Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 March 28

< March 27	March 29 >

March 28

Image:175px-SFU-Crest.png

Image:175px-SFU-Crest.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mtoom (notify | contribs).

Duplicate of Image:SFU-Crest.png +mwtoews 21:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:STJLibrary22.jpg

image was used in old school bullitin. it is not owned by user. — 149.68.7.90 15:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user has already been noted for copyright violations : St John's University article violates copyright infringement. [1] based from http://www.redstormsports.com/about/traditions.

Image:Darwin first tree.jpeg

Image:Darwin first tree.jpeg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by BenB4 (notify | contribs).

Larger, higher res exists at Image:Darwin tree.jpg — Jack · talk · 12:55, Wednesday, 28 March 2007
Keep I uploaded both, and the larger image isn't much use for the several places that the smaller one is, because nobody can read Darwin's handwriting. If one needs to be deleted, based on there actual usage in articles, I would prefer that the larger one be, but we might as well keep both. BenB4 20:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I mean, because Image:Darwins first tree.jpg is the one actually used, which has a better contrast that doesn't show writing from the other side of the page bleeding through. BenB4 20:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Super-duty limo.JPG

Image:Super-duty limo.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by LegoAxiom1007 (notify | contribs).

Image lacks proper source data and copyright data, has no fair use rationale, and is a modified copyrighted image. Fair use does not allow image modification. — Nardman1 04:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fair use is aplicable to all sorts of things, but I can't see it stretching to here. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. -Nv8200p talk 02:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Airforce.jpg

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

Government image released unofficially by unauthorized individual.
- In other words, original research. Delete. Mukadderat 02:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Isn't this the Air Force logo? In other words, isn't this public domain as United States government image? If not please explain, thanks. IvoShandor 09:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, yes. No need to explain, Keep. How would this be original research? It doesn't seem to fall under any of the criteria at WP:NOR. If it does please point it out. Confused as to what "released unofficially" means here. I was under the impression that all government images are public domain, presumably from the moment they are created, regardless of the "officialty" of their release. IvoShandor 09:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the image's metadata implies it was created in 2004, hardly anything new, as the uploader implied. IvoShandor 09:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as {{PD-USGov-Military-Air Force}}, unless a showing is made that its origins are not as asserted. --MCB 19:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agreed, this is ludicrous. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png

Image:Horwich in Greater Manchester.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Cwb61 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE and LQ. Highly inaccurate and poorly drawn map of Horwich's location, which is already covered in it's infobox using the location map template. — Jhamez84 02:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A better quality solution is already provided in wikipedia, see Horwich. Mukadderat 02:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WCSTC_Aerial1.JPG

Image:WCSTC_Aerial1.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Rpb140990 (notify | contribs).

Wikipedia:Verifiability problem: there is no reason to believe that a bunch of huts shown is is fact WCSTC. The photo is allegedly taken by an uploader, but there is no identification to confirm that it is he says it is. Mukadderat 02:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gm_solo_hi.jpg

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 04:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gm_logo2.jpg

Image:Gm_logo2.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by El barto (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Absent uploader, Possible Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 04:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gme.jpg

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 04:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gnass2.JPG

Image:Gnass2.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by EDewald (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 04:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Il-76_shootdown.jpg

speedy deleted under G12. The image was from the Associated Press, a commercial content provider who relies upon the licensing of their content to websites that provide information and analysis to readers. When not used in articles about such information providers themselves, our use is not obviously transformative, and does not obviously have no commercial impact on the copyright holder. Images from commercial information providers such not be uploaded to Wikipedia to illustrate our articles on the subject of the photograph unless those images themselves are the subject of analysis or educational commentary. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. Jkelly 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Believing the speedy deletion to be premature (for reasons noted in a comment below, I undeleted the image, notified Jkelly on his talk page, and have reopened the IfD. --MCB 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Il-76_shootdown.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Blood Red Sandman (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Maybe if the event was 25 years ago it would qualify, but a current event? No way. IvoShandor 09:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with IvoShandor. The fact that the image is recent makes it even more valuable to the copyright owning news agency. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the precedent set at Image:42650801_planelong_ap416.jpg and Image:Adam_Air_Flight_172.jpg. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I explained at the mentioned images: this is not an incidental appearance by a politician, a starlet or a recently completed building, but a unique event, moreso in a warzone. "Copyrighted images that reasonably can be replaced by free/libre images are not suitable for Wikipedia." Clearly this image can NOT "reasonably be replaced" and thus satisy fair use criteria. It even has a proper, written rationale! Circeus 17:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There are 10 fair use criteria and irreplaceability is just one of them. This image is not being nominated because it violates item #1 (can not "reasonably be replaced"), but because it violates item #2 (do not replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media) --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see below regarding the economic issue. --MCB 06:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Probably we will never find a free picture. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - that doesn't give us the right violate the copyright holder's rights. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use is not a violation of a copyright holder's rights; it is a fundamental part of copyright law. --MCB 06:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but unrelated to my point. My point is that the fact that "Probably we will never find a free picture" doesn't automatically give us any special right (i.e., it doesn't automatically make using the image fair use). --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Classic Fair Use case; the event is newsworthy, the subject matter is an unrepeatable occurrence, it is extremely unlikely that there is a free-use alternative, and the economic diminution to the copyright owner's interests is trivial, since the event is past the immediate time period of the "hot news" market, and the image is low resolution and therefore unsuitable for print or archival media. --MCB 18:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the fact that this image is irreplaceble is exactly what makes it specially valuable to it's copyright holder. What makes you believe the image has no economic value outside the "hot news market"? --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two factors: first, the image is very small (380 × 264 pixels), low-resolution, and unsuitable for print media or archival uses. (Criterion #2 in WP:FU makes reference to "Large copyrighted photographs from agencies"; this is a tiny image.) Second, the major economic value of the work has already been realized. A private party or stringer sold the photo to AP (or else it was taken by an AP staffer), and AP distributed it under its contracts with print and electronic media to supply timely news and news photographs. Those uses, during the news cycle for a disaster of the moderate scale of the crash, represent nearly the entire economic value of the work. Reproductions, inclusion in searchable archives, annual compilations, etc., are very small in comparison, and any economic damage to them is highly speculative and questionable. --MCB 06:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but your analysis is what sounds speculative. "print media or archival uses" is not the only market for news images. They are used on the Internet, increasing a given website's value.

As you explained, AP paid for this image and distributed it for it's customers under a contract. If we use it freely, we're undermining AP business. --Abu badali ^(talk) 14:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give some concrete examples of the market for paid re-use on the Internet, and the approximate value of that re-use? The photographer has already been paid for the image. AP has already been paid for the image. What portion of the total market is left, and how does Wikipedia's use affect it? Facts, please, not speculation. --MCB 18:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely. I know of an informative website about this event whose authors have an interest in using this image. This is a concrete market opportunity to AP. You can access this site here [2] --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't know what you are referring to -- that link is to a Wikipedia article. --MCB 00:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedia article is the informative website about this event I was talking about. Our use of the image is a lost market opportunity to AP. --Abu badali ^(talk) 15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make any sense to me. Wikipedia does not pay for content, and there's no scenario under which our unpaid use of the image would replace our paid use for the image; Wikipedia is not a market opportunity. Again, can you cite an actual, concrete market opportunity that is foreclosed by Wikipedia's use of the image? --MCB 22:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong: By your rationale, I can set up a web site called worldHotNews.com with breaking news (and images) I copy from reuters, AP, and UP. But as long as I have a policy to never pay for content I copy from news providers, I'm free to copy content from news providers? This is like saying "I would never buy a Software from this company, so I'm entitled to steal one." --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe that pre-emptively closing an xfD as a copyvio in the middle of a discussion about Fair use is premature and out of process. I posted to Jkelly's talk page and invited him to participate here in the hope of reaching a consensus about the Fair use issues. To that end, I have reopened the IfD for further discussion. --MCB 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. Jkelly's arguments are valid, and Jimbo has redeleted the image. ElinorD (talk) 00:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Andogm.jpg

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

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete does not adequatly show how (or if) the event in question was historically significant, although a replacement image does need to be found - what are our fair use criterea regarding famous personalities? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is not a "historically significant photo" as the fair use rationale claims, nor is it being used to depict an event. It's being used to show how the person looks like. --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lubanga.jpg

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

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:President_Fujimori.PNG

Image:President_Fujimori.PNG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by HappyApple (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thickofit.JPG

Image:Thickofit.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by DoctorWho42 (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Odonnell2005.jpg

Image:Odonnell2005.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Bradley1956 (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dean_Macey.jpg

Image:Dean_Macey.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by King4aday (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dudley_Butt.jpg

Image:Dudley_Butt.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Manxy3 (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. No indication image in the the public domain. But if we claim fair use, it is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP. "No indication image in the the public domain." and considerable indication to the contrary. -- Selket ^Talk 08:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Passarella.jpg

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

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zac.jpg

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

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Joint_2045.jpg

Image:Joint_2045.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Srtw (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. No indication image has been released under the GFDL. But if we try to claim fair use, it is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fair use is brilliant, but this doesn't qualify. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:38069318_owl.jpg

Image:38069318_owl.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Tonksified (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sunmyungmoon-2001.jpg

Image:Sunmyungmoon-2001.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Scottperry (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. No indication image has been released into the public domain. But if we try to claim fair use, it is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JamalLindsay.jpg

Image:JamalLindsay.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by A steele (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. No indication image has been released into the public domain. But if we try to claim fair use, it is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Father_Dougal.jpg

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

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hamburg_cell_apartment.jpg

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

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this one passes as Fair Use. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: Probably not, unless the building is gone, which I don't know, and even then a more free alternative could probably be found. IvoShandor 09:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's replaceable (FUC#1), comes from a news agency (FUC#2), does not contribute significantly to the articles (FUC#9) and uses a deprecated fair use tag with no rationale (FUC#10). --Abu badali ^(talk) 03:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this hardly interferes with copyright holder's ability to resell the image, as the market for this image is probably zero. And in any case the version they resold would be of higher res. Nardman1 03:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Delete, hadn't considered that the apartment still stands, but a replacement must be found. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 06:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
German Wikipedia might be a good place to start, or Commons. IvoShandor 01:45, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:John_Motson.jpg

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

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:John_de_Chastelain.jpg

Image:John_de_Chastelain.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Great Deku Tree (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RoyWhiting.jpg

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

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marie_Brémont.jpg

Image:Marie_Brémont.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Raul654 (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Atocha_Train_Station_Memorial.jpg

Image:Atocha_Train_Station_Memorial.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mascal4 (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cubemelons.jpg

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

Copyright violation. No indication image has been released under the GFDL. But if we claim fair use, it is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:18, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:S7crash.jpg

speedy deleted under G12. The image was from the Associated Press, a commercial content provider who relies upon the licensing of their content to websites that provide information and analysis to readers. When not used in articles about such information providers themselves, our use is not obviously transformative, and does not obviously have no commercial impact on the copyright holder. Images from commercial information providers such not be uploaded to Wikipedia to illustrate our articles on the subject of the photograph unless those images themselves are the subject of analysis or educational commentary. Please see Wikipedia:Fair use for more information. Jkelly 22:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC) Believing the speedy deletion to be premature (for reasons noted in a comment below, I undeleted the image, notified Jkelly on his talk page, and have reopened the IfD. --MCB 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:S7crash.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Wikiemperor (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the precedent set at Image:42650801_planelong_ap416.jpg and Image:Adam_Air_Flight_172.jpg. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per #Image:Il-76_shootdown.jpg above. I'll even write the Fair use rationale. Circeus 17:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hmm the source features some screenshots. Maybe it would be better to use them. --TheFEARgod (Ч) 17:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Classic Fair Use case; the event is newsworthy, the subject matter is an unrepeatable occurrence, it is extremely unlikely that there is a free-use alternative, and the economic diminution to the copyright owner's interests is trivial, since the event is past the immediate time period of the "hot news" market, and the image is low resolution and therefore unsuitable for print or archival media. --MCB 18:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck finding a free alternative...Keep per reasons given above.--NPswimdude500 19:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I believe that pre-emptively closing an xfD as a copyvio in the middle of a discussion about Fair use is premature and out of process. I posted to Jkelly's talk page and invited him to participate here in the hope of reaching a consensus about the Fair use issues. To that end, I have reopened the IfD for further discussion. My specific responses to the issues raised can be found above under Image:Il-76_shootdown.jpg. --MCB 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hackett.jpg

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

Copyright violation. It is Wikipedia policy that we do not argue for fair use with press agency photos, unless particularly iconic. Remember that use of photo agency works here certainly do infringe on the copyright owner's marketing capabilities. Please see counterexample #5 at Wikipedia:Fair use#Counterexamples. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 06:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Giraffesex.JPG

Image:Giraffesex.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Rustbl (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, used only in vandalism Selket ^Talk 08:33, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gnick.JPG

Image:Gnick.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ja-Ram (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 11:32, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gnome-screenshot2.png

Image:Gnome-screenshot2.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Nessup (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 11:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons imsge Nv8200p talk 12:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gnu-wallpaper2.png

Image:Gnu-wallpaper2.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by AboLou (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 11:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Absent uploader, Maybe an advertisement Nv8200p talk 11:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GoatboyTrucking.jpg

Image:GoatboyTrucking.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Goatboy95 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goatrider.JPG

Image:Goatrider.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Goatrider (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goatse.gif

Image:Goatse.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Doodzorspenor (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Absent uploader, Obsolete by commons:Image:Tulip redoute.JPG. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:05280008a.jpg

Image:05280008a.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jratajack (notify | contribs).

orphaned image that User:65.31.64.57 keeps changing licensing to be vanity page of sorts — EarthPerson 16:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:WWERivals.jpg

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

Orphaned and uploader's only contribution. Looks to be only there for the sake of advertising. — Oakster Talk 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IEF-banner-5.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Kaos1.0 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned and uploader's only contribution. Looks to be only there for the sake of advertising. — Oakster Talk 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cow-on_pole,_with_horns.jpeg

Image:Cow-on_pole,_with_horns.jpeg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Hahnchen (notify | contribs).

This image was probably uploaded as a joke. Its subject is clearly unencyclopedic and its source is questionable. It claims to be a public domain NOAA photo, which I find quite hard to believe, considering what it is an image of (i.e. a cow with moose antlers standing on a pole). Furthermore, the website from which it was uploaded is not associated with NOAA in any way nor is it any kind of serious website. A thorough Google search of "NOAA and cow and antlers" finds only links to Wikipedia (and derivatives of that) but nothing official from NOAA. I doubt that this really is a NOAA photo. It's probably something that someone Photoshopped and then uploaded to Wikipedia (and to the Commons). So, this image is not only unencyclopedic and can't be used in any serious way in a serious encyclopedia, but its source is also unknown.— Hnsampat 18:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The image is kind of an unofficial mascot of Wikipedia:Unusual Articles and is displayed on that project page. Spikebrennan 22:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I noticed that. However, if the image has no reliable source information, then I think Wikipedia policy dictates that it has to go. Furthermore, the image has little serious usefulness outside of that project. --Hnsampat 23:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - It does have purpose and wasn't uploaded as a joke. It is a part of the article Surreal humour, which is how I found the image. I can't comment on the source of the image, but it should definitely be noted that the picture is used for an actual article, and not just a project mascot. Poetic^X_contribs 03:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Reliable source found [3]. The current link is broken but the web archive has it. Nardman1 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and update source info per my post above. Nardman1 03:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Nardman1's findings. Poetic^X_contribs 06:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is not 'unencyclopaedic' -- it is illustrative of a concept. It may also be a joke, but that is not mutually exclusive with whether or not it is encyclopaedic. Similarly, I don't see that the use of humour in context is antithetical to a serious enyclopaedia. Rls 11:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's about surrealism. It's about the topic.
Keep it. It's about surrealism.
Keep per above. Mgiganteus1 18:52, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Illustrative of a concept and useful in the context of the article. --Burger ca t 20:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'd miss it terribly if it were deleted. Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 17:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to be sourced now, public domain, valid use within article space. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 20:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]