Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

File:Dead Man Walking Jarrell 1997.jpg

Per discussion on w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Weather#Copyright of the famous 1997 "Dead Man Walking" image?. It appears this image is not in the publication of the NWS linked in the source. Its upload hinged on the assumption that this image is public domain because other images by the same photographer had sent images that were featured in the NWS publication. Earliest known publishing of this image is in a Time magazine article. Contrary to the template used on the page upon upload, Scott Beckwith was working under Jarrell Farm Supply and not the National Weather Service, and this image was thus not created by an official of the United States government under the course of their official duties. Per COM:PCP, and with the copyright ambiguity, this should be deleted. Chlod (say hi!) 12:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

• Delete unless an actual source other than "here's a PDF that doesn't have the image" can be found. -- Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 19:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
• Delete as above people noted. The photograph MIGHT be on the PDF, I’ll have to look through it again. If it is, I’ll change my vote. 12.74.221.43 03:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  Follow up: it’s on the PDF but clearly states that the guy wasn’t a NWS worker or working on behalf of the NWS. Still support deletion. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:C880:77F7:32D9:420E 05:17, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have not checked PDF, but per 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:C880:77F7:32D9:420E‘s statement that it is on the PDF, PD-NWS applies, which is the copyright template over PD-USGov, which was the original uploaded template. PD-NWS states that images on their products may not be from the US government, however, users are aware when giving NWS images that they become public domain. If what 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:C880:77F7:32D9:420E said is true that it is on the PDF, it is, in fact, a public domain image. This policy / template statement has been upheld in the past as well when challenged. Therefore, per 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:C880:77F7:32D9:420E, this image is a Keep for me. WeatherWriter (talk) 06:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Of course, I made sure to scan the whole PDF prior to filing this nomination. I even extracted all images with Adobe Acrobat to verify that I didn't miss anything with eye scanning. This exact image, as uploaded to Commons, is not present anywhere in the PDF. I guess my initial nomination statement didn't make this abundantly clear enough, nor was the uploader's statement saying While the image itself is not on the publication in the file description page become clear enough. If we're talking about the image on page 5, it is an entirely different photo, which doesn't even show multiple vortices. This image is not on the PDF, contrary to what IP says.

  @WeatherWriter: I'd expect more due diligence prior to !voting on a deletion request, and that you don't take what others say at face value as truth. Chlod (say hi!) 06:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I apologize for assuming good faith. Not trying to start anything here, but for real, I assumed good faith that what the other user said was true. Turns out it was not true. I have struck through my comment above. WeatherWriter (talk) 06:54, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  2601:5C5:4201:68B0:C880:77F7:32D9:420E, please state which page you found the image on. No other editors have been able to find it in the PDF. Ahecht (TALK
  PAGE) 16:49, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Page 5. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:98A4:5503:A222:FE57 01:07, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  My above comment was erroneous. It turns out this picture really isn’t on the publication and that there were TWO pictures taken in the exact same spot; by the exact same person; and by the exact same camera; but at different times. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:84FB:7141:8A0:F870 20:27, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Page 5 bottom right corner looks identical to the image here that is being nominated for deletion. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:98A4:5503:A222:FE57 01:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  If you compare the two images closely. I’ll even send a link to the PDF. They look identical or almost identical. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:98A4:5503:A222:FE57 01:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  https://www.weather.gov/media/pub/pdf/sdata/051997.pdf 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:98A4:5503:A222:FE57 01:11, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I want to reiterate @WeatherWriter that regardless of whether or not it is on the PDF; I still most definitely support DELETION of the image. I am the same IP user (the address just changed) that you were referring to in the crossed out section. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:98A4:5503:A222:FE57 01:12, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am also the person who started a discussion on the image with the section headlined as “DELETE! DELETE! DELETE!” 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:98A4:5503:A222:FE57 01:19, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  And also @WeatherWriter, I did not say that stuff on this discussion in bad faith. I genuinely thought that the image was the same (and I stand by that belief). 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:98A4:5503:A222:FE57 01:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  But you (@WeatherWriter) also never paid attention to the fact that I had voted to delete the file; when you replied. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:98A4:5503:A222:FE57 01:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am also the editor behind 12.74.221.43; and under that IP address, I had voted to delete. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:98A4:5503:A222:FE57 01:23, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

  But I don’t appreciate the implication that I was acting in bad faith or that I was/am a liar. I know that might not have been the intent; but it came across that way. 2601:5C5:4380:FD80:5D80:9ADE:8F4:56F2 15:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well let’s just hope that the discussion is resolved. Soon. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:84FB:7141:8A0:F870 20:02, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Neutral it may or may not be on the publication. Previously voted to delete, changing to neutral. I still somewhat question the copyright status of this though. But again; will vote neutral pending additional information. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:84FB:7141:8A0:F870 20:07, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I see the difference now. Rescinding my neutral vote and changing it back to DELETE. Apparently there are TWO separate (yet similar) pictures of the tornado. I only just now noticed that. I am very sorry for all the confusion that I have caused over the past few days. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:84FB:7141:8A0:F870 20:11, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I must have erroneously confused this picture with another similar picture that actually is on the publication. I am in the process of adding a strikethrough to my erroneous comments. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:84FB:7141:8A0:F870 20:23, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I want to reiterate that I am deeply sorry for any trouble I have caused because of my erroneous belief that there was only one picture. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:84FB:7141:8A0:F870 20:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Comment: I don’t know if this counts because it’s not explicitly on a .gov website; but this image is on an ArcGIS story map produced by the National Weather Service in San Antonio. Here’s the URL, you’ll have to do quite a bit of scrolling to find it. https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/05696a8e01bc4e91a0a941290a62e86d. If someone can tell me whether or not that counts as a solid public domain rationale, that would be great. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:219E:E7AC:5087:1A8 (talk) 23:32, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you SignBot. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:219E:E7AC:5087:1A8 23:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I’ll look into it, I’m not sure if ArcGIs indirectly produced by NWS constitutes PD. May need to get someone who is good with this kind of stuff here. MemeGod27 (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  The actual StoryMap was directly produced by the National Weather Service as far as I know; just on a third party application. I would imagine that if that’s the case; it would have had to be on NWS servers to be incorporated into the StoryMap. And I scoured that site; I found no reference to copyright anywhere. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:D882:6FF1:3ECC:6F07 17:14, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I am asking @WeatherWriter that question on his talk page (although he is welcome to respond here if he so chooses). 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:D882:6FF1:3ECC:6F07 17:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I have also personally left a message on the user talk pages of everyone (except @MemeGod27) about it. They are welcome to respond here. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:D882:6FF1:3ECC:6F07 17:29, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Ok. That was a big eureka moment/find! @Chlod: , @Ahecht: , @MemeGod27: . The image, is in fact, public domain. I can confirm it does exist on this ArcGIS StoryMap, which was produced by the National Weather Service as part of their official duties. The image also is noted with “Courtesy Scott Beckwick”. NWS ArcGIS StoryMaps also fall under the NWS Template, as images present in them are public domain unless clearly stated otherwise. And, there is even a recent example of a “clearly stated otherwise”, as seen with the cover image of the 2023 Rolling Fork tornado ArcGIS StoryMap, which states “Cover image courtesy Max Olson, not for redistribution”. This famous image, does in fact fall under the Public Domain NWS Template. With that said, this is a Strong Keep for me. Other tornado images have been uploaded and are in use under this ideology as well, including the 2023 Cole, Oklahoma EF3 tornado wedge photograph, (File:The April 19, 2023 Cole, Oklahoma EF3 Tornado courtesy of Sean Ernst.jpg), which came from an NWS ArcGIS StoryMap under the same logic, with a “courtesy” note. WeatherWriter (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Looks good to me. Please update the file description page accordingly. Chlod (say hi!) 17:35, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  With the recent developments. I know I’ve been back and forth on the votes. But I am now changing my vote to keep. And I’m striking through my former votes. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:D882:6FF1:3ECC:6F07 17:38, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Dang, I am so, so glad that this is a PD image. This is tornado history, and honestly is critical to the article. Also thanks for not directly messaging me, as I most likely wouldn’t have responded (on a semi-break right now). Thanks! :) MemeGod27 (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  Also as a little side note, does that mean that every other photo on the ArcGIS story map is PD? Because some of those are absolute gems. MemeGod27 (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Request withdrawn. Chlod (say hi!) 17:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

  I still hope that the discussion is over soon. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:D114:AF19:31D6:322B 18:42, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  It is, now we just wait for it to be closed. :) WxTrinity (talk) 19:21, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  Well so far; by my count; we’ve got two people who explicitly voted to keep. The nominator withdrew the request (which I assume means he voted to keep); and we still have one “straggler” whose “delete” vote still technically stands. So by my books; we’ve got 3 in favor of keeping and 1 in favor of deleting. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:D114:AF19:31D6:322B 04:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  But I assume the one vote to delete may be because the person hasn’t looked back here since making that vote; because it was made BEFORE the discovery of the ArcGIS StoryMap. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:D114:AF19:31D6:322B 04:36, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Once a request is requested to be withdrawn, it’s over. It basically means that the nominator (Chlod in this case) withdraws the deletion. WxTrinity (talk) 14:16, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Not necessarily. Why don’t you go look at the Commons deletion policy and let me know what it says. The nominator can only close the discussion (after withdrawing nomination) if no one else participated in the discussion. That criteria wasn’t fulfilled; and thus, the discussion is still open. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:88BD:B142:C035:6C12 14:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  And unless a consensus is reached; it could remain open for months. 2601:5C5:4201:68B0:88BD:B142:C035:6C12 14:56, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  Never mind, you are 100% right. WxTrinity (talk to me!) 15:51, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

---

Kept: withdrawn. --Abzeronow (talk) 01:05, 1 June 2024 (UTC)