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.
This non-free file fails WP:NFCC#8 it does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. — ξxplicit 00:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
how can you say that? that's the best image for symbolizing the theme and meaning of that paragraph and basically representing a comeback for the Queensbridge rap scene at that time. Please read that paragraph once and think about it, you will definitely understand the very deep meaning which lies behind that image. the scene of continuing legacy from years ago, the voice of someone who represented hip-hop at its best at the time which was the voice of his neighborhood, capturing the distinct tone and timbre of an artist’s environment. JuventusGamer (talk) 16:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly does this non-free image of Nas in Queensbridge depict anything described in the paragraph? More importantly, what does this image do that a free image can't? — ξxplicit 17:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What free image; is there one? The non-free image provides for the readers a better understanding of the bleak nature of Nas's lyrics about his bleak environment, as well as relevance of Queensbridge to the album. Dan56 (talk) 18:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A free image of Queensbridge? Without hesitation, this is an obvious yes. We don't necessarily need Nas standing in the middle of the street to depict the area. — ξxplicit 05:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-free image used only for decoration. Stifle (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, non-free image used to reinforce the subject matter and offer a better understanding of the article for the readers. Dan56 (talk) 22:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This non-free image is used to elucidate the article better and specially that section of the article and help the readers to get a better understanding and have a better view of what the paragraph and actually the article is expressing. JuventusGamer (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, There are other images of Queensbridge/the projects but this one perfectly illustrates the social and physical context in which the album was made. Everything in the photo, from the car to the buildings receding into the horizon, to Nas as a street kid, to the the street itself, distills this moment in time.Bobcat (talk) 02:41, 29 September 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.
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.
This falls under abandonware since Westwood is dismantled. Since there still could be an issue, I would love to simply change the license to that of a copyrighted image. It'd be the only copyrighted image in the article, so there'd be no issue passing fair use with it. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 01:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abandonware is not equatable with a free image (PD or freely licenced) so it would be the best to be sure and give that image a fair use tag. Even this image wouldn't be the only fu image in this article (File:Klepackicameo.png and File:Iambackcover.png are fair use as well) I don't think that there is any need to delete this image.
Abandonware doesn't give us a free pass on copyright; even the intellectual property of a wound-up corporation reverts to its members or the government of the country where it was incorporates. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay; I'm not sure which license is appropriate, hm. What would you guys suggest? I'd like to keep it if possible since it's more historically interesting than his current studio. (It's where he composed his first famous works.) ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 05:21, 24 September 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.
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.
I challenge that this image is/was really released into the public domain. "released openly" does not include a public domain release --D-Kuru (talk) 00:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's considered release with the same ticket that Frank provided for the infobox template. I can always e-mail him and get a new ticket if it's needed. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 01:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would really appreciate if we could an OTRS ticket from Mr. Klepacki so that we can move this image (and the two below) to Commons. Some text as "Klepacki allowed me to use this image" is usually not enough on Commons.
Definitely; so I just send a message to Frank and have the clear permission forwarded to permissions-commons-at-wikimedia.org? ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 05:22, 24 September 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.
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.
It's considered release with the same ticket that Frank provided for the infobox template. I can always e-mail him and get a new ticket if it's needed. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 01:12, 20 September 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.
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.
It's considered release with the same ticket that Frank provided for the infobox template. I can always e-mail him and get a new ticket if it's needed. ZeaLitY [ DREAM - REFLECT ] 01:12, 20 September 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.
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.
Flagrant violation of the privacy of a private citizen - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 04:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a policy to cite for that? I've never seen such a policy, and in the past I've seen pictures be ruled appropriate if they're homes that are easily visible. Unless Beeblebrox had to climb over a wall and through a deep forest to take this, I don't see it being a violation of anything. rʨanaɢtalk/contribs 04:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The house was the site of a nationally televised interview with Mrs. Palin, she gave her resignation press conference on the lawn visible in the image [1] and photos of it have been published elsewhere including this nearly identical shot: [2]. It is easily visible from clear on the other side of the lake at the city park, I just happened to be boating there so I was able to get a decent shot of it. It is not a very private location, it's only three doors down from a lakefront hotel and has other residences close by on either side of it. I can provide a wider angle photo that establishes all of this if necessary. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no violation whatsoever. Stifle (talk) 19:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No privacy issues here. Gamaliel (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She invited the press to the house on more than one occasion, and it's been viewed inside and out on national television. Will Bebacktalk 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - no specific Wikipedia policy has been identified in violation, and the rationale for deletion is highly flawed, as similar images have appeared in many secondary sources. =Axlq 16:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is closed, but just to note for completeness that this image is available on Commons at File:Sarah Palin's house.jpg. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 5 October 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.
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: Speedy deleted per author request. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I accidentally uploaded the file with an incorrect file name. The correct file is loacted at File:Armands Fantasy Football.svg glennb28t/c 08:58, 20 September 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.
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.
Orphaned. Not sure if this file serves any purpose at all. Requested csd for what I thought was "patent nonsense" but was rejected. Is there a reason to keep this? RabidDeity (talk) 10:18, 20 September 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.
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.
Improper use of pd-old. Brandon (talk) 16:26, 20 September 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.
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: keepKilliondude (talk) 07:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This image fails WP:NFCC#1 as the event it illustrates can be adequately explained using text. Stifle (talk) 19:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As I stated on this image's talk page, I am not sure what to make of deleting it. Such images are sometimes kept when there is substantial critical commentary regarding the moment or imagery itself. There is substantial critical commentary about the moment in all three articles. Recently, the image of Tom Cruise jumping on Oprah Winfrey's couch was kept, not only because the matter has substantial critical commentary in the Tom Cruise article...but also because it is a popular culture moment that relays the incident better when included. I am not one way or the other for the inclusion of the Kanye-West-grabs-the-mic-2009-vma.jpg. It is currently only used in two articles, Taylor Swift and 2009 MTV Video Music Awards, though. Flyer22 (talk) 20:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; the incident is well-documented in the media, and the image adds significantly to understanding. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more to writing an article than just describing the subject in text. Pictures help give added emphasis.--Scouto2 (talk) 23:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A picture is worth a thousand words, this image captures the moment in a a way words could not, plus you can try and solve the maze shaved on to Wests head... Beeblebrox (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As someone who didn't see the show, it's good to see the image available. sohmc (talk) 15:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a definite worthwhile image to keep IMO; this incident could not just described in words, including an image is better. I believe it meets fair-use guidelines, since the file illustrates well a highly-publicized event in the media. JamieS93 19:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above
Keep Historically relevant image that captures the actions of a celebrity that caused a massive ripple effect in the media.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 19:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to weakly support keeping the image. Not, however, for the reasons given above, most of which ignore what our NFCC policy actually says. I think that seeing the incident does add something to understanding that text alone does not. I do, however, think that different framing would make this image more informative. As a side note, I don't think it's a valid use in Taylor Swift, so if this is kept it should be removed from that article. ÷seresin 05:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Its a keeper. It summarizes what happened quite well.
Keep Nothing wrong with it at all.
Keep No question about it Psythik (talk) 13:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The picture conveys more of the story's emotion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neonman0422 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The picture definitely portrays the moment and is about it. So, it is acceptable. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 22:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although this picture illustrates the event well and I'd like to keep it, this particular image was shot by a photographer, and was not aired during the broadcast of show. It therefore could not be a screenshot as the fair use rationale says. The actual broadcast featured Pink clapping until the cameraman noticed Kanye on stage. By that time, Kanye already had the microphone- the scene in which he actually grabbed the mic was never seen. Therefore, this image has great commercial value for the photographer and the fair use rationale is not correct. Liquidluck (talk) 04:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't watch the VMA's so with the points that Liquidluck made, I change my opinion. -- Ipodnano05 (talk) 04:57, 2 October 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.
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: Never mind.Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single cover, but rather a (cute) placeholder stock image made by the label. If it were indeed a single cover, it'd at least have the song/artist name, no? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not exactly a placeholder. It's the theme of the packaging for the pro-cd. The back looks the same. The CD itself looks like a piece of bologna but I don't have an image of that. here is a pic of the outside: File:Alanjackson.istilllikebologna.jpg. What are we supposed to show instead of nothing? Publichall (talk) 01:28, 21 September 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.
