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:

Image:NRT6 2001.jpg

Image:NRT6 2001.jpg ( delete| talk| history| logs) - uploaded by Dandelion1 ( notify | contribs).

• Proceedural IfD Nom. Nominated for speedy deletion by user:Hornetman16 as "Breaks Florida Law" with respect to child pornography (see Image talk:NRT6 2001.jpg). Since this image passed a previous IfD nom, I am bringing it back here for further discussion. For the record, I believe it is an innocent photo and completely non-sexual, so I recommend keep. — Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 03:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• • While I agree that the image is not "child porn" by any stretch of the imagination, there are some additional ethical issues about it that I think have not yet been fully considered in this debate. Please don't respond with a too-speedy "keep" based on the rejection of the absurd "child porn" argument. Consider instead the privacy of the people involved. Do the subjects in the photo (who are non-notable people doing something silly and innocent: attending a naked public bike ride) know that their photo is being posted in this manner, under a GFDL license? Is the father aware? How about the mother of the child? Are they ok with it? I think there are good reasons to delete this image that have nothing to do with "child porn". At the very least, we could look for an image without a child and in which all the identifiable subjects in the photo are aware of how it will be used.-- Jimbo Wales 15:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Considering that it was taken six years ago and is still on the site now, it seems highly unlikely that it would have even been on that site if any privacy concerns were raised. Germany has fairly strict privacy laws--stricter than American ones, if I'm not mistaken. Blueboy 96 18:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Nackt Radtour is a public event, just like World Naked Bike Ride and all other clothing-optional bike rides. We have children participate in our Seattle ride too and those pictures are also live currently on the internet. We have large people, skinny people, democrats, republicans, asian, white, latino, you name it. The more diverse a ride looks the more it will attract a diverse set of potential riders. These photos in Germany were uploaded so participants and outsiders could have some idea of what the ride is like. The fact that participants of all ages and families participate adds a sense of safety for those who might be deciding if they want to participate or not. If families did not participate then these events it would be harder to classify as family-friendly events. It really scares me that some here are trying to argue that these images are lewd or sexy or exploitative. Cheers, User:Dandelion ( talk| contribs) 01:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I would also like to add that a film named "Radtour-Classics 2001: Nackt-Radtour in und um Karlsruhe am 14. 6. 2001" from this ride was also cleared by filmmaker to screen at the Naked Freedom Film Festival taking place in Seattle in 2004 at the Seattle Art Museum and 911 Media Arts Center and persons depicted in the image were all present in that as well. It was removed at the last minute due to a German -> English translation dispute and because an early trailer screening suggested that a 45 minute film on the subject was just boring. http://www.bodyfreedom.org/nfff/lineup.html . The ad for the festival itself featured persons of all ages, including children. See http://www.bodyfreedom.org/media_projects/NFFFstranger3C.jpg User:Dandelion ( talk| contribs) 01:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• • SPEEDY DELETE-From my talk page:"According to my Mother who has been both molested and had Child Porno picture taken of her, That photo fall under the Florida Law def. of Child Porno!!!-- Hornetman16 05:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)"
• Keep Neither policy nor law are (or is it "is"?) violated. "Your mother" is not an authoritative source for Floridan law and Wikipedia policy. — Kurykh 05:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • She been involved in like 30 law suits in her life I'd think she'd know!-- Hornetman16 05:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • This is getting ridiculous. Is your mother a lawyer? Involvement in lawsuits does not equal court interpretation. I am using a Supreme Court case as my reference. Can you do the same? — Kurykh 05:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • I can get my Uncle Greg involved who has a License to practice law in both Florida and North Carolina.-- Hornetman16 05:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Stop dragging your relatives into this. I don't want to see a family reunion picnic on Wikipedia. Please use an authoritative source as your reference (like a Supreme Court opinion), not lawyers who may have differing opinions regarding current American law. — Kurykh 05:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Your mother, who has no actual training or experience other than presence in law or court interpretation, and the second hand source of you restating your uncle's opinion are both sources that do not meet Wikipedia standards. — Bakeredit 01:38 AM, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
• After attempts to take a closer look at this image, it appears to be a lifelike doll or some other figure to get your attention. There are some elements of the child which are too refined to be an actual child. Beyond that, while my personal tastes are against this type of imagery and would prefer on religious grounds that WP not permit graphic images or nudity. With all of that in mind, and as a pretext, I still would vote to keep this image and article as it does comply with the policies of WP. Tiggerjay 05:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Fine ya'll wanna be that way? Those of ya'll that live in Tampa, FL pay attention to local news. Expect trouble. And by the way. WP policy says it's allowed as long as it complies with Florida Law which this photo doesn't!-- Hornetman16 05:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

...says you and no one else. — Kurykh 05:49, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Please don't end the discussion cause I'll be back! -- Hornetman16 05:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

With proper sources, I hope. Riana (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep, I see nothing whatsoever pornographic or sexual in this image. Let the office deal with legal issues if they come up, the vast majority of us are not lawyers, which is why we do not. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep unless the office sees a concern with it or the original nominator (Hornetman16) has some official legal document or court decision that says that this image (or others like it) is indeed pornography, but it does not appear to be sexualized in any way, and Wikipedia is not censored. Hornetman16 also should be aware that legal threats are not tolerated, and that he's on his way to a block if he continues. -- Core desat 07:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The nominator (me) voted to keep. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 13:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • I meant Hornetman16, the original nominator. -- Core desat 17:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Sorry. Misunderstood. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 17:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete this is an encyclopedia, not a storehouse for images on the fringes of what could be considered tasteless nudity, I also think threatening Hornetman16 with a block is counterproductive, he pointed out it violates criminal law that's not a legal threat (ie a civil case), even if he said he was contacting the Florida state attorney generals office that would also not be a legal threat, because wikipedia policy is to follow Florida law anyway. Bleh999 08:44, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Since when was "tasteless nudity" a criterion for deletion? — Kurykh 03:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Just because a child is nude doesn't mean it's pornographic. We have a picture of a girl about 5 years old who's pregnant, that's far more sexual than this, but it demonstrates that it is a valid article -- Phoeba Wright ^OBJECTION! 09:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

In some jurisdictions it is pornography to show a child nude, pornography isn't just an image showing copulation that means playboy and maxim magazine aren't porn because they are just nudes. I'm just pointing out your opinion is very POV and not based on legality. If you cite some relevant Florida laws I'll drop my objection. Bleh999 10:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

By that logic, the grand majority of cherubs are child porn. This picture is not in any sort of seductive pose or situation, and nor does it show any reproductive organs -- Phoeba Wright ^OBJECTION!

whoever claimed the law had to be logical? Especially when it comes to child porn laws, just showing any nude under 18 is considered child porn in some places, not sure about Florida, but the laws are usually different for photographic reproductions and fictional artwork such as your example (thats why some people produce so called 3d artwork to skirt child porn laws), also what about personality rights? does the little girl mind that when she grows up her photograph was plastered on the internet in an offensive manner without her permission? I don't think that is fair. Bleh999 11:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

If you're not sure about Florida law, then your argument is moot. Wikipedia follows American and Floridan law, and nothing else. And you are arguing from the emotional perspective in your second-to-last sentence, which is not our problem; it's the source website's problem. — Kurykh 03:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. When the image is kept, the faces should be made unrecognisable. – Ilse @ 10:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep: let's not blow this out of proportion!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.42.133.128 ( talk • contribs).
• Keep, agree with the anon above. It's not going to be illegal in Florida, we all know that. But if it were then OFFICE will tell use to take it down. So until that day comes (and it won't) then let's keep legal argument out of it. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 15:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• (Again)Delete, What kind of idiot (no offense intended) do you have to be to not know Florida Law because you on a web site that's run under Florida Law?-- Hornetman16 17:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • You only get one "vote" (IFD is not a vote). You already argued to delete, so I struck out your duplicate argument. Prove that this image is child pornography and I'll change my mind and inform the Office right away, though so far all you've done is be incivil and attack those who are arguing to keep the image. -- Core desat 17:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• FLORIDA LAW, [1]-- Hornetman16 18:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Which one are you trying to say this meets? Because that list keeps saying "sexual", and last time I checked, biking isn't that sexual.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• If you read it it said that Child Pornogragpy can be as little as just a naked child!-- Hornetman16 18:15, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • That's funny, because the words "nude", "nudity", "naked", or "naked child" never shows up on that page. Actually, every instance of "child", regards to a statement about pornography, is preceded by "sexual conduct".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• My uncle who is a lawer say a judge for find this as Child Porn!-- Hornetman16 18:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah, that's what I thought. Um...here on Wikipedia, the only people that exist are the people that live in your fingers and type, because we can clearly say "that's a person and they're alive". What we can't do is verify who YOU are, or who someone else is. To do that requires a lot of credentials. What we don't do is allow hearsay (ask your uncle about that) evidence, as that isn't verifiable (not in law, and definitely not on wikipedia). You can claim all you want, and your uncle can claim all you want, but without actual verifiable evidence that there is a law against a child that is nude, but in a non-sexual pose, then there is nothign to talk about.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, Hornetman16, your closest argument would be that this may be considered a sexual performance which is prohibited from being promoted in the state of FL. By the definitions in sub-section (1) we see that sexual performance relates to "means any play, motion picture, photograph, or dance or any other visual representation exhibited before an audience." However this images isn't exactly fitting under a performance. A race or other nude act is not an "exhibition before an audience". It is true that if this content does meet the definition of "sexual performance" then it would be illegal for the Wikipedia located in FL (but not other servers located elsewhere) to distribute this image, or as the code say "promote" which I do believe Wikipedia does meet the definition of "promote" as defined in the code. However it is a very fine line to determine IF this image is actually a performance. Tiggerjay 18:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Tigger, please don't edit my comments. If you don't agree with how I address something, then say so, but don't delete things I say unless they are clearly a personal attack, which they were not. Maybe a little heavy, but no where near a personal attack. That's just uncouthe. If you think they are were a little "mean", then I apologize to Hornetman16, as I was only tired of seeing the constant "I've asked my uncle the lawyer" type of comments.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
        • Any argument that this is pronography is unfounded since it does not meet the definitions under sub-section (1) "Sexual conduct" means actual or simulated sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse, sexual bestiality, masturbation, or sadomasochistic abuse; actual lewd exhibition of the genitals; actual physical contact with a person's clothed or unclothed genitals, pubic area, buttocks, or, if such person is a female, breast, with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of either party; or any act or conduct which constitutes sexual battery or simulates that sexual battery is being or will be committed. A mother's breastfeeding of her baby does not under any circumstance constitute "sexual conduct." All of which this images clearly is not. Tiggerjay 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
          • I think you just contradicted yourself, it appears the Florida law allows a great deal of interpretation and this could be considered child porn to quote; "actual lewd exhibition of the genitals" [2] well clearly this photo does that, and since it isn't defined more specifically you can't say this doesn't violate Florida law in good faith Bleh999 23:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • It's child porn I don't know how else to prove it to you cause everything I throw at you, you freakin counter!!-- Hornetman16 18:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Listen Hornetman, you have very will intentioned, however you are completely out of line. You are unable to properly interpret the law for your own state. Your comments are very disruptive and do not further any productive discussion regarding this article. I would suggest that you learn how to participate in a 'productive' manner with people who have view which directly oppose you. The fact of the matter is you are not going to change the minds of the other editors regarding weather this is porn or not, but rather weather this image is appropriate for the article it is used in. Tiggerjay 18:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• This is like the fourth time this photo's been objected to unless this kind of thing is to continue I suggest you delete the photo!-- Hornetman16 18:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Actually 3 times. Twice was by you, and the first time was by another "Christian". No I'm not saying there is anything wrong with Christians, I'm saying it shows that this is more of a moral issue than a legal one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 19:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • And what if it is?-- 72.184.88.30 19:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • As has been explained, Wikipedia is not a cenorship for your morals. Just because you do not agree with something doesn't mean it should be removed. I personally don't agree with a lot of things, that doesn't give me the right to delete them if they are legitimate. It has already been said that the image is not child porn, no matter what you may think and you have not provided any evidence that a picture that simply show a nude child, doing nothing more than sucking her thumb and resting after riding her bicycle is equivalent to child porn. What I think you really have a problem with is the fact that this picture shows lots of naked people, mostly men, and you singled the child out as a way to get this image removed because of that.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I can't believe this is being interpreted in a sexual manner. Encyclopedic and relevant - Alison ☺ 20:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep Doesn't violate any Wikipedia rules, like everyone's said, legal matters aren't handle by us laymen. Shell ^babelfish 20:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Mild Keep ^{In The Solicitor General's brief submitted in the Supreme Court, we hold that a "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area" pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2256(2)(E) encompasses visual depictions of a child's genitals or pubic area even when these areas are covered by an article of clothing and are not discernible.} [ US V Knox (1994)] The case actually relates to the word "lascivious" - An Inocent picture of a child in a happy group picture would not constitute lascivious surely. In the UK, all depictions of children naked are illegal and the person making them could be prosecuted. TG no more baby pictures of me will get passed around!! US Federal law is more liberal in its interpretation as you can see, and relates to highly sexed "art" child porn that once filled the backwaters of newsgroups. Mike33 22:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. No compelling reason to delete. ➪ HiDrNick! 06:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep Anyone who finds this pornographic seriously needs to explore the Internet a little more. Riana (talk) 07:35, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep; nudity ≠ pornography, even of children. — Angr 13:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep I almost said "neutral," but looking at the image, you'd have to have a pretty active imagination to think that's child porn. And I say this as someone who's a pentecostal/charismatic Christian, like Hornetman--though somewhat more liberal. Blueboy 96 16:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• I'd say this is a straightforward speedy. Obviously unsuitable for Wikipedia. -- Tony Sidaway 16:55, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  On what grounds? Speedying this picture would set a very bad precedent. Wikipedia is not censored. Blueboy 96 18:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  Actually, with SPUI, I wrote that clause. Wikipedia isn't censored, but that doesn't mean it retains any and every picture uploaded. -- Tony Sidaway 19:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• I took the liberty of moving this to Commons. - N 17:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• The issue here is not one of child pornography. That is an irrelevance brought up by an editor who is obviously pushing an agenda. Nor is it one of copyright. The issue here is ironically one that is touched upon by Mike33 above when xe mentions baby pictures: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. This is a picture of a recognizable real living person, a naked child, who does not have the ability to defend xyr own rights nor the ability to give consent. We should be causing no harm to that living person.

  There are plenty of pictures that can illustrate the bicycle tour that this picture came from that include only consenting adults who can choose whether they want pictures of themselves naked to be published and distributed, and who have the means to defend themselves. Several such have been uploaded to Wikipedia. It does not further the purpose of writing an encyclopaedia to also have a picture of an identifiable naked child that provides no useful information and that can only serve to embarrass its subject as xe grows up, as xe is recognized by friends, schoolchildren, and complete strangers from the picture. We should not subject this person to perpetually being "the naked little child in the encyclopaedia" in the future, all through school and beyond. Mike33 is glad that xyr baby pictures are not passed around. I am sure that xe is equally glad that xyr baby pictures are not used gratutiously by other people in an encyclopaedia. We should afford the same courtesy to this child and remember our remit to write an encyclopaedia here.

  That someone can take this picture and license it under the GFDL does not mean that an encyclopaedia has a use for it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Delete. Uncle G 19:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

  • That appeal to emotion, while moving, completely ignores both the laws and customs of the civilized world. People take naked pictures of their babies and pass them around. There's nothing wrong with this. And the child's parents have every right to be nudists and take pictures with their kid. Especially in Europe, where this photo was taken, people see nothing wrong with this. You applying your own interpretation of policy to this is just flat out wrong. Keep. - N 19:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Disingenuously mis-labelling it as an appeal to emotion won't change the fact that it is not any such thing but is rather an argument that is solidly grounded in the fundamental policies that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, that Wikipedia is not a tabloid, and that Wikipedia does no harm to living persons. That your argument is completely lacking in anything that relates to our task of building an encyclopaedia, and is instead based upon the idea that somehow we should be guided in our task here by what people who aren't writing encyclopaedias do, indicates that you are failing to grasp the fundamental goal of the project. (You are also failing, from what you write, to give any thought to the future consequences for the person depicted of the presence of this image in an encyclopaedia. I suggest putting yourself in the place of that person, and considering what the consequences for you would have been if you had had to grow up with a naked picture of you as a child published around the world.) What people do with naked pictures of their babies has no bearing upon the task of writing an encyclopaedia. Such people are not passing around those pictures with the intent that they will be published to the whole world by complete strangers in encyclopaedias. Once again: Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 22:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I find it hard to believe this child was actually identified. I am a journalist by training, and it is well-established that it is grossly inappropriate to identify a minor without the parent's consent. Does putting that girl's picture on a Web site identify her? No. Listing her name in the picture's caption, however, is another matter. There is no way to know whether permission was ever granted to give that girl's name, and putting her name in there would be a gross BLP violation, no question about it. To be sure, I have my doubts about whether that picture belongs in the article. No race action was portrayed, and it's not clear whether the guy holding her was the winner. But to keep it out on BLP grounds would set a bad precedent for Wikipedia. Blueboy 96 22:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I've looked through the article's history and I see no evidence a name was ever used. - N 22:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I think Uncle G's point is that the child is identifiable. I.e. her image in the picture can be recognized by anybody who happens to know her. Pan Dan 15:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I strongly doubt that the child is identifiable. Her face is almost completely hidden behind her bangs and her hand. Moreover, the picture was taken six years ago, meaning she is no longer 2 or 3 years old, but 8 or 9 years old, and indubitably looks quite different. — Angr 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Then she's recognizable to people who knew her six years ago. Even if her face were "almost completely hidden," which I dispute, she'd still be recognizable to anybody who recognizes the man holding her, who is probably her father. Pan Dan 18:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

This is ridiculous, the arguments are completely ageist and no good argument for harm has been put forward. People of all ages participate in these events all over the world. Diversity in age, sex and ethnicity is represented in popular events such as these. Family-friendly events involve participants of all ages!! Get over it! User:Dandelion ( talk| contribs) 04:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete as it is not being used in any article. It was being used to illustrate children and nudity but as it was a terrible picture to illustarte that particular concept it was removed from there 6 hours ago. So as it doesnt in any way improve the encyclopedia and isnt doing anything it should really be a speedy candidate. I was about to speedy tag it but when I came to the page found this debate instead, SqueakBox 22:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep as it is now being used in at least one article. Squeakbox, it is very disingenuous of you to remove the picture from the one article where it was left and then to try to speedy it.-- Ramdrake 23:01, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Note: User:Dandelion1 (the photo uploader) has restored the image to the article. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• SERIOUS NOTE:I'd just thought you'd like to know in about a month I will be Interviewed by News Channel 8 about this photograph. Until then have a Jesus Filled Day!-- Hornetman16 20:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Good work Hornetman16, please have the TV station also contact me for counter point. User:Dandelion ( talk| contribs) 01:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• DELETE: "What is the MATTER with you people? This was a picture taken from a bike ride in Karlsruhe in Germany. If you guys want to play geek-vs-nerd footsie with this, like you do with so many things, I'll send a copy of it to the local German government, and they can do as they will to whoever uploaded it, or the WMF, if no one there has the brains or integrity to take this down. Germans think nudity is fine in general, but when it comes to pictures taken for fun being published worldwide on Wikipedia, I doubt they'll be quite so generous. Where do they *find* people like this (Wikipedians who submit pictures of 3rd parties, Wikipedianas who who vote for them to stay up). Weirdos, weirdos, weirdos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.62.9.59 ( talk • contribs)

IP who has made only seven edits. Should be discounted. Blueboy 96 21:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep No valid reason for deletion has been presented. Also, I spoke personally with the owner of the image who knows the people involved and everything was cleared and also cleared through Wikipedia licensing process. User:Dandelion ( talk| contribs) 01:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• {{vk}} No valid reason for deletion has been presented. Also, I spoke personally with the owner of the image who knows the people involved and everything was cleared and also cleared through Wikipedia licensing process. Dandelion1 01:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Images depicting families participating in social nudity events help _illustrate visually_ arguments that casual nudity is embraced by many cultures across the globe and they reinforce arguments that non-sexualized nudity is harmelss and even beneficial for children. See articles at the bottom of the Children and nudity page. This isn't some kind of imaginary concept, people advocate and live a body-positive lifestyle that also includes incorporating family-friendly social nudity into their everyday lives. Images like this make these discussions far less abstract. Arguing that these kinds of images are immoral or irresponsible are being put foward by people who believe that social nudity in the family is inappropriate. Public displays of this lifestyle are a very visual and tangible validation of this that some people just are not willing to accept. That is why these topics deserve a space on wikipedia. The law is different in different parts of the world and these issues are being played out in different events. It is true... a picture is worth a thousand words. Just pick up a National Geographic magazine for crying out loud and expand your mind. User:Dandelion ( talk| contribs) 05:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Well, there were lots of strong feelings here. (Nudity seems to bring out the emphatic side in people.) But there was no consensus to delete, so the image is kept. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:

Image:DDR US 1st alt.jpg

Image:DDR US 1st alt.jpg ( delete| talk| history| logs) - uploaded by User:Poiuytman ( notify | contribs).

• I'm nominating this for deletion because of an interpretation of the Commons' derivative works policy. According to that policy, self-taken pictures of copyrighted products of art is a derivative work, and cannot be covered as a free image. This discussion will have impact future deletions to related media. — w^{L< speak· check>} 06:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC) reply

note: This deletion is mentioned at this thread -- w^{L< speak· check>} 00:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep you cannot copyright a video game machine as it is a useful item. Any incidental use of the game's logo (again, you cannot copyright a font) is de minimis and is not copyright infringement. - N 00:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, N is exactly right. (Actually, typefaces are considered copyrightable in the EU, which gives Commons headaches. But in the U.S., where our servers are, typefaces are PD.) – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply
  • The picture was taken in Florida, so I don't think we have to worry about European law in this case. - N 18:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, even if this picture is copyrighted somehow, it can't be replaced by a free image. -- Blah2 01:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep, While copyright concerns may arise, it is not feasible to replace this image with one that is not goign to have any problems with such laws. The line between derivative and non-derivative works is a fine one, and as such this image whould be kept until someone is able to find a suitable solutin if there is one. -- NVH 12:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

No consensus to delete. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 01:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:

Image:Labour manifesto 97.jpg

Image:Labour manifesto 97.jpg ( delete| talk| history| logs) - uploaded by Palferoy ( notify | contribs).

• Primary reason: the image does not contribute to the readers' understanding of the text, it is merely decorative, image fails WP:NFCC #8. Secondary reason: the image has no fair use rationales and therefore no purpose of use descriptions, image fails WP:NFCC #10. I first notified the uploader about the rationales on May 27, 2007. — Ilse @ 14:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC). reply

• Keep - I think it's relevant to that section of the Tony Blair article and to the Labour Party (UK) article. It's a piece of history of the party campaign and is an example of Tony Blair's personal stance in politics - driven on the idea that "Britain deserved better". There is no factual assertion that this is not attribuatable to Tony Blair and ought to be preserved as part of Tony Blair's history. Anakin 17:13, 27 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I am inclined to think that the image would meet #8 in the article on the 97 election and maybe the Labour Party (not so much Blair, though), but a fair use rationale needs to be given. youngamerican ( ahoy hoy) 01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

--- No consensus to delete, so kept. – Quadell ^{( talk) ( random)} 11:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the 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:

Image:Scalzidevil.jpg

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

• Orphaned joke image. Videmus Omnia 16:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Withdrawing nom, the image is no longer orphaned and is now in a more appropriate place in the article. Videmus Omnia 03:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This was "orphaned" just today by removing it from the article for which it was intended. I just restored it, and will be explaining why on the John Scalzi talk page. Basically, it was originally uploaded by Scalzi himself with the caption, "John Scalzi is known to amuse himself by altering photos of his own likeness." On his blog he wondered how long it would last before some "pointlessly fussy Wikipedia editor" (his words, from a previous posting) removed it. It was soon removed because he neglected to select a licensing category in the dropdown. I uploaded it again with an approximation of his original verbiage, and here it's been until now. The reason it should stay is that it provides actual information about the article's subject - he likes to alter his own likeness and post the result, and has in fact done so many times in his own blogs (and once on Wikipedia). To remove it as a joke image is to miss the point, which is that part of his online fame stems from his posting joke images. Please keep this. -- Karen | Talk | contribs 02:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep - it's properly licensed and is back on the page. Harmless, really, and somewhat illustrative of the subject - Alison ☺ 02:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep an amusing gift from the article subject, and fits in with Wikipedia guidelines. - N 18:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC) reply

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