Not clear who holds the copyright. The uploader was a one-edit wonder and cannot be contacted. The image may be a copyvio. There are others of this person, and it's also orphaned, so it's not essential that we keep it (see search results; I will create a Commons category for Khan soon). Should this be deleted or moved to Commons? Richard001 (talk) 03:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a copyright violation of this [1]. So please no transfer to commons with this image. --Kanonkas : Talk 13:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The image appears to be a fan-created logo that was masquerading as coverart for the single Through the Fire and Flames. The metadata claims that this image was created in the Paint.NET program, which leads me to suspect its authenticity. The discography listed at the Dragonforce website and other metal discography websites such as Metal Storm do not show coverart for the single, and websites selling the single, such as Amazon use the album's coverart as the display image. -- saberwyn 05:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. (excellent research and rationale for deletion!)— BQZip01 —talk 03:36, 12 August 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
Deleted. No one has shown any love, this probably fails "significance". WilyD 13:39, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The cover is not used to illustrate an article discussing the book, as the article is dedicated to the author. Wikidās ॐ 10:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image can easily be described in words, doesn't meet Wikipedia criteria for inclusion. — BQZip01 —talk 03:37, 12 August 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
- No Consensus - The entirety of the debate seems to rest on whether the free alternate is and adequate replacement, for encyclopedic purposes, for this fair use claimed one. On this point there is no consensus below and I in my view the requirements of NFCC#1 are not sufficiently clear in this case for me to ignore this lack of agreement and delete the image. Does having a picture of a man at 30yrs old serve the same purpose as one of when he was prime minister 30+ years later ? There is clearly no agreement either way on this point - Peripitus(Talk) 04:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the NFCC because there's a free replacement. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 04:35, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As this image illustrates, the man aged and his appearance significantly changed over time. This image is necessary to show what he looked like as Prime Minister, not as a young man. Visual identification of the man is not easily facilitated by showing an outdated, albeit free, photo. In short it meets the exception in WP:NFC: "However, for some...retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." — BQZip01 —talk 03:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This aims claims to be an image of John Gorton, but is clear an image of John McEwen. I'm confused, but keep anyway for the reasons directly above. --Bduke (talk) 04:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The clause cited by BQZip just doesn't apply: "retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance". He was a politician, not a model. His notability didn't "rest on" his looks. Fut.Perf.☼ 09:07, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, your interpretation only of the criteria. McEwen was Prime Minister when he was a lot older, not when he was a young man - so a contemporaneous photo of his Prime Ministership is appropriate in the right section of the article. To not include one is to distort the article and to misrepresent McEwen's Prime Ministership. If we are serious about Wikipedia's accuracy then we will include an image like this. There is a valid usage for doing so. I ask the closing nominator to Keep and Censure nominator for blatant WP:POINT violation - he has done too many nominations to spite Australian users when he understands nothing about Australia and believes his own interpretations of NFCC to be the correct ones and ignores anyone else. It has got to stop. JRG (talk) 12:37, 14 August 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.
Copyrighted picture of a living Australian. Damiens.rf 16:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the Non-free Content Criteria because he's still living. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 04:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand that argument. I thought free use images of the article's subject were both allowed and common on articles about living people. So keep. --Bduke (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not, it's as simple as that. This vote has no substance. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my argument in above image. This person's image was important to their career. The image of a politician changes over time and after three decades, the image portrayed by a current photo would not necessarily serve the same purpose. The difference in 3 decades (photo date to present) warrants such an image. — BQZip01 —talk 03:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why is it important to show how a given politician looked like at every point of his career. The article, for instance, does not address the point of how his look was crucial to his life achievements. --Damiens.rf 17:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of accuracy, not of why his look was crucial. We want articles to accurately represent people as they looked like when in power. JRG (talk) 12:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Users who understand the issues and who want to improve Wikipedia instead of deleting images all the time simply to annoy others and make a point that is not valid. JRG (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, living individual, still active in public, image replaceable. Accurate coverage of his political life doesn't depend on what he looked like at the time. Failing that, at a minimum, remove from the election article, where it's clearly non-essential. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While it doesn't depend on it, it is more accurate for the article if we include a contemporaneous picture of Hayden. He is known for being Opposition Leader in the 1980s not in 2008. We should be supporting and improving on the accuracy of the encyclopedia, not wrecking articles by deleting images for spurious reasons. JRG (talk) 02:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted picture of a living Australian. Damiens.rf 16:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand that argument. I thought free use images of the article's subject were both allowed and common on articles about living people. So keep. --Bduke (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a free image, it is copyrighted. — BQZip01 —talk 03:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I meant fair use not free use. --Bduke (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you were mistaken, they are not generally allowed and common, it's as simple as that. You can't validly vote keep without an individual very good reason for an exception. Fut.Perf.☼ 08:07, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Image is of the current individual's appearance. As he is alive, a current free photo can be taken, ergo, it is replaceable. Please note the distinction here with the last two images. — BQZip01 —talk 03:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it clear how recent this photo actually is? --Bduke (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per BQZip01 (in this case), and the general principle that politicians aren't notable because of their transient physical appearance at any particular age. Encyclopedic accuracy of our coverage of his political career doesn't depend on what he looked like. Fut.Perf.☼ 07:50, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Almost unanimous consensus that the image meets WP:NFCC. -Nv8200ptalk 01:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a picture of a woman at a piano is necessary for understanding an unsourced piece of text about she restoring the piano. Damiens.rf 16:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<tongue in cheek>Well I don't think that you should nominate pictures without a valid reason that isn't your own opinion - but that doesn't matter, does it? You get away with your nonsense.</tongue in cheek> For goodness sake, Damiens, give us a proper reason for deletion or don't bother. JRG (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The reason, for those who didn't get it, is that non-free content use should be minimal. And this copyrighted picture of a woman at a piano is something we can do without, while still keeping the article just as informative. --Damiens.rf 12:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that is YOUR OPINION on the NFCC. Your opinion on how the criteria are to be interpreted is not a prima facie reason for deletion. There may be minimal scope for non-free images but there is allowed to be some - and for the reasons I have already given below it should be allowed in the Lodge article because it shows the piano and decor used at that point in the building's history. Given that the building is not accessible to the general public it shoul be kept. JRG (talk) 02:16, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She not only restored this piano, which is notable type of piano, but many parts of the Lodge itself. I suggest this image adds considerably to the article. The lack of sources is not a reason for removing the image. The material should be sourced. I have added the image to the article on Hazel Hawke herself as it is very appropriate there also. --Bduke (talk) 01:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marginal Keep subject to another image of this person as they currently appear. Image is important in this context and, if the person's current state is not applicable to the article, users need to be able to put a person in context. This photo does the trick. Should a free photo be found, this image should be deleted ASAP. — BQZip01 —talk 04:02, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is currently only used in Hazel Hawke and, given the lack of a free alternate I can find, it's use as the only image satisfies the NFCC requirements. - Peripitus(Talk) 12:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BDuke and for the reasons given about the piano - it definitely deserves keeping in the Lodge article. It should be included as a contemporaneous picture of Hazel Hawke too if that's possible - and given her dementia and the inability to now appear in public, I would think fair use is more than justified here. Fix the rationale if it's bad, don't just take the lazy option and delete it. JRG (talk) 12:42, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing moderator - this image has been added to a second article (The Lodge) since the beginning of this debate. Even if the image does not meet the NFCC criteria for the Hazel Hawke article consideration should be given to removing it from that article and leaving it on the Lodge article where there are no images of living Australians issues. JRG (talk) 02:30, 19 August 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
Kept. Use in Isabelle Caro seems to satisfy all nonfree content criteria. In Anorexia it probably does not, namely replacibility. WilyD 20:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems very unreasonable ot me that we have to use an FU picture to display anorexia if we have found free images for Micropenis and the like of embarassing conditions. Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 18:20, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. You do not like it in Anorexia article? Fine, I transferred it to Isabelle Caro. Starczamora (talk) 08:08, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Concerns have been addressed now after Starczamora moved the image to said article. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 04:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Even if a free image of an anorexia victim is uploaded, I could see a place for this image in the Anorexia nervosa article if a section were added regarding the public health response to the disease and if that section addressed mass education efforts. --Ipoellet (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but find a better use. Very informative as a piece of info about models, public response to the disorder, and advertising. --Masamage♫ 20:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep certainly there are applications of this image throughout Wikipedia. If these are inappropriate (as in they are not appropriately discussed to your liking), then please expand the sections to meet your desires. — BQZip01 —talk 03:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep To fully understand the article's subject matter, the photo should remain attached to the article. A contrast between the photo and the paintings of anorexic women from the middle ages show a clear discrepancy in the reality of the disease. The photograph was taken as an advertisement, a public display, seemingly toward the goal of a deeper understanding. This photo accomplishes that goal, moreover, with a willing party/example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfb285 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from infobox and use it in the discussion about the poster itself (that seems to be notable). A free illustration for the concept of Anorexia can be found. --Damiens.rf 17:17, 13 August 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
Deleted. Orphaned, no obvious value. WilyD 20:26, 14 August 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
Deleted. As above, orphaned, no clear use. WilyD 20:31, 14 August 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.
![[1]](http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/images/2004/08/22/22_8_2004_Imran%20Khan-1.jpg){kind=link}
