Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 11

< December 10	December 12 >

December 11

File:Mack robinson memorial pasadena.jpeg

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 for failing wp:nfcc. Garion96 (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mack robinson memorial pasadena.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Amble (notify | contribs).

The statue is mentioned in passing. We really do not need a non-free image to illustrate it. J Milburn (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No harm, really, and the copyright issue doesn't bother me much. Plus, high quality images are nice to have around in articles, so long as there is EV present. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 08:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Not keeping with our core function to provide free content is harmful and your keeop argument is completely disconnected to the NFCC. If the subject is only mentioned in passing then I cannot see how this can possibly be compliant with the NFCC Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a short article, half of which focuses on his achievements. The image is the single illustration of the article content and its fair use rationale seems to be sensible. The image should be replaced by one with smaller resolution; I'll do that if it isn't deleted. — Bility (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the statue is not the object of analytical discussion. There is a mention that it exists, but what would be needed to make this valid fair use would be a (sourced, obviously) discussion of its artistic design or similar topics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 19 December 2009 (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:BG1 cover.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 for failing wp:nfcc. Garion96 (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BG1 cover.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreadstar (notify | contribs).

File previously discussed here.
This non-free content may not meet the requirements of the relevant policy, specifically point 8: "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Our readers will all understand that books have covers, and that this particular book has been one or more covers in different countries and different editions. This image adds nothing to that understanding. A further consideration is that there is no commentary on the image in the article in which it is used, again suggesting that the image does not have any significance and is decorative in use. Angus McLellan (Talk) 02:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, each book is a separate entity - there are no duplicates. Each book is discussed in separate sections (they originally had separate articles), each book cover is different, each giving a picture overview of the contents of each segment of the story in the book series, and therefore each book cover is significant to that book and the series as a whole. These images of different books in no way violate WP:NFCC. These are all different books! Similar arguments apply as in the same deletion discussion that took place five months ago here: Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009 July 23#9 David Eddings Malloreon .26 Chess book covers. Dreadstar ☥ 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Although the article mentions the sets, the focus is on the individual books, for which there are already individual covers. The text explanation of the sets seem sufficient; I see no added benefit to including the covers. — Bility (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with the previous discussion, use of fair use cover images, aligned with relevant text regarding individual novels, is allowed when article covers entire series of novels, novels do not have discrete articles, and use of images corresponds to Wikipedia practice for individual novel articles. Violates nothing in WP:NFCC. Yabadabadoozie (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you would say that the absence of this image would be detrimental to the reader's understanding (NFCC #8)? How would that be? Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:14, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having a cover image for each of the five original volumes may be legitimate, but having additional cover images (two of them) for the mere piece of information that the volumes have been re-published together is stretching it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 19 December 2009 (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:Crossbuster symbol.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. (Note, I closed the earlier discussion too. If you think I shouldn't be closing this, you can undo my close and then close it as keep yourself.) Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crossbuster symbol.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Aaronkavo (notify | contribs).

Unfree image being used for decoration that adds no value to the article as it is sufficiently explained. Is also too large to quality for fairuse. Note, original request for speedy declined Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No harm, is slightly EV (within the context of being a logo of an established group) and not unfree. For the record, I'm not a music person and wouldn't know the band's songs from any other. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 08:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is EV? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - EV = "encyclopedic value". Cheers, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am sure I commented somewhere else on either this, or a close to identical image. The design is so simple that I cannot see how this is copyrighted. Not different from text only as it just superimposes two shapes that themselves are in the public domain. Correct licence is pd-ineligible - Peripitus (Talk) 04:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - see the previous discussion closed as keep at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_November_30#File:Crossbuster_symbol.jpg - Peripitus (Talk) 04:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, PD already, and definitely some EV here. Yabadabadoozie (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2009 (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:Nowhilstsallowed.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 Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nowhilstsallowed.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GVnayR (notify | contribs).

This image has no EV and is being used only for a template that is likely to be deleted for multiple reasons. Therefore this will be a crappy image with no EV and an orphan, the triple threat. Nuclear Lunch Detected _Hungry? 08:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after the template has been deleted, there will be no useful use of this image. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 22:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when the template is deleted. — Bility (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, definitely no value added with this image. Yabadabadoozie (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2009 (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:SM U-25 001 Cruises.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 Garion96 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SM U-25 001 Cruises.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AchimKoerver (notify | contribs).

Image just consists of black text on gray background. Easily replaceable by text stating the same. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: All of this user's uploads are essentially the same thing (and I would also recommend their deletion): photographs or scans of pages of books, or screenshots of web pages, solely consisting of text. Not sure what their purpose is as opposed to textual sources. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Loads of images of text documents are not really needed, no need why they cant be replaced by text cited back to the source documents. This also applies to the other 40-odd similar documents uploaded. MilborneOne (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Info The editor in question is adding these in support of pages with verbatim quotes, & there's an ongoing debate over what to do about this. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly the uploader owns the copyright on the book being used so this is more an issue of correcting the atrributation and license then something for FFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Strange the image attribution says they came from Kew in which case they are PD as expired Crown Copyright, if they are not photographs of the source at Kew then the attribution is misleading. MilborneOne (talk) 15:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep The images are being used to provide evidence that the text is a verbatim transcription of the underlying document. The text alone would not provide that evidence, since any text could be corrupted, purposely or not, and the documents themselves are stored in a repository which is not accessible to most editors to confirm. The images allow any casual reader/editor to verify the text.Wjhonson (talk) 20:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment sorry it is still not clear are the images from a book or from Kew. If they are from a book then they dont really prove anything, if they are from Kew then they are public records and can be checked, however time consuming. I am sure we dont photograph all printed sources just to prove the transcript is correct. MilborneOne (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MilbourneOne. Please look at the image, it is NOW, in the corrected information quite clearly explained there. So, once again, for you specially: British Intelligence Services in WWI traced German submarine activities. Their original knowledge and can be verified nowadys at the British National Archives, Kew, UK. This I did personally, and I photopgraphed the sources. Then I asked the Copyright from NA to publish them as a book. This I was grannted and I created my book: Koerver, Hans Joachim (2009). Room 40: German Naval Warfare 1914-1918. Vol II., The Fleet in Being. Steinbach: LIS Reinisch. ISBN 978-3-902433-77-0. The link to the original sources and to the book I mentioned on page for SM U-25. Me, as publisher of this book published an photographic excerpt of it here correclty with Common license. Thats ok, up to here ? So, following your comment: who ever would dare to cite the christian bible at Wiki ? Who can "really" proove that it is "true" ? Do you think that all this is helpfull to newbies, wasting time in fruitless discussion, menacing them to delete their contributions ? If even ISBN-books are not a proove to you, than we can do like the ruler, who conquered Egypt in the 7th Century A.D. and who deleted completely the Alexandrian Bibliotheque with some hundred thousands of Roman-Greek papyrii - "If they are true, than their wisdom is already contained in our holy book; and if not, than we were justified to delete them". Please, before doing so, check once again the information for this image, before wasting more time mith mockering:

{{Information
 |Description    = Submarine Cruises in WWI known to British Admiralty, Room 40 in World War I.
 |Source         = National Archives, Kew: HW 7/3. Transcription: H.J.Koerver: Room 40, Vol II, ISBN  ISBN 978-3-902433-77-0.
 |Date           = 1918 (original document). 2009 (this transcription)
 |Author         = Hans Joachim Koerver [[en:User:AchimKoerver]] : author of this transcription 
                  <br>British Government : author of original document.
 |Permission     = {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|author=Hans Joachim Koerver [[:en:User:AchimKoerver|User:AchimKoerver]]}}
 |other_versions = 
}}

And, personal tip: read Al Gore, Attack on Reason, written for people like you, I think --Hans Joachim Koerver 20:42, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

The underlying question here is this: are we really in the business of photographing all our original source material? I don't see any good reason to maintain these primary sources here, regardless of their accuracy. It should suffice to cite the source, include the text which is relevant to the article, and if need be move the rest over to WikiSource where it might be a better fit. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:09, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment bla-bla-bla-bla-bla-bla - Showing photos of the original source is not sufficient, it could be "faked", the ISBN-book also. In which world are you living ? Stalin-Paranoia ??? Or simply Wiki speach to shy (terorrize) "newbies" ? Like shown by George Orwell (Eric (not Tony) Blair) for "stupid followers", mantled by pseudo-bla-bla "WikiNewSpeach" ?. Why dont you admit, that you only simply like to mistreat "newbies" - like a primitive sergent-major in the Russian / Prussian army ? TELL ME EXACTLY, WHAT IS NOT OK WITH MY UPLOADED IMAGE! Its a shame, that there doesnt exist a button here "Rate this User: up- or downgrade his user-friendliness, constructivism, credibility, simple common sense". Condemned also to read "Al Gore, Attack on Reason". If its to hard to understand for you, pls try first George Orwell, "1984", or much better from the beginning "Animal Farm" in the cartoon (animated, in German: "Zeichentrickfilm") version - not too much text for you. "Seelig sind die im Geiste Armen", Martin Luther, 152x, German translation of the Latin Bible ==> translation of the Greek bible ==> translation of some Aramaic texts ==> of some 4 or more ore less people, some of them maybe never have existed, and even when, who cited more or less scientific (not proven), a person called "Jesus", if he may ever have existed>. WHAT do you teach your pupils - Nostradamus ? --Hans Joachim Koerver 00:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver (talk • contribs)

I'll try to be more clear. Here at Wikipedia, we often cite sources by making reference to the book, article, journal, etc. from which the information came. It is not standard practice for us to include photographs or screenshots of those sources. My only question is why, in this case, these images are necessary. I don't believe anyone is questioning the fact that the source material says what you claim it says, at least not in these deletion debates. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that you believe me, that the text is correct. Why to publish excerpts from books and transcriptions of original documents as image here ? I cite wjhonson from above: "The images are being used to provide evidence that the text is a verbatim transcription of the underlying document. The text alone would not provide that evidence, since any text could be corrupted, purposely or not, and the documents themselves are stored in a repository which is not accessible to most editors to confirm. The images allow any casual reader/editor to verify the text." End-citate. --Hans Joachim Koerver 09:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AchimKoerver contribs)

And why is it unusual to publish texts as images ? Because most users do not have the copyright to publish texts as image. For this you need the d'accord of the copyright holder, the editor/ writer of the book (in this case me, AchimKoerver). --Hans Joachim Koerver 12:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed we have cleared all questions regarding "black image", "no license,", "no copyright": leaves "usefull", which is quite an interpretative. Check the bible online - http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ . Does it makes sense here to publish it online, as image, so protecting it against users writing their own versions, or leave comments in the text ? My book is not the bible, but it transcripted original texts, which should only be readable, but not changeable. As long as there are no user authorizations etc. to prevent this kind of vandalism, it is the only technical possibility I see to protect original stuff. AchimKoerver --Hans Joachim Koerver 12:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry still confused can we just have some factual information rather that opinions and motives of other editors. Are the images taken of the book or are they taken from the original source at Kew? It appears that they may be the images from Kew that you then published in a book and have uploaded them to Wikipedia. You mention that you had permission to publish them from Kew but dont mention what that permission was. The original text should be crown copyright which would have expired, so it appears that the original text is public domain. So why do we need all this from a secondary-source your book just need to quote the original text from Kew. Still dont understand why we need to prove that the book is a an accurate copy, we are not here to prove the validity of a book.. If the original text is used and qouted back to the National Archives record then that could be checked as accurate. All the image proves is that the text (or images) in the book are the same as on Wikipedia, although we would need to buy or get your book from a library to prove that. MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

have a look at SM U-92. There you will see a) NA original(image) b) transcription of this, as excerpt from my book(image), c) user contribution(text): The aim of these pages is, that users have a solid base by the originals to contribute more and more user-friendly stuff. Should be quite self-explaining. Check the different licenses and copyrights of both images. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 15:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment all these images not needed original text can be used and reliably sourced to the national archives. MilborneOne (talk) 13:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This I already tried, it didnt work, users were changing the text content, sometimes contrary to the sense. And there are no direct links to NA docs, only to the complte source in the NA. We are discussing here about "style", not about content. Do you want to mutilate 80 articles of German submarines ? I already changed these pages 2 times, I spent some 100-200 hours of time in it. I will not do it a 3rd time. They are perfect now for me, and others can now start to add content. Please ask Wjhonson for details of this process. It would be regrettable, if Wiki should not be able to adopt to new techniques. Under one condition I would agree, that you delete all my uploaded images (SM U-6 to SM U-117): if you then delete all my articles (articles, I created), means best every byte I wrote here at Wiki, and finally my user account. Wouldnt this be a consequent and perfect solution for us all, Peace on Earth ? P.S.: Are you shure, that everybody here works FOR Wiki ? For my point of view some seem not to want to grasp anything what I explain, the discussion is turning from license to copyright to style back to license, copyright, style. Fruitless talk --Hans Joachim Koerver 13:51, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it appears that you are using the images in what is a content dispute if users are changing quoted text then wikipedia has other measures to deal with that problem and protect the articles. As has been said it is not normal to photograph source material and certainly is not needed just to protect the content. I dont think we do conditional deletions on wikipedia, also note that you dont have any articles on wikipedia all your contributions have been released under the appropriate licence please refer to WP:OWN. If we need to use images to stop vandalising text then that is not an issue for this forum. So my opinion that the images should be deleted as they are not needed as we have the original text and certainly should not be uploaded as part of a content despute. It is up to others now to make any deletion judgements. MilborneOne (talk) 20:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"So it appears that you are using the images in what is a content dispute if users are changing quoted text then wikipedia has other measures to deal with that problem and protect the articles" Exactly this it is. Please propose me this mentioned way to protect citations, I would appreciate it. I am a newbie, so many things are unknown to me. Thanks for your understanding. Also see ongoing detailed, constructive discussion with Piano at my talk page. AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 21:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep I published here parts from my book. I have the copyright on my book. We forget now, where the content of my books comes from, if I manually transcripted the bible, or docs from British archives, or if I totally invented everything, to blame myself. It is a book with an ISBN number, its published, some people already have bought it. If someone would accuses me of faking history, or violating copyrights, or spreading blasphemie with this book, than this would be my personal problem, not yours at Wiki. I have the complete and legal copyrights on this book, so if I publish parts of it here, where is the problem ? Maybe, to make things clearer, I changed the info for file File:SM_U-25_001_Cruises.jpg to:

 |Description    = German submarine cruises in WWI.
 |Source         = Hans Joachim Koerver: Room 40, German Naval History 1914-1918, Vol II, Steinbach, AU, 2009. ISBN 978-3-902433-77-0. 
 |Date           = 2009
 |Author         = Hans Joachim Koerver [[en:User:AchimKoerver]]
 |Permission     = {{self|cc-by-sa-3.0|author=Hans Joachim Koerver [[:en:User:AchimKoerver|User:AchimKoerver]]}}

If this all shouldnt be crystal clear, than please explain me, or propose sth which is in your sense. Best regards, AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 10:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I changed ALL my 125 uploaded images from my book to this copyright-text. Could you please tell me, if it is correct now, only regarding copyright ? --Hans Joachim Koerver 19:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment sorry you seem to miss the point, whatever the source we have no need to photograph text that can be sourced, either the public domain National Archives text (which would be better) or your book (which could be original research if you have forgotten where the contents come from). This discussion is about the encyclopedic value of including images of what now appears to be secondary source text just to protect that text from being changed. MilborneOne (talk) 13:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"This discussion is about the encyclopedic value of images of ... secondary source text just to protect that text from being changed.". Exactly. Please, tell me how to protect citations of original texts otherwise against changings. If it would be only to add some tags etc, then I will do it immediately. In the end we do not discuss here about my copyright at the images anymore, but about the style in which to make articles. So can we stop all copyright and license and image-delete discussions forever now, or do we want to turn the wheel another round ? Please: where is the "encyclopedic value guide" to be found ? AchimKoerver (talk) Hans Joachim Koerver 13:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No need to either use photographs of text in lieu of text or maintain photographic sources on WP itself. — Bility (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment hi Bility. Based on how many articles / images you ever contributed here at Wiki do you think that your experience justifies your judgement ? I couldnt detect a single (constructive) contribution of you for the Wiki community since the start of your presence here some weeks ago. But maybe I didnt get the point, as always I am told here as a Newbie, when I dare to propose unconvenient questions or proposals. Many of the others here, like you, only try to make you down as Newbie, withou explanations, and instead of showing alternatives or offering assistance to share experience. I hope you personally will continue to feel good in this stupid sergent-major system approach. A shame, that there doesnt exist a system of rating other users "help" between 0-5 ... --Hans Joachim Koerver 00:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Keep, this one is hard, but I have to say that an image of a textual source is far more compelling than a mere textual description of it...and I don't see what it violates in WP:NFCC. Yabadabadoozie (talk) 01:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not for copyright concerns now, but for being unencyclopedic. Images should never be used in lieu of text or to sidestop WP:RS issues like this. If the book from where this was taken is a reliable source, then by all means cite the book, like we do with all books; if it's not a reliable source, out with it. Citations of books are verified by going to a library and reading the book; they are not verified by uploading copies from them, much less by actually pasting those copies into articles – a cheap substitute for actual article writing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. --Hans Joachim Koerver 10:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment Wiki: unfriendly, unhelpful, illogic, inconsequent, inefficient.

Finally I found a technical solution for the long discussed citation-style-problems : the quote box. I changed SM U-92: Had I known this feature some weeks before, than all my 110 articles would be in this style now. 80 new articles created by me have been rated as start class or stub for “Military history WikiProject”, “WikiProject Ship”, and “WikiProject Germany”. But I will not spend a 3rd time overworking them all. See, what you make of it. Its enough. Ca suffit. Es reicht. I stop contributing.

Unfriendly and unhelpful: The far greatest part of the users I learnt to know here were purely negative and destructive. They spent hours in repeating time after time their arguments, without listening to mine, or even if they discuss, they do not give a single positive aspect. Some were absolutely impolite, and deleted text from my articles. I asked several times for help or a proposal, but I never got an answer, a short “Look here”, or “Check that article”. Why do these users spent so many time in negativism, why do they not change to positivism, and help save everybody’s time? Me personally I have the impression, that there is a very unconstructive and negative spirit at Wiki. I don’t want to share my ideas and visions with people like that.

Illogic and inconsequent: "Yes, son, you can do what you want here. Its freedom of expression, its real liberty here, you understand?". Yes, as long as you don’t hurt unwritten “rules” of others. You think then, that they only want to press their idea of “truth” on you. If you ask: “Yes, please, show me a link to this new rule, so that I can learn it”, they give no answer. You get the impression, that its more “feeling”, “sympathy”, “good mood” of these others. Its like parents who allow their kids to do everything they want. Its anti-authoritarian education, you know ? But quickly they make a first exception, for which they do not give an explanation: every Friday their rooms must be cleaned up. And some time later they change without explanation: now it has to be every Tuesday evening and Monday morning. And some time later … So, what do you think about this method of education? That is not an education - that is simply nonsense.

Inefficient: Its clear, that all this cacophonic stuff here is not a way to work efficiently. Too much time is spent with bickering and getting angry. Its like a kindergarden with angry childs, when the educator is absent. Sorry, I have better things to do in my adult life.

Only as a joke :-)) - If someone would like to destroy Wiki, he then would only need to hire some 5th column agents, who will register at Wiki, work under often changing names in flexible packs, and will nerve specially Newbies by deleting in their articles without giving a reason and involving them into endless fruitless “discussions”. Until they give up, like me.

One idea, for example: Let simply all users rate each others “help” with 0-5 points. Then sb with 12 ratings and 3 points in total and a contribution of 17 “ands” and “or” added and 23 deletions in others articles, but without a single article of himself, would become more friendly and constructive maybe, if he should have to consider to be locked here. Or better, he leaves. I cannot be the first one, who proposes simple things like this. Their must be a reason why things like user-rating doesn’t exist here. Maybe the believe in badly educated children ? --Hans Joachim Koerver 10:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

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:Karamanlismetapolitefsi.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. It has not been shown how this image complies with all aspects of WP:NFCC, in particular points 1 and 8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karamanlismetapolitefsi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture showing a Greek politician being sworn in as Prime Minister, used solely to show that he was sworn (ed?) a Prime Minister. This picture reveals no relevant information that isn't already on the text (of the 4 articles where it's used). Damiens.rf 17:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This image is more than just being used to show that Karamanlis was sworn in. It is what one might call "iconic" for these events. AFAIK and unless I am completely mistaken, fair use pictures can be used to illustrate articles, especially when they have a historical value. Constantine ✍ 17:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- PS, the same goes for several of the similar pictures listed below... Constantine ✍ 17:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale of Constantine and Dr. K. Argos'Dad 23:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, hilarous reason to delete...it's historical for christ's sake! Sure, we don't need an image showing God expelling Adam and Eve from Eden, that picture would reveal no relevant information not already in the text...bwahahahhahahha! Oops, sorry, hope I haven't offended anyone..but the nominator's reasoning would mean that no pictures, free or otherwise should be included in Wikipeida. Too funny! Yabadabadoozie (talk) 01:23, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no clear case has been made that this image is needed for understanding the historical situation it represents – certainly not in all the many articles it is currently used in, which is clearly over-use. And the claim that it is "iconic" is not substantiated either (and if it were, it would still have to be treated according to the stringent criteria illustrated by our use of the File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg). Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 19 December 2009 (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:SOS Band album Sands of time.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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SOS Band album Sands of time.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Night Time (notify | contribs).

OB by already existing File:Sos-sands-of-time-1986.jpg FuriousFreddy (talk) 17:15, 11 December 2009 (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:Markezinisoathofoffice.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. A case has not been made that the presence of this image will enhance the reader's understanding or that its absence would be detrimental to that understanding. It is necessary to show how it is that this is a "[h]istorical document of irreplaceable value" and not merely to assert it. This image cannot be said to meet the the eighth non-free content criterion. The arguments advanced in regard to the second non-free content criterion concerning the poor quality and low commercial value of this image are double-edged. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:35, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Markezinisoathofoffice.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tasoskessaris (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture, copied from newspapers, showing a Greek politician taking the oath of office, used solely to show that this event happened. This picture reveals no relevant information that isn't already on the text. Damiens.rf 17:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And yes. This picture, like all pictures, is a powerful validator of the facts in the article and verifies that these events happened exactly as described in the article. This prevents denialists of history and revisionists as they are all too common. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:00, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 18:03, 17 December 2009 (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:Tank during 17 November 1973.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. Concerns remain as to whether this content complies with WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8 in all regards. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:28, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tank during 17 November 1973.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Revolutionary (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture of a tank on the street used just to make the point that there were tanks on the street. The images adds no new information to the article text. Also, the picture was copied from a newspaper, what raises NFCC#2 concerns. Damiens.rf 17:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale of Dr. K. and because this photo is iconic of a crucial period of upheaval in Modern Greece. Argos'Dad 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And yes. This picture, like all pictures, is a powerful validator of the facts in the article and verifies that these events happened exactly as described in the article. This prevents denialists of history and revisionists as they are all too common. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:01, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 18:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, HAH! I just love this nominator, "it's just a picture of a tank on street showing there was a tank on the street" Too funny! I love these deletion discussions, they're crazy! "Nah, that just a picture of Christ on the cross taken by someone named "Mary", why would that be important"! Love it! Yabadabadoozie (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: an image of the tank is not necessary to understand its role in events, and the image is used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NFC#8; not indispensable for understanding the situation it shows. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 19 December 2009 (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:November17.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. The concerns over WP:NFCC#8 have not been addressed. And it is not reasonable to claim that this non-free image is, on the one hand "of irreplaceable value", and on the other that there is no commercial demand &c. Images of irreplaceable value are frequently reprinted regardless of their age, consider Capa's (faked?) Anarchist militiaman, flag raising on Iwo Jima or Tank Guy at Tiananmen. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:45, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:November17.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

This non-free image downloaded from some website belongs to some newsource (it's said to have been published in many newspapers). It raises NFCC#2 concerns. Also, although the image of lots of people on the street is impressive, the event taking place can be perfectly understood without the aid of this (impressive) image. Damiens.rf 17:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And yes. This picture, like all pictures, is a powerful validator of the facts in the article and verifies that these events happened exactly as described in the article. This prevents denialists of history and revisionists as they are all too common. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 18:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, ok one more. An "impressive" image, that the nominator thinks has commercial value that would be undermined by use in Wikipedia, yet somehow, although it's "impressive" and "valuable" it merely shows a "lot of people on the street", and the event it depicts can be "perfectly understood" without the aid of this (did we mention "impressive"?) image. I don't know, maybe it's me, but this entire line of reasoning (and I must say, I use the term lightly), is...is...just...well...amazing. But on the other hand, it's said to be "downloaded from some website belongs (sic) to some newsource"...um, so, I got lost there, why are we considering this for deletion again? It's late and I'm totally beat,so I may be missing some comprehensive and detailed reasoning for this..so forgive me. Yabadabadoozie (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing without reference from specific article content. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Bility has it right. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:14, 19 December 2009 (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:November17-tank2.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. Arguments offered to keep the image are not obviously founded in Wikipedia policy. Concerns regarding non-free content compliance remain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:November17-tank2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

This non-free image downloaded from some website belongs to some news-source (it's said to have been published in many newspapers). Since all these newspapers most likely paid for using this picture, It raises NFCC#2 concerns (the picture has some commercial value). Also, although the image a huge tank the street is impressive, the event taking place can be perfectly understood without the aid of this (impressive) image. Damiens.rf 17:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. Proper fair use rationale has been provided. Nominator's comments are flip, spurrious and unhistorical. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable because they stifle intelligent debate. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per rationale of Dr. K. and because this photo is iconic of a crucial period of upheaval in Modern Greece. Argos'Dad 23:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And yes. This picture, like all pictures, is a powerful validator of the facts in the article and verifies that these events happened exactly as described in the article. This prevents denialists of history and revisionists as they are all too common. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 18:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing, unnecessary for understanding the article. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:Polytechneion Radio Station.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. The are concerns regarding the compliance of this file with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria points 1, 2 and 8 which are not addressed by the arguments favouring retention. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polytechneion Radio Station.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free picture showing some men entering a room, copied from a website that makes unauthorized publication of newsworthy copyrighted images. Although the event in which the picture was made is important, the picture itself adds no relevant information to the article. Damiens.rf 17:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable because they stifle intelligent debate. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "The men entering the room" description does no justice to this picture. This is the only known pictorial representation of the actual equipment of the heroic students of the Polytechneion that validates the existence of their historic radio station which broadcasted their haunting and fervent message of freedom and resistance during the dark days of the dictatorship in Greece. The famous "Edo Polytechneio" "Here is the Polytechnic" which shook the world in November of 1972. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:11, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 18:01, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I can't even ivote any more, my heart can't take it! "picture showing some men entering the room"...BWAHAHAHAHAHHA! I just can't take it! If these are indeed "unauthorized" copyrighted images, that's one thing..but by god, "picture showing some men entering the room" is too distracting and too prejudically hilarious for me to try and consider this on such...um..."interesting" reasoning...hah! I don't know, maybe I'm missing something totally integral to this entire image thing..."picture showing some men entering the room" what's up with that? "Picture of some man holding a rifle" in the book depository, we can describe that textually, can't we? Yabadabadoozie (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing, candid photographs in general don't convey much encyclopedic value. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can see at least some merit in the claim of "iconic" value in a few of the images under discussion here (if I were to pick one, I'd choose the one above, File:November17-tank2.jpg) – but this one most certainly doesn't qualify. Can easily be replaced with text, fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:17, 19 December 2009 (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:Ta Nea 18 November.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. Replaceable, fails to meet WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ta Nea 18 November.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary duplication of a non-free newspaper cover. Damiens.rf 17:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable because they stifle intelligent debate. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not marked as a historic document and appears to be used for decoration with no reference to the newspaper in the two articles it is used. Confusing the rationale says it is not replacable because the subjects are deceased, although the newspaper does not show any images just text. It is also claims that the purpose is to illustrate the subjects of the article, when it doesnt actually have any illustrations. MilborneOne (talk) 18:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The errors you point out were from simple copy and paste mistakes form the template that was used also in other articles. I can fix that. The newspaper picture is covered by critical commentary in the caption. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 21:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr.K, image of an historical document, the issues with the rationale can be fix. --Jmundo (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thank you very much. I just fixed the fair use rationale at the image page. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 18:45, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#1: easily replaced by a translation of the text. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails NFCC1. Newspaper headlines can always be quoted in text, it is hardly ever necessary to show an image of them. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:19, 19 December 2009 (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:Kostas Georgakis on the cover of Grecia.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. Fails to meet WP:NFCC#1. As there is a picture of Georgakis already used in the article, this can be replaced by a description of the page and headline as FPaS suggests.

File:Kostas Georgakis on the cover of Grecia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary duplication of a non-free newspaper cover. Damiens.rf 17:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable because they stifle intelligent debate. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And yes. This picture, like all pictures, is a powerful validator of the facts in the article and verifies that Georgakis' sacrifice was recognised by the press of that era. It is a very rare image. This prevents denialists of history and revisionists as they are all too common and adds immense value to the article. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 18:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Damiens, and the article already has a non-free image of the deceased subject of the article (File:KostasGeorgakis.jpg). — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can be replaced with a textual description of the newspaper frontpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:21, 19 December 2009 (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:Polytechneion 18 November.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. Those commenting here raised concerns in relation to WP:NFCC#8 (& others) which were not addressed. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polytechneion 18 November.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture, copied from some website that makes unauthorized use of newspapers pictures, showing Greek policemen cleaning the street debris after some riot, used just to make the point the there was a lot of debris and the police had to clean it all. Damiens.rf 17:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable because they stifle intelligent debate. This is an attempt to erase History from Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quote: "just to make the point the there was a lot of debris and the police had to clean it all". This gratuitous oversimplification utterly distorts the historical importance of one of the most crucial events in modern Greek History as depicted by this picture showing the aftermath of the violation of the Academic asylum in one of the most prestigious universities in Greece. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 21:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How the lack of this specific image compromises the understanding of the text about this crucial events in modern Greek History? --Damiens.rf 22:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Pictures such as this are etched in the minds of Greek people and those who love liberty. Sometimes a picture conveys not only more than words, but recollections of people who lived during that time and were affected by the events. A grainy photo [1] of the first man on the man, may only prove that a human has been on the moon. To my generation, it represents so much more. Please try to understand the power of unique photographs such as this one. Argos'Dad 23:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons described above. Argos'Dad 23:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And yes. This picture, like all pictures, is a powerful validator of the facts in the article and verifies that these events happened exactly as described in the article. This prevents denialists of history and revisionists as they are all too common and adds immense value to the article. It also uniquely illustrates the atmosphere of these events as no text can describe. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:14, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, far too many non-free images in that article, and this one is hardly among the most important ones to keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:22, 19 December 2009 (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:Theophιlogiannakos during Court Martial.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. Not shown that this image meets WP:NFCC and as FPaS notes images are not a substitute for referencing. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Theophιlogiannakos during Court Martial.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture, copied from some website that publishes unauthorized duplications of copyrighted newspaper images, shows two men shouting in a court, and is being used just to show how that the trial was not calm all the time. No relevant information contained in this image is not already covered by the article. Damiens.rf 17:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable because they stifle intelligent debate. This is an attempt to erase History from Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This picture, like all pictures, is a powerful validator of the facts in the article and verifies that these events happened exactly as described in the article. This prevents denialists of history and revisionists as they are all too common. It also uniquely illustrates the personalities of the participants and the atmosphere of these events as no text can describe. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:59, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing, doesn't provide any added understanding of the article. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too many non-free images in this article. I'd keep one, but this is not among the top most useful candidates. As for Dr.K's argument about the image being "a powerful validator": sorry, that's not what we use images for. For validating our contents we use citations of reliable sources, not images. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:25, 19 December 2009 (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:Polytechneion trial.jpeg

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 as it has not been demonstrated that this non-free content meets all Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Polytechneion trial.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture, copied from some website that publishes unauthorized duplications of copyrighted newspaper images, shows the jury of a famous trial, that happen to look like any other jury in any trial. No relevant information contained in this image is not already covered by the article. Damiens.rf 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable because they stifle intelligent debate. This is an attempt to erase History from Wikipedia. I am going to report this to WP:ANI. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quote from noms comments: "shows the jury of a famous trial, that happen to look like any other jury in any trial. No relevant information contained in this image is not already covered by the article." This can be said for any trial. Galileo's trial, the Nuremberg trials were also "just like any other trials". Does that mean you have to erase their images from history? Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:22, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I confess you I never needed to see any image of Galileus trial to understand what's relevant about it. --Damiens.rf 16:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. It is not the understanding of "what is relevant" about Galileo's trial that is at stake here. Almost anyone to varying degrees can understand that. But an actual illustration of Galileo during the trial, (maybe this is a bad example since unfortunately no pictures were possible at the time), would go a long way toward illuminating the subtler points of the trial and thus significantly enrich the reader's experience. A wall of text is not a panacea for knowledge. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 23:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – non-free image overuse in this article. I'd accept one or two, but this is not the top candidate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:27, 19 December 2009 (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:Ioannides and Counsel.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. As previously, concerns regarding compliance with Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria remain. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ioannides and Counsel.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

This non-free picture, copied from some website that publishes unauthorized duplications of copyrighted newspaper images, shows two men chatting in the interval of a famous trial. No relevant information contained in this image is not already covered by the article. Damiens.rf 17:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable because they stifle intelligent debate. This is an attempt to erase History from Wikipedia. I am going to report this to WP:ANI. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. K's rationale.Argos'Dad 23:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quote from noms comments: "shows two men chatting in the interval of a famous trial. No relevant information contained in this image is not already covered by the article." Adolf Hitler was a man. So was Ioannides, the dictator who kept Greece bound for 7 years and created untold suffering and tragedy. So "two men chatting" can be a very historical and important event depending on who these men were. This rare picture depicts Ionnides chatting amiably and unshackled with his lawyer thus conveying important information as to the mood, the conditions and mindset of the trials which can never be adequately explained by mere words. Enough with the attempted trivialisation of History. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:29, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing, candid photographs in general have little to no encyclopedic value. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as in the next case above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:28, 19 December 2009 (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:Ioannis Deyannis.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; it has not been shown how this image meets all Wikipedia:non-free content criteria, and perhaps especially points 1 and 8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ioannis Deyannis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture, copied from some website that publishes unauthorized duplications of copyrighted newspaper images, shows the otherwise non-notable Presiding justice of a famous trial. I'm not fully convinced we need visual identification for all the people that take part in the events described in the article. Let alone, an image with NFCC#2 concerns. Damiens.rf 17:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable because they stifle intelligent debate. This is an attempt to erase History from Wikipedia. I am going to report this to WP:ANI. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. K's rationale.Argos'Dad 23:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead. definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon demand at all. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 23:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing, candid photographs in general have little to no encyclopedic value. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as in the cases above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:29, 19 December 2009 (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:Junta on Trial.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: kept with rationale for Greek Junta Trials only. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:03, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Junta on Trial.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture, copied from some website that publishes unauthorized duplications of copyrighted newspaper images, shows the defendant of a famous trial. I'm not fully convinced we need such visual information so badly to the point of using non-free content, and I'm convinced we should not be using images that newspapers once paid for using for the same purpose. Damiens.rf 17:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Quote from noms comments: "I'm not fully convinced we need such visual information so badly to the point of using non-free content, and I'm convinced we should not be using images that newspapers once paid for using for the same purpose." Greece was one of very few countries that prosecuted their juntas. This rare picture depicts Ionnides and the other members of the junta while they are on trial thus conveying important information as to the mood, the conditions and mindset of the trials which can never be adequately explained by mere words. This picture that depicts such a momentous event belongs to the common heritage of humanity as it is a live depiction of a very rare event: Bringing junta members and dictators to Justice. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. In contrast the common heritage of humanity is enriched by depicting dictators brought in the Halls of Justice. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:40, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my rationale above. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 23:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: if I were to pick one image to keep for Greek Junta Trials, I'd pick this one and remove the rest. I'd recommend removing it from the second article though; one is enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:31, 19 December 2009 (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:April 21 - Greek Junta.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. Arguments against removal are not to be found in policy, Wikipedia:non-free content criteria are not met. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:11, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:April 21 - Greek Junta.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Project2501a (notify | contribs).

Non-free image copied from some geocites webpage that is no longer online (and was probably a copyright violator) that is potentially from some news source. Damiens.rf 17:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. It uniquely depicts the kind of relation that existed between Papadopoulos and Ioannides. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:44, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing, candid photographs in general have little to no encyclopedic value. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per my remaining votes on this series. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:32, 19 December 2009 (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:KaramanlisandJFK.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. Quite possibly a free image but absent evidence this cannot be presumed. Image not demonstrated to fully meet WP:NFCC, including points 1, 8 and 10. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KaramanlisandJFK.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free image showing politicians meeting, copied from some copyright violating website. And since this event took place on the White House, some public domain images of it surely exists (although not necessarily available on google). Damiens.rf 17:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. It depicts a rarely covered side of Greek politics and illustrates the kind of relation that existed between Karamanlis and JFK. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 19:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 23:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing, candid photographs in general have little to no encyclopedic value. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if it's a photograph taking during a visit to the White House, wouldn't there likely be PD-USGov alternatives to it somewhere? Or maybe this even is PD-USGov? Unfortunately it fails WP:NFCC#10, since its source description fails to specify its original creator and copyright status. This in addition to the NFCC8 problem – not clear what information value it actually contributes to the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 19 December 2009 (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:Tankinathens.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. Apparently replaceable by text and not shown to be contextually significant. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tankinathens.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture of a tank on the street used just to make the point that there were tanks on the street. The images adds no new information to the article text. Also, the picture was copied from a website that makes unauthorized copies of images from newspapers, what raises NFCC#2 concerns. Damiens.rf 17:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 23:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A tank rolling on the streets of Athens while civilian traffic goes by, may look like a mundane and unnecessary image which is easily replaceable by words. On the other hand the picture captures the mood of that day and brings a note of realism that only the study of the details of a picture can achieve. The make of the tank, its ominous size compared to the size of the civilian vehicles. The composition of the picture, the make and condition of these civilian vehicles and their spatial relation to the tank are evocative of the era and bring to life a street scene at a level no narrative can capture. In the process the heavy hand of the dictatorship becomes instantly apparent through this low-resolution and grainy picture which acts like a kind of time-warp which brings the reader back to the days of the colonels. I wrote it before but I will repeat it here again: The market for these kinds of pictures is almost nil. There is no manifested market activity for these pictures under any kind of market metric. So WP:NFCC#2 is not a valid concern. Also this is a very grainy and low resolution picture, which makes it even more valueless. Looking at this under any possible criterion, there is simply no good reason to delete this valuable historical document. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 06:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. Also, we are not here to evoke a mood but to provide encyclopedic content. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – non-free image overuse, not a particularly difficult image to replace with a textual description. (If kept, at least remove from the List of coups d'état and coup attempts article; such a list article certainly shouldn't have any non-free images at all.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 19 December 2009 (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:Constantinospapadopouloshandshake.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. Arguments against deletion did not address the substance of the nomination. Image not shown to meet all Wikipedia:non-free content criteria, especially numbers 1 and 8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Constantinospapadopouloshandshake.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free image showing politicians and army people shaking hands, copied from some copyright violating website, used just to make the point that they once met. The images adds no new information to the article text. Also, the picture was copied from a website that makes unauthorized copies of images from newspapers, what raises NFCC#2 concerns. Damiens.rf 17:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Picture depicts the seminal moment of Konstantinos shaking his hand with Papadopoulos. Of invaluable and irreplaceable significance in Modern Greek History, unhistorical and flip comments aside. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 20:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 23:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing, candid photographs in general have little to no encyclopedic value. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:Alekos EDHN.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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alekos EDHN.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Laonikos (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary extra non-free image of a famous Greek man. Damiens.rf 17:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:Alekos Panagoulis Palazzo Medici.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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alekos Panagoulis Palazzo Medici.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Laonikos (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary extra non-free image of a famous Greek man. Damiens.rf 17:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:News glykxboorg.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; unresolved concerns in regard to WP:NFCC 1, 2 and 8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:News glykxboorg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Svetlyo (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary duplication of a non-free newspaper cover. Damiens.rf 18:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:Karamanlisarrivesinathens.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. It has not been demonstrated that this non-free content meets all Wikipedia:non-free content criteria. The burden of proof lies with those arguing for inclusion. This burden has not been met. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karamanlisarrivesinathens.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

This non-free picture, copied from some website that publishes unauthorized duplications of copyrighted newspaper images, showing a man leaving an airplane adds no relevant information that is not already covered with text. The event may be notable, but the user understanding of the text is not damaged by the lack of this image. Damiens.rf 18:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. Proper fair use rationale has been provided. Nominator's comments are flip, spurrious and unhistorical. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable because they stifle intelligent debate. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 18:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. K's rationale.Argos'Dad 23:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. K. This image is simply a must for the articles on Metapolitefsi and Karamanlis himself. Constantine ✍ 05:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? And how do you plan to really address the problems raised in the nomination? You do understand there are problems, don't you? --Damiens.rf 20:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is the pivotal moment of the return of Democracy in Greece. This picture belongs in the very core of Metapolitefsi. You, for some reason, want to convert these Greek History articles into unbroken walls of text without any Historical photo documenting and validating these events. This picture, with an absolutely valid Fair Use Rationale, is central to the understanding of these events as it depicts Karamanlis exiting the French President's jet and ushering a new era of democracy in Greece. It is as if we had a picture of Christopher Columbus discovering America. You would have described the picture as a "Man disembarking from a boat that is no big deal". Man's landing on the Moon could be described as "Someone getting off a craft and jumping on some rocks" etc. etc. Historical moments can't be treated with this amount of cynicism. It's utter lack of Historical vision. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 23:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You understand we have a policy governing the valid use of non-free content, don't you? I appreciate that you have a different opinion about when we should allow ourselves to use non-free images, but you'll have to argue that on the policy talk page. Once the policy is changed to allow the images you want to use, we can keep (or re-upload) the images. --Damiens.rf 18:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, policy is all good and well, but in the end, as with laws, it is people who interpret and apply it. Policies exist to protect the project, we all know and respect that. However, when applying these guidelines, one should be careful not to do more damage by being excessively attentive to their letter than to their spirit. Deleting historical images because they are "surplus to requirements" is not IMO helping WP do its job, which is to build an encyclopedia that presents information accurately, comprehensively and (as far as possible) in an interesting manner. This image (as well as some of the others you have nominated) merits inclusion because it has truly iconic status (per Dr. K above), and that is not an exaggeration. You'll find it in almost every book, article or website devoted to these events. And frankly, what riles most is your dismissive rationales on the lines of "man leaves airplane", which smack of total indifference towards the subject and the importance of these articles. Constantine ✍ 10:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - First please stop making pseudo-affirmative statements with redundant rhetorical questions at the end as if we are in some kind of grade school while admonished by the schoolteacher. The short answer is that I fully understand NFCC and it is my understanding that leads me to conclude that WP:NFCC#8 is fully satisfied here, i.e. the presence of the image significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. In addition WP:NFCC#2 is no issue for reasons I explained for this and other images. Therefore there are no issues with this image at all under NFCC. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 15:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That's your chance: Explain how would the article be harder to understand without this image. --Damiens.rf 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think you pose the wrong question. It is not the understanding of the article as a whole that is at stake here but the particular segment of the article describing Karamanlis's return to Athens that is clearly illuminated by this picture and would be damaged in its absence. You get a clear sense of the elation of the crowd during that historic moment. The crowd obviously broke through the security barrier because they are on the tarmac. The leader exits the plane looking pensive and slightly tired. The profile of the plane can be unambiguously identified as that of Mystere, the French jet that carried him. The ambience of that historic moment through the synergistic interaction of these and a myriad of other details that can only be be brought to life by a picture, cannot be possibly captured by mere words. You seem to think that everything can be replaced by a word desription. If that were the case we would not need photo-ids. Try to sell this idea to your nearest airport security post. Finally a picture validates that this moment happened in an objective and immediate way. Something that cannot be said by the filtered accounts of observers and the built-in bias of their narrative. For seminal and Historic moments such as this this is an absolute must for a complete understanding of the event. Let the readers make up their minds unhindered by filtered biases that a written report always carries with it and in immediate contact with this Historical moment that only a picture can provide. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 17:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        All relevant information can be conveyed by text and you have just shown that (of course, ignoring the original research bits like "looking pensive and slightly tired", that can't be determined by the picture at all). --Damiens.rf 18:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        And no, I don't think that everything can be replaced by a word description. Your "airport security post" argument is a straw man. --Damiens.rf 18:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Mechanically repeating the mantra that All relevant information can be conveyed by text, ignoring my arguments and the place of this picture in Greek History, will not advance the credibility of your arguments. As far as my airport security example being a strawman in the face of your repeated arguments that All relevant information can be conveyed by text, let the audience decide that. Finally accusing me of WP:OR while I was just freely decribing a picture tempts me to start adding ^{[citation needed]} tags everytime you say All relevant information can be conveyed by text,^{[citation needed]} but I will resist the temptation. As, I hope, you know WP:OR is a policy meant to apply to articles and not to casual conversations. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 18:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Can you find some reliable sources commenting on the "place of this picture in Greek History"? Not a source commenting about this notable event, nor a source using this picture. I mean a published source discussing this picture. That would "save" this image. --Damiens.rf 19:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think that I have addressed NFCC concerns reasonably well. I don't think I have to prove any more points. Anyway that is my final point here. I think any further comments would be repetitive or just a waste of time. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 20:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also no WP:NFCC#2 concerns. Even if newspapers once paid for such a picture the events are so old and the commercial demand so low for such a picture that no profit is forfeited by its publication here. The market for old metapolitefsi pictures is, if not dead, definitely moribund. No ebay auctions, amazon or any other demand at all. Plus they are of such low resolution that no appreciable market share is forfeited by the publication of these pictures in Wikipedia. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 23:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:Metapolitefsi.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. It has not been shown, among other things, how this image meets Wikipedia:non-free content criteria's stipulation at point 8 that this content "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". Furthermore, if this is a "[h]istorical document of irreplaceable value" doubts exist as to whether the requirements of point 2 are met. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metapolitefsi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rastapopoulos (notify | contribs).

Unsourced non-free picture showing politicians at the table, used just to illustrate the fact that they meet at the table. Damiens.rf 18:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Historical document of irreplaceable value. Proper fair use rationale has been provided. Nominator's comments are flip, spurrious and unhistorical. If deleted we must delete all fair use historical images from Wikipedia. Further mass deletions of images are unacceptable because they stifle intelligent debate. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 20:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. K's rationale.Argos'Dad 23:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:De Gaulle greets Karamanlis.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; WP:NFCC#Enforcement places the burden of proof on those arguing to retain non-free content. No such arguments were advanced. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:De Gaulle greets Karamanlis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tasoskessaris (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free image showing politicians meeting in Paris, not really found on source url, used just to make the point these guys met in Paris. Damiens.rf Damiens.rf 18:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:Karamanlis and DeGaulle.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 as for previous nomination, burden of proof not met. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karamanlis and DeGaulle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tasoskessaris (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free image showing politicians meeting in Paris, not really found on source url (that points to a newspaper website), used just to make the point these guys met in Paris. Damiens.rf Damiens.rf 18:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Sarcastic comments as a substitute for critical commentary of a historical photo. Brilliant. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 20:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Internet archive anyone? Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 21:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:Karamanlis3.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. The arguments offered by Dr.K. would be a sound rationale for not deleting this image under WP:CSD#F4 but do not address the argument that this image does not comply with all requirements of WP:NFCC, including points 1, 2 and 8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:05, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Karamanlis3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Olympian7 (notify | contribs).

Decorative non-free image not really found on source url. Damiens.rf 18:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Not really found on source url". This is cute. Have you heard of links going bad and of the Internet archive? Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 20:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Internet archive. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 21:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:As per Dr K arguments.Alexikoua (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2009 (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:Alexander Papagos on cover time magazine.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. Compliance with WP:NFCC points 1 and 8 not demonstrated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alexander Papagos on cover time magazine.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brastite (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary duplication of a non-free magazine cover. Damiens.rf 18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What exactly constitutes "Unnecessary duplication" here? If a person is illustrated on the front page of TIME, that means that he/she has achieved some sort of fame that transcends his/her country or field. With Papagos, that came in the Greco-Italian War, and he is still best known for his role in it. Consequently, IMO, the image is worthy of inclusion. Constantine ✍ 05:15, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - replaceable with text indicating that he was on the front cover of TIME magazine. PhilKnight (talk) 12:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. And per PhilKnight. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:Metaxasalexandrospapagospaulgeorge.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Metaxasalexandrospapagospaulgeorge.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free image showing politicians meeting at war, copied from some copyright violating website, used just to make the point they've met. Damiens.rf 18:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What is the point of nominating all these images? This is a very rare photo showing the principal leaders of Greece in 1the period 1936-1940. Copyright is not infringed since it is not claimed as PD, so what is the point? Constantine ✍ 18:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dr. K's rationale.Argos'Dad 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. Copyright is infringed because it is being used without the permission of the copyright holder and doesn't meet fair use criteria. Correctly identifying the image's license doesn't ameliorate the need to abide by that license. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:As per Dr K's rationale.Alexikoua (talk) 23:40, 18 December 2009 (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:Tsolakoglou-jodl-ferrero-1941-04-23.jpeg

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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tsolakoglou-jodl-ferrero-1941-04-23.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cplakidas (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture showing politicians discussing a matter, used in three different articles, solely to make they point that these men discussed this matter. I'm not sure what the user looses in understanding of the articles by not seeing this specific image. Damiens.rf 18:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valuable historical documentary photo of an important event. Constantine ✍ 19:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Constantine's rationale.Argos'Dad 23:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2: reduces the marketability of the image for the copyright holder. And per WP:NFCC#8: used as article dressing. Also, the purpose of Wikipedia is not to provide a repository for important documents, but to create an encyclopedic article based on them. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep historical photo of important event.Alexikoua (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2009 (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:Ramo.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 - for all living (and many deceased) people it is the role of those seeking to keep the image to demonstrate why a free alternative could not be created. By default it is assumed that one could be (see WP:NFC unacceptable use listing) - Peripitus (Talk) 09:51, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ramo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

non-free picture of a living man, used in his bio and other two list articles. Damiens.rf 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the Simon Ramo page, as it is a small image and unlikely to be replaced by a free substitute before the subject's death. The image should be removed from the List of University of Utah people and University of Utah College of Engineering pages (along with the entire galleries), but that's another issue. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:Bode fragment.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. Orphaned. Clearer image available at File:Hbode.png which is not demonstrably less free and is perhaps freer. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bode fragment.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

orphan image copied from some random website said to be PD. Damiens.rf 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
NASA image. File:NACA's Special Committee on Space Technology.jpg. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 20:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not understand the purpose of the usage of your term "random website". Are you using it to imply that pictures have to come from some "designated" "non-random" website? What is the definition of a random website? Is it covered in policy? Or are you using it to imply something else about me? Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 21:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I mean a website that just happens to use the image, without any relation to the image copyrights holder (it's more likely violating it). It is not a valid source. --Damiens.rf 22:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned image with no discernable purpose, as Hendrik Wade Bode already has a free image in use. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:Bode group.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. Redundant to Commons:File:NACA's Special Committee on Space Technology.jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bode group.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

orphan, no evidence of PD status. Damiens.rf 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Same as the other fragment above they are from NASA. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 20:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NASA image. File:NACA's Special Committee on Space Technology.jpg. Dr.K.^πraxis_λogos 20:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned image which is simply a scaled version of an existing image. The same effect can be duplicated by including the width parameter in the [[File:Image.jpg]] markup. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:E.Colpitts.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 for the reasons below and because this is redundant to File:Edwin Henry Colpitts (1872-1949).jpg. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:E.Colpitts.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.K. (notify | contribs).

orphan, no evidence of pd status. Damiens.rf 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if no evidence of PD is forthcoming. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:Nafkratousa ship.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: Kept - issues appear resolved - Peripitus (Talk) 09:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nafkratousa ship.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Argos'Dad (notify | contribs).

Image not really found on source. Damiens.rf 18:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source url fixed now. Images from this series can be found in the source by site-googing on hellasarmy.gr for the ship's name spelled in Greek. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since source is fixed. Argos'Dad 19:44, 12 December 2009 (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:Velos ship.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: Kept now that the source is resolved. PD licence seems almost certain. - Peripitus (Talk) 09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Velos ship.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Argos'Dad (notify | contribs).

Not found on given source url. Damiens.rf 18:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source url now fixed. Image is very likely older than 1923 (ship was decommissioned a few years later), but publication status remains unclear. If published shortly after creation, it would very likely be PD in the US, and possibly PD in Greece. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep photo had to be taken before 1929 and so picture is PD in US and Greece. Argos'Dad 19:46, 12 December 2009 (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:Hydra-class-silhouette.gif

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hydra-class-silhouette.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Argos'Dad (notify | contribs).

orphan Damiens.rf 18:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to commons 76.66.192.35 (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2009 (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:Ac.athens44.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 as required by WP:NFCC#Enforcement. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ac.athens44.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adam Carr (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free picture showing people contemplating the destruction on a specific street, copied from a website that makes unauthorized publication of newsworthy copyrighted images. Although the event in which the picture was made is important, it's not clear to me what relevant information the image is supposed to add to the article. Damiens.rf 18:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFCC#2 and WP:NFCC#8. — Bility (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2009 (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:Slogan NOF.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 for the same reason as the previous nomination. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Slogan NOF.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Revizionist (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture showing messages posted on wall, used just to make the point that such messages were post to this wall. Damiens.rf 18:52, 11 December 2009 (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:NellEpiro.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. No evidence advanced to show that this non-free content meets all of WP:NFCC, especially points 1 (replaceable by text) and 8 (significance in this context). Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NellEpiro.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Batzaria (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary duplication of a newspaper. Damiens.rf 18:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Essential part of the article & meets all 'fair use' guidelines.Alexikoua (talk) 23:32, 18 December 2009 (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:Greeks New Year 1941.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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greeks New Year 1941.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cplakidas (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture of soldiers in a party, used just to make the point they did a party. Damiens.rf 18:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mention of why Greek soldiers celebrating New Year's Day 1941 on the Albanian Front is important to the understanding of the subject or why the image is a unique historical photo. MilborneOne (talk) 19:17, 11 December 2009 (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:Greek surrender 1941.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Greek surrender 1941.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cplakidas (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture of surrendering soldiers, used just to illustrate the fact that they gave up fighting. Adds no relevant information to the article. (Description says the picture was taken by Nazi. Does it make it PD?) Damiens.rf 19:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:PD#German World War II images this is not in the public domain in the US or Germany. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:03, 11 December 2009 (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:Goatse.fr homepage.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: keep. Wikipedia isn't censored, allegedly. This discussion was closed only on the basis of the nomination. I am not endorsing the non-free content rationale. I think it could fail NFCC#1, but I'll be damned if I'll waste my time trying to write the replacement text. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:36, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - explicit image NSFW

File:Goatse.fr homepage.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jolly Janner (notify | contribs).

Not encyclopedic. This has been previously debated on a number of occasions. I'm not sure how this particular image was allowed to "slip under the radar," but it's simply not appropriate for Wikipedia. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you check out Talk:Goatse.cx you will see that the image certainly hasn't "slipped under the radar". There is support from a request for comment that the image helps encyclopediacly with the article. Therefore the image should stay to fulfill such duties. Jolly Ω Janner 20:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: nomination is running around the RfC process, which is actually rebutting the nomination statement. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if we shrink it a bit more? Put it at even lower resolution? DS (talk) 15:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We could reduce the size to 80% of what it is currently, to fall below the 0.1MP rule, but not so much it's obscured. Sceptre ^(talk) 10:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, WP:NOTCENSORED, and its the subject of the article. ViperSnake151 Talk 03:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTCENSORED and this is the entirety of what goatse.cx is about, so I don't see how it's inappropriate. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 06:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a online encyclopedia, not a church. 193.157.242.51 (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2009 (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:RichardNacht.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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:09, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RichardNacht.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:Richardnacht (notify | contribs).

OR subject article Richard Nacht has been deleted MilborneOne (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2009 (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:SagiaCastaneda 1.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, non-free image of living and public person and so readily replaceable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SagiaCastaneda 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mercenary2k (notify | contribs).

Non-free image of a living hottie. Damiens.rf 23:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a very extended rationale for why this image is ok to be here. Mercenary2k (talk) 01:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Routine delete. It's a non-free image of a living person, being used to identify the person. Easily replaceable. (ESkog)^(Talk) 03:17, 14 December 2009 (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.

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 11

December 11

Navigation menu

Search