on both sides of this debate, and it is not going to be withdrawn. I highly doubt that it will be procedurally closed. So your endless attempts to get this section shut down are irritating, pointless and timewasting. I regret that I will not be engaging in further dialogue over this point outisde of formal dispute resolution. ╟─ Treasury Tag► quaestor─╢ 21:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
You have now declared I am Wikilawyering, while you have still not addressed the offered and quite relevent portions of deletion policy... instead declaring my use of them as erroneous. Wikipedia is governed by those policies, so use of them is never erroneous. And now you repeat demands that I no longer offer or expand on my opinion, calling my comments "irritating, pointless and timewasting". Please review WP:BATTLE and WP:CIV. While politely disagreeing with you is not incivility, your casting aspertions on any who do most definitely is. Please cease. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep Image submitter claims image is in the public domain: WP:AGF. Besides, it's not even in an actual article, but rather a harmless usage on a user page. Warnings of a potential lawsuit over a 45 year old elementary school photo are a stretch as well. Torchiest ^talk/_contribs 22:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep This is ridiculous! You don't start the same discussion again the day after you close the previous one. He owns the image, and therefore there is no copyright problems. Dream Focus 23:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep. Public domain. Moriori ( talk) 00:33, 2 June 2010 (UTC) reply

No, I believe that 7 days is the correct length of time for a deletion discussion where there are arguments presented by multiple editors on both sides. (I know I said I'd disengage; this is merely a procedural comment on a discussion I started and am duty bound to keep an eye on.) The comment to which this was a reply has since been deleted ╟─ Treasury Tag► Regent─╢ 14:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete per arguments above, the PD tag is likely fraudulent. Tarc ( talk) 17:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep per DustFormsWords' appeal to AGF. The uploader (after advice) has stated the image is {{ PD-Pre1978}} and there is no obvious contradiction in that. The onus then falls on those who ABF to demonstrate why AGF should not apply. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) is an autoreviewer, which means he is trusted to create articles, has over 90,000 edits, and has been a contributor since 2004. He has uploaded over 1,600 images and a review of the last 100 uploads shows 6 files deleted or renamed. That is not "extensive evidence of lying in parallel situations" as claimed, and it is bordering on a personal attack to attempt to invoke the criteria for WP:CCI against a valued, prolific and long-term editor. -- RexxS ( talk) 20:45, 3 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep The uploader says its PD-Pre1978.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 14:13, 4 June 2010 (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.

File:Islamic Risala Scout Association.png

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; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply

This image is subject to removal from the article and/or deletion if its use is not justified through relevant content. Bea o 19:30, 31 May 2010 (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.

File:ThePrestigePic1.jpg

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; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Decorative fair use, whose absence would not be a detriment to reader understanding. ÷ seresin 20:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep. David Bowie as Tesla. Incredibly unique, unusual, and highly significant. Illustrates both the casting and theme section with already existing content respectively, with Bowie in the role of Nikola Tesla, portraying, as Nolan calls him, an "extraordinarily charismatic" character in a "very important role", and the "science as magic" theme illustrated by the image of Tesla as an engineering "wizard" (already described in that section). Caption could be expanded if needed. Promotional image from the film widely published (although there are several different promotional versions available including widescreen with or without lightning effects, so a different version could always be used if needed) Fair use rationale on the file page could use some expansion. Viriditas ( talk) 00:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8. Does not significantly increase readers understanding of anything. VernoWhitney ( talk) 12:02, 7 June 2010 (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.

File:The Prestige Tesla's invention.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Decorative fair use whose absence would not be detrimental to reader understanding. ÷ seresin 20:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Keep. Image is crucial to understanding the plot, theme, and production, and significantly aids in understanding these three things: 1) The image shows how Tesla's invention of wireless energy transmission is portrayed in the film, a key aspect of the plot, and 2) The image illustrates a key theme, the rivalry between Nikola Tesla and Thomas Edison, and 3) The image illustrates the production section, showing how behind the scenes, production designer Nathan Crowley took the script from the page to the screen, converting the parking lot of the Mount Wilson Observatory into Tesla's experiment. Crowley's conversion of the parking lot of Mount Wilson into an experiment Tesla conducts in Colorado, directly illustrates Nolan's production preference for dressing Los Angeles locations to stand in for the Colorado location; There is even an entire article dedicated to critical commentary about the production locations in the film. This particular image is considered one of several iconic and widely published promotional stills from the film, appearing in many published sources including critical commentary in Los Angeles Magazine (2007-02-01) and is discussed in a podcast interview with Jonathan Nolan by Creative Screenwriting Magazine. Another version of the image (same scene) also appeared in a notable published interview with Christopher and Johnath Nolan in another Creative Screenwriting Magazine article. Viriditas ( talk) 23:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8. Does not significantly increase readers understanding of anything. Key to the plot, key theme, and key to behind-the-scenes? If it's supposed to increase my understanding of all three of those then it's really not doing it's job, because I see no behind-the-scenes, no rivalry, and the transmission is a means to further the plot, not the plot itself. VernoWhitney ( talk) 12:02, 7 June 2010 (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.

File:The Prestige fashion.jpg

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; deleted by Fastily ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply

FU image whose absence would not be detrimental to reader understanding. Commentary written in the caption appears to be original research; even if it isn't, it doesn't seem to be isn't significant enough to warrant use of fair use. ÷ seresin 20:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
Not OR, but not third-party and not significant enough to warrant FU. ÷ seresin 22:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep. Image is a promotional still published by Can Magazine. The film received Academy Award nominations for Best Cinematography and Best Art Direction. Critical commentary from DVD featurette/documentary called "Conjuring the Past" illustrates the production aesthetic of the period piece and is crucial to understanding the work of Emmy Award-winning costume designer Joan Bergin and the cinematography of Wally Pfister. Viriditas ( talk) 00:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete Fails WP:NFCC#8. This one is closer, it could be useful, but I feel it needs more than just a caption of text to make a difference. VernoWhitney ( talk) 12:02, 7 June 2010 (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.

~~File:Natalie Wood 1963.jpg~~

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; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:03, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Natalie Wood 1963.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Closeminded8 ( notify | contribs | uploads).

Improperly licensed. This image has contradictory licensing. It is uploaded as a fair-use image and is also tagged as in the public domain. Both of these cannot be true and the mere fact that the source given for the image is a copyrighted book from 1986 further compounds the copyright question. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 21:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Then help me find the proper licensing before it gets deleted! I may have chose the wrong license, I need help finding the right one. The black and white picture that was the default before was from a book but not a candidate for deletion? Closeminded8 ( talk) 21:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Wrong, you used it to replace an image from a trailer which is properly licensed. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep—the PD tag was obviously a mistake (it said that the photo was pre-1963, whereas the the 'source' field said it was from 1986), so I removed the tag. Now it's a fair-use image, and seems acceptable. ╟─ Treasury Tag► stannator─╢ 21:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Except it is content from a copyrighted work. I am not aware that it appropriate to include copyrighted material, especially when free-use images are available. Not something to keep, just because someone likes it. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

FU is unjustifiable, as we have free images of the subject. ÷ seresin 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete - this is just a generic head-shot that shows what Wood looked like. A free image can serve the same purpose such as the free image currently used in the infobox. Rossrs ( talk) 22:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Fix to keep. Publicity photos were not copyrighted and were intended to be PD by studios. The source needs to be added and a better rationale given. However, I see no reason to delete it when fixed. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply
How do we know it was a studio created publicity photo, except for the fact that it looks like one? I don't particularly doubt that it is, btw, but how can that be established? Then, if it is a studio publicity photo it should have a PD tag and no rationale required. Rossrs ( talk) 15:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

That's why the source is needed. Most books will have some accreditation listed for photos. If it's from a web page or magazine, it gets a bit harder. Screen shots are easy to spot due to quality, setting, and the star will not look posed. I think it's a reasonable presumption that when a screen star has posed for a photo, and the photo appears "studio quality," that it was for publicity, and meant to be freely distributed to the media and autograph hounds. Here's an example of a rationale.-- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 20:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Note - this photo cannot be retained. Others from the same photo shoot have been uploaded at Flickr under a full copyright protection. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 15:11, 1 June 2010 (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.
~~File:Natalie Wood Miracle.jpg~~

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: Keep. - FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Natalie Wood Miracle.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Closeminded8 ( notify | contribs | uploads).

Completely decorative and unnecessary FU in Natalie Wood. ÷ seresin 22:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete - Her appearance is not discussed to the point that an illustration is necessary. Its use is decorative. Rossrs ( talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep. She was one of the few child "stars" who made full transition into adult films, without a break. An image of her in a major film as a child star is valuable. However, it should have at least a paragraph of supporting commentary about her part. The movie is also considered a "classic." -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 23:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Wow, thank you Wikiwatcher! How long do I have to wait until the decision to keep or delete this picture is made final? Closeminded8 ( talk) 06:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC) reply
Deletion discussions are normally kept open for seven days; once those seven days have passed, it is elegible to be closed and the decision be made. ~ Super Hamster Talk Contribs 00:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep as it has value.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 16:29, 6 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Keep per Wikiwatcher. Also, if it's from the trailer as indicated by the source, as it was released pre-1964 it's almost certainly PD. See here. VernoWhitney ( talk) 12:14, 7 June 2010 (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.
~~File:Natalie Wood 1969.jpg~~

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; deleted by Explicit ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 8 June 2010 (UTC) reply

File:Natalie Wood 1969.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Closeminded8 ( notify | contribs | uploads).

Completely decorative and unnecessary FU in Natalie Wood. ÷ seresin 22:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

A photo of her in a film as a child is necessary to illustrate her career as a child actress. Closeminded8 ( talk) 22:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete - this is not a photo of her as a child, it is allegedly a screenshot from a film by her as an adult. I'm not convinced it is properly licensed or properly used. Wildhartlivie ( talk) 22:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete - Her appearance is not discussed to the point that an illustration is necessary. Its use is decorative. And if that's a picture of her as a child, I can only say she matured very very early and should not have been wearing such a skimpy bikini at such a young age. Rossrs ( talk) 22:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

Delete - It's tabloid quality, and with so many better images of this actress, it adds nothing. -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 23:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC) reply

My apologies, I thought you were referring to the shot of her in "Miracle on 34th Street." The article needs a photo to illustrate her adult career - I will simply find a less "tabloid-like" or "decorative" photo from this film, as none of the other photos on the page represent her adult career - they are photos of her at 15 and 18 respectively. The word "circa" must mean "give or take four years." By the way I think the image is very good, don't understand why you don't like it. Closeminded8 ( talk) 06:55, 1 June 2010 (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.

May 31

May 31

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook