This image was tagged for speedy deletion claiming that it is a fan-made poster, not an authentic one. That's not a criterion for speedy deletion, so I'm bringing it here. I have no idea whether it's fan-made or not, but if it is, it is unencyclopedic. If it isn't, it is unsourced and non-free.BigDT00:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By all means delete. The image was uploaded when making a major edit and didn't get used. I had forgotten it existed, poor orphan.Bob07:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to see how the image could be described as a "circumvention tool" in either case. I doubt there's a legal issue with including this image.JulesH19:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm getting really tired of this. 'Potential violation of DCMA law' is not the same thing as 'violation of free speech'! Why do we need to dice with danger about this for no good reason? I'm nominating the SVG for deletion too, especially as it's not currently used in any article. --Mithent23:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We "dice with danger" in order to improve the content of the encyclopedia. We could greatly reduce the chances of a libel suit by deleting all biographies of living persons but we don't do that for the same reason.Bryan Derksen00:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately that exercise in Wikilawyering resulting in a massive unanimous vote against your proposal for the SVG which is now closed. The consensus has spoken[1]. Woudl you ban the alphabet, as it can be used to convey some codes? - this is absurd.71.204.133.7510:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Absurd. superseded by SVG:Image:Free-speech-flag.svg - This is now closed asUNANIMOUS KEEP so someone should now close this also. It would be absurd to remove this, and keep its vector version. (Link to svg with unanimous consensus against wikilawyering:[2])71.204.133.7510:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Same exact image was just kept in SVG form. Do we allow this sort of practices here? I think your really bordering onWP:POINT. I understand where your coming from but this was just debated.MrMacMan Talk03:29, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This is part of a circumvention device, and thus illegal under theDMCA. I really think it is absurd that people think they can get around theDMCA by making the offending number into a flag. But the flag is just as illegal as the number (if you agree that its illegal), as the flag tells you how to get the number. Contrary to popular belief there is no 'safe harbor' provision in the DMCA for hosting parts of circumvention devices, in other words, even if it was removed when they received a take down notice, they could still get sued and would likely loose. There is no reason to expose Wikipedia to this kind of liability. --Ray andrew17:20, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment no, it is not "just as illegal as the number" assuming the number is illegal in any way, shape, or form. Artistic expressions such as this enjoy 1st amendment protections above and beyond purely functional numbers.davidwr09f9(talk)21:51, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Am I the only one reading "superseded by SVG" as the nomination cause? Why is everybody talking about free-speech and DMCA here??? --Abu badali(talk)22:33, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment AFAIK having the same image in multiple formats is not grounds for deletion. Not all web browsers support all formats.davidwr09f9(talk)04:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have deleted this image. There was a nomination for deletion, 3 wanting to delete, and 3 wanting to keep. Out of those wanting to keep the image, one was an anonymous user that missed the point of the nomination, another was a registered user that missed the point of the nomination, and the third registered user ended up mentioning irrelevant (to this nomination) legal issues in his argument to keep. Out of those wanting to delete, two made their arguments based on irrelevant (to this nomination) legal issues. The only keep/delete argument that directly addresses the entire point of the original nomination is Abu Badali's. Regardless, the png image is now unused and obsolete, and images that are unused and obsolete can certainly be deleted. —Rebelguys2talk21:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Theflag that appears would have been illegal in Greece, so I doubt that it is the actual flag or emblem of the team. Greek law forbids any sign to be put on the nationalflag of Greece. Without sources, I believe this is a fictional flag and should be deleted. -geraki14:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching this, yes, please delete it, it was a little utility image that I created and uploaded in order to report a bug.Tempshill15:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
keep - the image is in use and the article it is used in seems to meet basic nobility standards. There seems to be some issue withWP:COI, but I do not think it requires deletion of this image.--User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)15:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unencyclopedic, and I removed the unencyclopedic section of the "Mother (energy drink)" article that included the image. It appeared to have been written by the advertising team.Tempshill15:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And I noticed it's a vanity image uploaded by "Michaelbateversionone", apparently the person in the photo. Not grounds for deletion but tilts the image toward deletion.Tempshill15:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No evidence this image was released as promo material. Source is incomplete. It seems like one image made to enchance an official website on a tv series (in which case, our use would be competitive)Abu badali(talk)16:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
no evidence this was released as promo material. source info given is a broken link to the upload section of some guy's website.Abu badali(talk)16:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The image itself is plainly ugly and fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines regarding images (for example, the inclusion of word art and a border). Moreover, the copyright status is questionable; it is unclear whether the original image (not this modified version) was in the public domain. Therefore, this image should be deleted.Dr. Submillimeter09:10, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image, originally used onMami Wata, uploaded by a role account used by a new religious movement that worships the deity/deities. Ludicrously they admit that the original is from Ancient Babylonia; the image was used to support their claim that the cult originated there. -∅ (∅),18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned image, originally used onMami Wata, uploaded by a role account used by a new religious movement that worships the deity/deities. This is actually a figurine that represents Saint Martha, not Mami Wata. -∅ (∅),18:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, the image is tagged PD 100 years old but then stated it was taken 1934. no source is provided beyond on countless websites, fan pages or booksleeves.User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr)19:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Just letting it be known that I nominated this image for someone else, and it doesn't reflect my opinion of the image in a "delete" or "don't delete" capacity. BIGNOLE (Contact me)03:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Speediable underCSD I7, as invalid fair use, because it is used as merely decorative on the300 (film) page and has no essential relation to the text it accompanies. I planned to delete it, but as there was substantial opposition on the article talk page, I said I'd defer to an IfD to allow for more discussion.Fut.Perf.☼23:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Under the same "decorative" argument, theatrical posters have, for the large part, accompanied film articles even though nothing in the article actually corresponds with the design of the poster (with a rare few exceptions where the poster image is notable). I have never encountered an issue with a poster's fair use rationale on its respective subject's article. Since the policy states that the image must be pertinent to the content by the way of "critical commentary", and there has not been an issue with displaying a single theatrical poster or single album cover, then the inherent interpretation should be that these images are acceptable as a visual key to the content at hand. I refuse to believe that this means posters and album covers should all of a sudden be called into question -- many articles with these sorts of images have been accepted. Considering that there is sufficient content regarding the film's soundtrack at300 (film), then I do not see why it is inappropriate to have the soundtrack cover serve as a visual key, if all these posters and album covers have been accepted in the past. I don't mean to present an argument based onWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but it should be absolutely clear for films and soundtracks, there is no capability to freely represent a visualization of these subjects. Surely it cannot be required that the soundtrack cover's design needs to be explained and detailed if the fair use rationale has been found satisfactory with posters and soundtrack covers that do not have "critical commentary" on their own design, but instead are real-world, one-stand representations of the neighboring content. —Erik (talk •contrib •review) -02:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A question for the admin who intended to delete the soundtrack image. Are you challenging the fair use rationale for film posters being placed in film articles, as well as soundtrack covers being placed in soundtrack articles? I'm defending this particular image because your wording on the talk page of300 seemed to suggest "a lot of similar abuse elsewhere", and this seemed to suggest that "critical commentary" should be required for non-free images, even if they identify the subject of the article. —Erik (talk •contrib •review) -04:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Answer: I'm afraid yes. This has actually been the written policy for a long while; it's just been ignored by large parts of the community and the abuse has been silently tolerated.Fut.Perf.☼09:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What about #8 atWikipedia:Non-free content saying, "Non-free content contributes significantly to an article (e.g., it identifies the subject of an article, or illustrates specific, relevant points or sections in the text); it does not serve a purely decorative purpose." For example, a film poster forJaws would easily identify the subject of the article. I seriously doubt your perspective and am concerned that other admins like you have this interpretation where there hasnever been an issue with a film poster identifying a film article. The policy has been around for a while, but I doubt the wording actually existed to specifically permit posters to identify films. I refuse to believe that all of a sudden, it's a problem that needs to be addressed, especially considering when a poster image has always been the forerunner in visually identifying the film on which the article is based. I will be bringing up this concern at the policy's talk page and also WikiProject Films because this was my concern from the start when the300 soundtrack image was called into question. Poster images have never been iffy, so you'll have to excuse me while I go make a case for 'em. :) —Erik (talk •contrib •review) -15:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I am not as emotionally invested in the image as I am in what it mightportend. Following the admin's comments about the "amount of abuses elsewhere" as well as follow-up posts from others warning that first it was the episode issue and now this new impetus. The admin's re-removal of the image camebefore he posted inthe article's discussion. Using the 'CSD 17' criterion, he needed to contact the uploader on their talk page, which he failed to do. Granted, at first blush, this can sound like admin-bashing, but it isn't. The long view of this is that if this failure to follow protocol goes unnoticed, then the protocol becomes meaningless, and we eventually have admins just pulling off images using whatever criteria and procedures they wish.
Furthermore, if we disallow related imagery like soundtrack covers, we begin a walk down a slippery slope that might well lead to film poster removal and beyond down the road using the same reasoning.
The rationale provided wasWP:CSD 17. Applying that reasoning, tagging album covers to be removed "for fair use under a rationale that is patently irrelevant to the actual image," is both inaccurate and counter-productive. Album/CD covers are not offered for free. There are no "bit-for-bit identical copies on the Wikimedia Commons" for them, movie posters or screenshots from films or comic books. Do they eventually fall under the axe of fair-use purging as well? This pattern of behavior creates more problems than it resolves. While we have fantastic contributors who add photographs and computer-generated images and illustrations, this will never be able to replace images created for the entertainment industry, views from the Hubble telescope, transmitted views from the Mars Lander, or a LANDSAT map image.
Weshould limit images without real connections to articles in which they are placed. Soundtrack CD cover images, however, meet that criteria for inclusion.Arcayne(cast a spell)06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Movie posters have a fitting purpose for being placed, wich is illustrating the visual aspect of the movie. However, this serves just the "general" poster, the one employed at the start of the article, and this one isnot such case.Perón12:48, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: for the reasons I and Erik outlined above. I think that the use of the soundtrack image provides a visual identifier, not as a decorative or "general" (as the unidentified poster about auggested) feature. As well, this policy is far too vague to warrant subjective interpretation of the media. Indeed, the admin didn't follow the protocol listed in the rationale he provided. What if we end up with an Admin Gone Wild, and they take a far more conservative view on the policy? I think it needs to be tightened up considerably before enforcement begins.Arcayne(cast a spell)07:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
![[1]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fcommons.wikimedia.org%2fwiki%2fCommons%3aDeletion_requests%2fImage%3aFree-speech-flag.svg){kind=link}
.JPG%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.JPG%26amp%3baction%3ddelete){kind=link}
.JPG%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.JPG%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
3.JPG%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
3.JPG%26amp%3baction%3ddelete){kind=link}
3.JPG%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
3.JPG%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
3.JPG){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3ddelete){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
.jpg%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_2.JPG%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
_2.JPG%26amp%3baction%3ddelete){kind=link}
_2.JPG%26amp%3baction%3dedit%26amp%3bredlink%3d1){kind=link}
_2.JPG%26amp%3baction%3dhistory){kind=link}
_2.JPG){kind=link}
