Knowledge (XXG):Files for deletion/2011 July 25

3723:, and the topic is the person herself. And not seeing the person significantly decreases the understanding of that topic, it seems obvious to me. Slightly off-topic: Do you think that in general, if we have a biography of a non-living person on Knowledge (XXG), and the only photos that will ever exist are non-free, and there's a non-free photo in the infobox... do you think that photo should be deleted in most cases? Because that goes against pretty long-standing practice here, doesn't it? – 3280:. The precendent does not apply; there, the articles it was used in were about the events surrounding the person's death, and they were not a biography of the subject herself. Since this is used in an actual biography article, and we can't take new free images, it serves an important purpose for the article and it cannot be replaced. Non-free images of people who have died are generally acceptable for use in their biography article, but not in other articles. – 984:

much more zoomed-in, less informative view. All other photographs of Shibe's exterior are from the 1970s, after an ungainly addition ruined the beautiful, legendary facade seen in this image. In addition to the enhancement of the article, the stamp itself portrays well how Shibe is viewed in our society. It fits perfectly in the "Contemporary Culture" section, proving that the stadium is still held in high enough esteem to be made into a postage stamp.

3260:

images" consistently. I'm glad the criteria are strict, and I understand them very clearly. And my understanding of the topic is significantly impaired by the lack of a photo of the victim. You've been stating your interpretation of the policy in these individual cases as if your opinions were the only logical way to look at it, and it's coming across as condescending. –

1074:

and place images have been illustrated on stamps that honoured those people or places but that does not justify its use especially as thousands of stamps are issued every year worldwide, many just to make money from stamp collectors. "Baseball's Legendary Playing Fields" is a classic example of that commercial issuance of stamps.

513:

book. So why not add an image of the stamp to go along with the text? It also shows perfectly how the book and author are regarded in our society (well enough to be made into a postage stamp.) Absolutely anything can be described in prose, but to say that words can completely substitute for an image is stupid and wrong.

1041:. If this was a ballpark that was lost to father time where images could not be found, I would be fine with keeping it. However, there are many very nice images of the park on the page already that tell the story of the park better than the stamp ever could. Yes, it's in color, but I've always liked the originals. 355:

recognition, because it is the author who receives the award or honor for her contribution to the literary world, not the book itself. The stamp is necessary for the readers understanding of this particular section of the article, which is discussing awards and recognition the author received for the book.

3161:

As I said to the previous nomination (about a week ago): I must have missed the day when David Fuchs was elected Arbiter of All Things Fair Use. (Or the day that he claimed to aspire to the title, for that matter.) The deletion discussion you're citing was quite divided, and one admin's decision does

1073:

which you could hand tint if you are so inclined and it would then be very similar to the stamp image. Yes, the stamp may show the ballpark at its best, but again that is no reason to use a non-free image. Commercial disadvantage is not a reason that justifies the use a non-free image and many people

561:

That was a reply to one sentence of my comment. I know very well that non-free images are sometimes allowed. I also understand the circumstances in this case: that these types of stamp images are only allowed if they help illustrate the article and are informative and helpful to the reader. I believe

366:

The addition of critical commentary of the stamp would be a violation of Knowledge (XXG) neutrality policy, unless criticisms could be presented from different points of view and those criticisms could be referenced to books and other articles. Since none such criticisms have been found to date, no

218:

because the use a this non-free stamp is unnecessary for the readers' understanding of the article it is used in. The fact that the USPS produced a stamp to honour the subject of the stamp can easily be explained in prose but seems completely unnecessary for this article use. Beside which there is no

1068:

The use of a non-free image is not necessary because the prose, about the stamp, already in the article clearly states all the information necessary and having the non-free image add nothing extra. Besides which there are a number of images of the facade, some very similar images to the stamp image

360:

It is necessary to display the stamp so the readers can see the detail of the stamp without having to explain to the reader that the stamp is one inch by one inch, in deep red ink, with a large number one and the abbreviation USA on the right side of the stamp and the name Margaret Mitchell written

3259:

I know they're very strict by design. I remember when they were being ironed out, and I participated in the discussion that lead to the consensus for their wording. I was the one who suggested we stop calling them "fair-use images" on guideline pages and templates, and start calling them "non-free

3204:

According to you, maybe. When viewed in a wider context of all child murders, maybe one seems interchangeable with another. You're basically saying that if you've seen one dead little blonde kid, you've seen 'em all, right? But we can't presume that all readers have prior knowledge of the subject.

581:

OK, first of all, the stamp is not even mentioned at all in the article, so if I remove the image, the article is not really affected at all. So let's pretend you move that caption into the article text: "On June 30, 1986 the U.S. Post Office issued a 1-cent stamp honoring Margaret Mitchell on the

1022:

A unique image presented in a unique way, not duplicated by any known photo. Text contains discussion of the copy on the back of the stamp. Plus, there is no possible commercial disadvantage to the copyright holder by using this image because the stamp's value is in the physical stamp, not in the

983:

This image significantly enhances the article both informatively and visually. The stamp shows a view of the ballpark and its surroundings in its early days that is not shown anywhere else, and in vibrant color no less. The only other image we have of the ballpark as it appears in this stamp is a

512:

photo isn't really necessary to its article. Let's just go ahead and delete every fair use image on Knowledge (XXG), if you all have such a problem with them. It's completely relevant, too. The article mentions the creation of a stamp for the author, obviously an important in the history of this

622:

Clearly the image of the author on a stamp is not necessary to understand that such a stamp was issued on a particular day and that can all be stated in prose without any need for a non-free stamp image. If there was something particularly special about the stamp image itself that enhanced the

3655:

Comment: In the Caylee case, iirc, the image was used in articles relating to Caylee, but was not used in the article about Caylee Anthony herself. Is that correct? In that case, I note that this image is used only in an article about the person. How is that different than any biography (of a

354:

The stamp is not being presented as a decoration in the article. The stamp is being presented to show the stamp itself that was issued on the same day the book went on sale 50 years prior. The author and the book are inextricably linked to one another, especially when discussing awards and

1220:

Why even bother holding discussions? Just tell Fastily et al to delete any images they feel like and automatically file their own deletion review every time they use the tool, since some can't be trusted to judge consensus this week unless there's adult discussion to supervise it.

3218:

photo of the victim "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic , and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". If you disagree, I can see where you're coming from. But I don't believe you will find consensus that a photo of the victim fails to

1113:. With all due respect, if you see them as similar images, then I better understand your fervor to delete an image that really enhances the article. And the commercial motivation of the USPS "just to make money from stamp collectors" has no bearing on the issue. Respectfully, — 5826: 381:

If no critical commentary can be added, then the stamp cannot be kept. It is not necessary for readers to see the actual stamp to understand that said stamp was issued, unless there is something intrinsically important about the image on the stamp itself.

2006:

because the use a this non-free stamp is unnecessary for the readers' understanding of the article and the fact that the Turks & Caicos postal administration issued a stamp to honour the subject of the stamp can easily be explained in prose.

1083:

if these was some critical commentary about that fact, sourced of course, besides that is was issued and what it shows, then you might have some justification for keeping it but I don't see that ever happening for this image in this article.

3001:

photo of the victim "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic , and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding". It's not a black-and-white area, and there's room for editors to disagree in good faith. –

1956: 462:

You are missing the point. All of those stamps on that page are in the public domain and are free of copyright, so we can do whatever we want with them. The Margaret Mitchell stamp is unfree and therefore subject to different rules.

4966:

This image is older, and was originally tagged as PD. But there's no source for that, and it may not be PD... we don't know when it was created or first published. Now it's tagged as non-free, but still with no author or date. –

1810:

because the use a this non-free stamp is unnecessary for the readers' understanding of the article and the fact that the Indian postal service produced a stamp to honour the subject of the stamp can easily be explained in prose.

2223:

because the use a this non-free stamp is unnecessary for the readers' understanding of the article and the fact that the Latvian Post office produced a stamp to honour the subject of the stamp can easily be explained in prose.

2419:

627:

if these was some critical commentary about that fact, besides that is was issued and what it shows, then you might have some justification for keeping it but I don't see that ever happening for this image in this article.

965:

because the use a this non-free stamp is unnecessary for the readers' understanding of the article and the fact that the USPS produced a stamp to honour the subject of the stamp can easily be explained in prose.

1475:. There are other se-tenant stamp images available on the commons and while they don't have the same layout as this one, that fact can easily be explained in prose without the necessity of a on-free US stamp. 5464: 3914: 3678:? This particular photo is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article, nor is it otherwise necessary to see a photo of the victim to understand that something nefarious happened to them. 3457:? This particular photo is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article, nor is it otherwise necessary to see a photo of the victim to understand that something nefarious happened to them. 3190:? This particular photo is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article, nor is it otherwise necessary to see a photo of the victim to understand that something nefarious happened to them. 2979:? This particular photo is not the subject of sourced commentary in the article, nor is it otherwise necessary to see a photo of the victim to understand that something nefarious happened to them. 3232:

Bottom line: If it were free, no problem. But since it's not, it has to follow all the guidelines for non-free content, and they are very strict, by design. This one doesn't meet them, falling on

5631: 5428: 5153: 4890: 4077: 3878: 2732: 2540: 2333: 2137: 1920: 1724: 879: 700:. You have still not told us what the significance of this stamp image is that requires it to be displayed in the article about a book; it add nothing to the reader's understanding of that book. 3696:

article. In an article about an individual, having a single photo of that individual is critical in understanding the article. That's a pretty long-standing majority interpretation of NFCC#8. –

3475:

article. In an article about an individual, having a single photo of that individual is critical in understanding the article. That's a pretty long-standing majority interpretation of NFCC#8. –

4692: 4490: 4288: 1429: 2369: 4113: 1393: 132: 5318:, minimal use; one image is enough to identify the subject, using two such images clearly is not minimal use of non-free images. Again either one or the other image but not both. 3214:

I'd like to answer the question directed to me, while assuming good faith. This particular article is about the murder of one particular individual. As above, I think that having

5667: 1279:

The strongest reason(s) to keep: subject the image depicts is only relevant to the article given the time period in which the image was created so therefore, the file must meet

5189: 2612: 2173: 5025:

Well, may not be considered a good reason but we need old photos in wikipedia. Really can someone tell me who deleted the images of the kings of nepal, butan and jordan?

4324: 3593: 367:

critical commentary can be added at this time. Therefore, the stamp is presented without any criticisms as to not be in violation of Knowledge (XXG)'s neutrality policy.

915: 428:

copyrighted and non-free, then we would only use a photo of it in an article about the painting itself, not in the article about God or Adam (the subject material). –

4728: 656:

Of course you don't understand the significance of the stamp and what it means to women of this country. You aren't an American and you certainly aren't a female.

3382: 2768: 2576: 1576: 1263:

A number of users have asked me to clarify my reasons for deleting this image, so I think I'll do that down here. In summary, when closing this debate, I found:

446: 168: 5818: 3924: 2904: 38: 33: 4526: 3099: 1133:: The image enhances the article as stated above, and does not, nor could not, commercially or artistically violate the original depicted item's source. 1106: 1070: 3629: 3418: 3135: 2940: 582:

50th anniversary of the day her epic novel, Gone with the Wind, went on sale." What part of this sentence is not really comprehensible without the image?

5810: 5758: 3746:, and if no free images can be found. It is a red herring to refer to the Caylee Anthony photo because it was not being used in a biography about her. 1760: 1151:, other images in article serve to show the building adequately. The appearance of the stamp is not the subject of critical commentary, so this fails 5702:

Orphaned image uploaded by a now-blocked user. Poor quality, questionable copyright status due to nature of the image and uploader's being blocked. –

5499:

Orphaned image uploaded by a now-blocked user. Poor quality, questionable copyright status due to nature of the image and uploader's being blocked. –

361:

vertically on the left side of the stamp with an image of Margaret Mitchell when she was 30 years old with her wavy hair swept back off her forehead.

4931: 1948: 5846: 3742:

Agree with Quadell. It is long standing practice that non-free images placed in the infobox of dead people can be used to identify that person

2408: 1799: 3636:. If this were a free photo, it would be perfectly fine to include a photo of the victim. However, since it is non-free, it must meet all ten 3425:. If this were a free photo, it would be perfectly fine to include a photo of the victim. However, since it is non-free, it must meet all ten 3142:. If this were a free photo, it would be perfectly fine to include a photo of the victim. However, since it is non-free, it must meet all ten 2947:. If this were a free photo, it would be perfectly fine to include a photo of the victim. However, since it is non-free, it must meet all ten 1940: 1844: 4988:, who is notorious on Knowledge (XXG) Commons for uploading images with incorrect or false copyright claims - he's even been blocked for it, 3166:

feel that removing these photos improves the articles on Knowledge (XXG), have at it. I learned long ago not to get in the way of a crusade.

935: 410:

It's not necessary for readers to see a picture of the Sistine Chapel either. Just tell them it's a painting on the ceiling of a church.

5854: 5725: 5522: 5251: 5032: 4175: 3968: 1197: 1010: 5862: 5850: 943: 264: 3585: 2924: 1596: 1052: 939: 240:

Since it was "first published between 1978 and 1 March 1989...without notice, and without subsequent registration within 5 years....

5456: 5209: 4149: 1079:

If there was something particularly special about the stamp image itself that enhanced the reader's understanding of the article

996: 574: 525: 188: 5013:

He's added a rationale, but hasn't dealt with the sourcing or dating problems. He also removed the ffd tag, so I re-added it. –

3906: 3613: 5448: 5352: 5267:. Debatable whether it fails WP:NFCC#8. This picture shows the front profile while the other one shows just the side profile. 17: 5711: 5508: 5294: 5237: 4951: 4161: 3773: 3500: 3289: 2932: 2788: 2389: 1604: 1449: 1421: 1248: 1164: 774: 725:

we have stamp images in the tributes sections of hundreds of articles; move to margaret mitchel article, or delete them all.

2361: 5687: 5484: 4105: 3898: 3802: 5659: 5595: 5392: 5228:, a better image is already in the article and we don't need two non-free images to illustrate what somebody looks like. – 5217: 5117: 4854: 4748: 4546: 4344: 4133: 4041: 3949:

Invalid claim of "fair use", for two main reasons. (1) The portion used is the entire video work. (2) Its main purpose in

3934: 3842: 3402: 3374: 3119: 2928: 2696: 2504: 2297: 2101: 1884: 1780: 1688: 1600: 843: 242:

Struck because the stamp copyrights are not listed on the stamp, but in the margin of the booklets in which they come in.

196: 5181: 3705:

Bottom line is, it is not necessary to see a photo of the victim to understand that the person was abused and murdered.

762: 5213: 4656: 4454: 4252: 3621: 3577: 3529: 3444:

Keep. As below, I don't think that precedent applies. Either way, I think this passes NFCC #8 in the article it's in. –

2596: 2165: 1413: 1317: 192: 5884: 5774: 5748: 5571: 5545: 5368: 5342: 5093: 5067: 4830: 4804: 4628: 4602: 4426: 4400: 4316: 4224: 4198: 4017: 3991: 3818: 3792: 3545: 3519: 3334: 3308: 3051: 3025: 2856: 2830: 2672: 2646: 2480: 2454: 2353: 2273: 2257: 2247: 2077: 2051: 1860: 1834: 1664: 1638: 1524: 1498: 1333: 1183: 819: 793: 72: 5607: 5404: 5129: 4959: 4866: 4097: 4053: 4001: 3854: 3617: 2796: 2708: 2516: 2397: 2309: 2193: 2113: 1976: 1896: 1700: 1615:) that has since been deleted due to an approved AfD for non-notability. File is also currently orphaned as a result. 1457: 907: 855: 5791: 5651: 5555: 1541: 5695: 5492: 5173: 5077: 4720: 696:

Actually Prairiegrl you are correct I an neither female nor American, but that has no bearing on complying with the

5625: 5613: 5422: 5410: 5147: 5135: 4989: 4955: 4884: 4872: 4756: 4668: 4554: 4466: 4352: 4264: 4141: 4071: 4059: 3942: 3872: 3860: 3410: 3223:

increase understanding of that victim's murder. In an article on a tangential subject, I would feel differently. –

3127: 2792: 2760: 2726: 2714: 2568: 2534: 2522: 2393: 2327: 2315: 2157: 2131: 2119: 2061: 1914: 1902: 1788: 1718: 1706: 1568: 1453: 873: 861: 4308: 4208: 3205:

The criteria for what is "necessary" is not defined anywhere in Knowledge (XXG) policy; it's a matter of opinion.

3177:

Keep. I disagree with that precedent, but concede the situations are analogous. I feel this use passes NFCC #8. –

2966:

Keep. I disagree with that precedent, but concede the situations are analogous. I feel this use passes NFCC #8. –

1802:

and the use of this 2011 stamp in an article about the subject without any critical commentary of the stamp fails

160: 5691: 5601: 5488: 5398: 5123: 4860: 4752: 4686: 4674: 4550: 4484: 4472: 4348: 4282: 4270: 4137: 4047: 3950: 3938: 3848: 3406: 3123: 2896: 2702: 2604: 2510: 2303: 2107: 1890: 1784: 1694: 1211: 1138: 1118: 1028: 925: 899: 849: 803: 292:

Surely you mean post-1977 US stamps, right? If so then you are correct. Either way, this stamp is copyrighted. –

5836: 4993: 4518: 3091: 5619: 5416: 5141: 4878: 4712: 4662: 4612: 4460: 4258: 4065: 3866: 3366: 3318: 2720: 2600: 2528: 2321: 2201: 2125: 1984: 1908: 1712: 1620: 867: 2752: 2656: 2560: 2464: 1752: 1560: 1508: 5883: