Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 January 14
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < January 13 | January 15 > |
|---|
January 14
[edit]
- 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 03:46, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom.--Truco 02:41, 18 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:PaDEN_RaVEY.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PaDENRaVEY (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 03:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom.--Truco 02:41, 18 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Paan-wala.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rajesh_dangi (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 03:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom.--Truco 02:42, 18 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:PabloAimar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jonathangiraldo (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Low quality, Probably Copyright violation Nv8200p talk 03:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom.--Truco 02:42, 18 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Triangle diagram250.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ryan Reich (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, low quality, superseded by File:Axiom TR3.svg Ryan Reich (talk) 04:42, 14 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Triangle diagram.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ryan Reich (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, low quality, superseded by File:Axiom TR3.svg Ryan Reich (talk) 04:46, 14 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Octahedral diagram deligne.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ryan Reich (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, obsoleted by File:Axiom TR4 (BBD).svg Ryan Reich (talk) 04:57, 14 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Octahedral diagram variant.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ryan Reich (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, obsoleted by File:Axiom TR4 (caps).svg Ryan Reich (talk) 05:00, 14 January 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: Delete; deleted as I8 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Obsolete. Larger version of the same photograph now available on Commons here: File:John_F_Tefft.jpg •Life of Riley (talk) 05:55, 14 January 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: Keep per consensus below. Skier Dude (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Zoouscover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scottandrewhutchins (notify | contribs).
- Alternate album cover of a soundtrack in an article about a movie. Fair use rationale states that the image is there for identification purposes (no others are stated). There is no commentary about the artwork in the article and an image of the soundtrack artwork is not necessary for reader's to understand an article on the associated movie. The images fails WP:NFCC#8 in that it is not significant for reader's understanding and WP:NFCC#3a in that there is already a non-free image in the article and there is no justification given for a second one. Peripitus (Talk) 06:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Existence of alternate cover artwork is a fact itself which requires illustrating. Use of this image is in context of the article, is correctly licensed and provided with an adequate fair use rationale. whether or not it adds to so called ‘significant understanding’ will vary from person to person and is purely subjective and not a reason for deletion on the say so of a single editor. Removal would harm article. Archivey (talk) 10:01, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Note - the associated article is specifically on the album, not the film. The existence of an alternate, very different cover is a significant fact about an album, so showing it does indeed add appropriately to the reader's understanding. The fair use rationale is appropriate - this is an identifying image for the album, a use explicitly endorsed by WP:NFC. Jheald (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per above, as it's identifying the album itself, and differences in cover art are notable pieces of information. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 21:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep--As the alternate cover appears on the Nyman at 65 releases, this is probably the better-known of the two covers. As it is there for identification purposes, having a more common cover than the original is absolutely essential to achieve this purpose. Also, the article does mention the change in artwork, contrary to Peripitus's claim.--Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - per above.--Truco 02:43, 18 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:GordonTheTramp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ChrisKimber (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic; picture of person with no asserted or apparent notability; uploaded solely to vandalize an article. Michael Devore (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom.--Truco 02:43, 18 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned; picture of person with no asserted or apparent notability; appears related to a now-deleted attack picture for vandal edit. Michael Devore (talk) 06:53, 14 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic; picture of person with no asserted or apparent notability. Michael Devore (talk) 06:56, 14 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic; picture of person with no asserted or apparent notability. Michael Devore (talk) 06:59, 14 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, intended use superseded by file on Commons for article Grand Haven, Michigan; author changed image summary in 2006 to request deletion (may qualify for G7 CSD) Michael Devore (talk) 07:03, 14 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Orphaned, intended use superseded by file on Commons for article Grand Haven, Michigan; author changed image summary in 2006 to request deletion (may qualify for G7 CSD) Michael Devore (talk) 07:05, 14 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Gtijhrtme.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by XoBeautifulSin (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic; picture of person with no asserted or apparent notability. Michael Devore (talk) 07:12, 14 January 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: - Delete - now replaced with an identical but higher resolution version - Peripitus (Talk) 02:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nevada_counties.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by John_Kenney (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, unsourced, incivil — pd_THOR | =/\= | 07:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't know images could be uncivil (also, "incivil" is not a word.) This image was a perfectly fine PD image which pd THOR decided to put a hit on because, in spite of being obviously public domain (it looks exactly like every damned FedStats map of a US state) it didn't list a source. So now, instead of simply writing in the obvious source at FedStats, he a) put an unsourced notice in; b) orphaned the image; c) reuploaded the same image at File:Nevada_counties,_annotated.png; and d) nominated this image for deletion. I suppose at this point there's nothing in particular to object to about deleting it, but the whole thing leaves a foul taste in my mouth. john k (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to infer that the image itself was uncivil, but that the IDP itself was.
I "put a hit" on this image (if you will) because it failed to provide the second of the two requirements of the image use policy: "Always specify on the description page where the image came from (the source) and information on how this could be verified." As such, I tagged the image as lacking that sourcing. Then, instead of providing the 43 bytes of sourcing requested, you cursed at your fellow contributers and declined to fulfill the policy requirements as pointed out to you."US Fucking government you fucking assholes"
"it's a fucking map of fucking counties in Nevada, what do you think it is?"Having spent the better part of the day (first) looking for the original sourcing for the image, I stumbled across it looking for a suitable free-use replacement. I enhanced the image (cropping, transparency, and converted the file type), and uploaded it to the Wikimedia Commons (a repository for libre media). Since it now fulfilled the purpose of the contentious original, I nominated the original for deletion.
That foul taste; my guess is that it's bile. Assuming good faith, being familiar with Wikipedia's media prerequisites and policies, and a modicum of civility should take care of it. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Look, I obviously overreacted - I'd been having a bunch of increasingly annoying encounters with the image policy and the note on that image, which I uploaded directly from a federal government website, was kind of the straw that broke the camel's back. I apologize for responding impolitely and with profanity. I'm totally fine with the idea that images should be sourced, if possible, and I obviously failed to do so - although, in my defense, the policies for what we have to say when we upload images gets more and more complicated by the day. But does it ever occur to you that the best way to deal with this situation is not to put up a template on the IDP and then let a bot notify the person who originally uploaded it? This is guaranteed to be annoying and upsetting to people. I've been here for years now, and it was upsetting to me. Think how bewildering it must be to people who are new to Wikipedia. If possible, isn't it better to assume good faith and leave a polite, non-bot-written note on somebody's talk page asking them if they can add a source on the image? Then, if no response follows, add the template and let the bot do its thing. If that had been done, I certainly would not have flown off the handle, and probably would have taken the effort to find the source of the map. This is not to particularly defend my conduct, which was indefensibly stupid, at the very least, but it is to say that templates and bots are terrible ways to get people to do what you want them to do, and in this case seems to have resulted in you having to do a lot more work than you otherwise would have to (although perhaps the image is better now). My conduct was obviously uncivil, but my strong feeling is that templates and bot notes and the like are uncivil as well. Beyond that, I'm not opposing deletion because the image is orphaned and has been replaced. john k (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry, I didn't mean to infer that the image itself was uncivil, but that the IDP itself was.
- Comment. How on earth can an image be UNcivil??? An absurd nomination. Unfortunately I can’t defend orphaned images otherwise I would vote keep on this one. Archivey (talk) 16:19, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again (see above), my apologies, I meant that the IDP—not the image itself—was uncivil. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just speaking generally, is incivility on an image description page an actual cause to delete an image? I am fairly certain that, however rude I may have been, it is not. john k (talk) 14:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Again (see above), my apologies, I meant that the IDP—not the image itself—was uncivil. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 05:32, 15 January 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: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Source website [1] says "copyrighted"; there's no evidence that this is any of the types of work that {{PD-FLGov}} applies to. --Carnildo (talk) 11:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I refer you to a photograph of another Florida state legislator as a comparison. Her page also says "copyrighted by Florida", but the permission seems clearer. Maybe I should've uploaded it straight to wikimedia commons. --Muboshgu (talk) 13:26, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing that one out. I've listed it for deletion as well. --Carnildo (talk) 05:00, 15 January 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: - Delete as failing WP:NFCC#8. Image does not significantly increase reader's understanding - Peripitus (Talk) 02:59, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Hero (Screenshot).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by F9o0oly (notify | contribs).
- Image is merely a non-free depiction of the artist and adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article in which it is used. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Reduce. Image is entirly consistant with fair use of Music Video Screenshots on Wikipedia. Correct use on Hero (Mariah Carey song) per rationale: The image is significant in illustrating the subject of the article, facilitating critical commentary as it provides an immediate relevance to the reader more capably than the textual description alone. Image does need reducing by uploader on concusion of FFD. Archivey (talk) 16:28, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The image is important and permissible as an image of the music video rather than that of the artist. -- Eastmain (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And how exactly does it add to readers' understanding of the article? Stifle (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An image of a music video should be a distinctive image from the music video. This is Mariah Carey singing. There's not even any distinctive background showing. Could anyone look at this and tell which video it's from if it weren't labeled? Unless it's the most boring music video ever, there's got to be more memorable, more distinctive shots. And if there's not I'm not sure that we need an image to show that the video shows her singing, four minutes, without even an establishing shot of the stage.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It identifies the music video in question, which is sufficient to be consistent with the FUR. Could a better still be used? Yes I agree, but that is not a reason for deletion in the same way we dont delete articles just because they are poorly written. Nor is it what the nominator is specifically asserting on this and the dozens of other music video screen shots he has nominated for deletion.Archivey (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But it doesn't identify the music video in question. It may be a picture from the music video, but there's absolutely nothing identifying about it; it's a completely generic picture of Mariah Carey. I'm not saying that frames of music videos are forbidden, but they need to be more than generic pretty pictures of the singer to identify it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It identifies the music video in question, which is sufficient to be consistent with the FUR. Could a better still be used? Yes I agree, but that is not a reason for deletion in the same way we dont delete articles just because they are poorly written. Nor is it what the nominator is specifically asserting on this and the dozens of other music video screen shots he has nominated for deletion.Archivey (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Using an image from a music video qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law. --F9o0oly (talk) 09:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True but irrelevant. The standard to meet here is Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, which is far more stringent than US copyright law. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I ran my standard test: turn off images, read the article, turn on images and see if the video screenshot adds anything. This image fails the test miserably: not only is there no discussion of the appearance of the video, this image wouldn't add anything even if there was. It's just a headshot of a person singing. --Carnildo (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a generic screencap of a video that doesn't have unique directorial signatures to it like Honey (Mariah Carey song) or Heartbreaker (Mariah Carey song). Nothing is added to the article with this shot. Nate • (chatter) 07:55, 18 January 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: - Delete per WP:NFCC#10a - for all non free images we need to know the copyright holder. I do note as well that there are ample, better quality, images on the web of Truffaut some of which may be either free or be able to be justified under the NFC requirements - Peripitus (Talk) 02:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could not find the image on given source url. Anyway, the site is unlikely the copyright holder, and if the image is being used there, it's either a copyvio or licensed from some image agency. (closing admin, beware the predictable unralated "he's not alive!" arguments). Damiens.rf 13:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Case that it is a copyvio is not proven, 'a hunch' is not sufficient argument in not assuming uploaders good faith, for fair use on article that it is licensed for. As for the source no longer displaying the image in question, websites change their content and not finding an image on an old url is not a sinister indicator. Archivey (talk) 16:54, 14 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Michael Drayton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Primetime (notify | contribs).
- OB, LQ, OR; File:Michael Drayton-painting-1628.png is higher resolution, less tightly cropped and doesn't have a watermark. There's potential for great improvement even there, but for now the new file is better than the original. Prosfilaes (talk) 18:11, 14 January 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: - Delete - without a source and so copyright owner the correctness of the license cannot be verified - Peripitus (Talk) 02:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Swastikafyinngatmeeting.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tufacave (notify | contribs).
- no date, does not specify copyright holder. why is this a free image? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A (self confessed) Scan of a photo circa pre-1945 cannot possibly be released under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike unless in the unlikely event that uploader took the original photo 60 years ago.
Archivey (talk) 18:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We do need more information, but if he is the owner of the copyright--if the original photographer left him the rights upon death--then he would have the right to so dedicate the picture. It's a self-confessed scan of a negative, too.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. I picked up the glass neg, with a bunch of other old war negs, at a carboot sale ages ago for a few pounds. There is no date on the neg, nor a name for the place where it was taken, so I can't help you there. I thought if you owned the pic, then it was okay to scan it and use it on Wikipedia. I've tried looking (via Google) for the same pic anywhere else on the web, but have drawn a blank. That led me to conclude that the neg was original, and that therefore I wasn't breaking any copyright rules.--Tufacave (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Retracted. I’m not going to change my vote to ‘’Keep’’ yet to see if a more knowledgeable editor contradicts me , but I withdraw my delete submission. As far as I am aware then if you purchased an original negative legitimately, taken by a person now deceased, then you are indeed now the copyright holder and your license is acceptable. More info on the image page would be an idea. Archivey (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Copyright.gov FAQ says "Copyright is the right of the author of the work or the author's heirs or assignees, not of the one who only owns or possesses the physical work itself. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Who Can Claim Copyright.”" Just because you own the negative doesn't mean you have the right to scan it and publish it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; it's a great argument for orphaned work protection, but as far as I know nothing lets use it; if it's an anonymous unpublished work, then it's under copyright for 120 years from creation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care if you delete or keep now: I don't get paid to try and help out Wikipedia, and that was all I was trying to do. British copyright on pictures runs out after 70 years - anonymous or not. The war started in 1939, and this picture appears to pre-date it slightly. So, that would mean it was out of copyright anyway as at least 70-plus years old.--Tufacave (talk) 09:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think anyone was criticizing your intent; just that the law doesn't permit us to accept it. British copyright isn't relevant here; Wikimedia projects all have to follow American law, because that's where the servers and the foundation is, whatever their other policies are.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep Might be more appropriate on Commons where it doesn't necessarily have to be used in an article (orphaned) to justify keeping. Having the glass negative SHOULD imply ownership, plus the original photographer is likely unidentifiable/unknown, and most likely the copyright has expired, this was of course 60 years ago. as pointed out above. Pictures from this time frame, definitely historic pictures should always be relevant to keep. Although I do vote it should be on Commons if it's not to be used in an article. Raeky (talk) 13:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't matter whether it SHOULD or not; what matters is the law, which says definitively that it doesn't imply ownership. It was 70 years ago, which as a general rule in the US means it's not in the public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He states he BOUGHT the negative in a yard sale, which it is VERY likely the seller did not intend to retain copyright of the image, if they even had the copyright rights anyway. Theres not very clear laws when it pertains to sale of negatives, apparently Getty Images thinks ownership of the negatives constitutes transfer of copyright[2], although they may not have such a claim as the article states on images created by government agencies. It's very possible the sale of this negative has transfered the ownership of the copyright. Raeky (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But there's no evidence the seller had the copyright. The laws are perfectly clear here. The article you link to says "Photographers understand that providing a digital file does not transfer the copyright. It's no different when negatives change hands, but you may have to convince others about that." At no point does Getty Images claim that owning the negative gives them copyright; I would argue that their viewpoint is more that their exclusive control over public domain material amounts to a copyright and nobody is going to fight their claim. That's not an ethical position to take.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this unfortunately seems to be one of those cases where Wikipedia is not the right place to post the images. US copyright law does provide quite lengthy protection to unpublished anonymous works, wich usualy means they can't easily be used under our strict copyright rules, espcialy when the creation date is unkown. Please don't let that discurage you from digitizing the images though, the actual real life practical legal risk is non-existing most likely and there are lots of archives and history sites that will be more than happy to use any image untill such a time as they recive a takedown notice from a confirmed copyright holder. So upload them to the Internet Archive or some such so they are out there for future generations to find, and down the road when we can be reasonably sure the copyright have defenently expired no matter what (2050 or some such maybe) someone can alwasy re-add them to Wikipedia (or a suitable future incarnation) at that time. --Sherool (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, in the STRICTEST sense you can't be 100% sure until your 70 years past the death of the original creator, with that unknown you'd probably have "guess" it to be like 170 years past the date it was taken or less, presuming it was a child who took it (not likely). We can fairly accurately pinpoint the date to within a few years though due to it's content. Raeky (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- IANAL and all that, but I understand the law is that if the author is unknown or pseudonymous the work is considered PD once 120 years have passed since it's creation [3]. For works created after 1978 with a known author but unknown death date there is the "snag" that while you can legaly assume a work to be PD if there is no records showing the author to be alive or dead for less than 70 years at the copyright office 120 years after the creation of the work, this is aprently not irrevokable, if new information come to light proving the author to have been dead for less than 70 years (or still alive even) the copyright is restored (though anyone who presumed it was PD in good faith untill then have a legal imunuty from copyright infrindgement claims)[4]. It might be an interesting debate wether or not images of that class could be considered free enough for Wikipedia since they are only "PD unless new information turn up". However it's not something we need to worry about untill 2098 at the earliest, and doesn't apply to this image in any case. --Sherool (talk) 00:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- True, in the STRICTEST sense you can't be 100% sure until your 70 years past the death of the original creator, with that unknown you'd probably have "guess" it to be like 170 years past the date it was taken or less, presuming it was a child who took it (not likely). We can fairly accurately pinpoint the date to within a few years though due to it's content. Raeky (talk) 22:58, 18 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:I Wish You'd Stay.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Holiday56 (notify | contribs).
- Misrepresents fair-use template, as it's a video cover and not an album cover. Unencyclopedic either way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 20:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The uploaded has used the wrong license and FUR template probably out of ignorance not mal intent, which I’ve now fixed for them, its a rubbish image but that doesn’t make it invalid, if that is the cover for this particular VHS then you have to take as you find. There is nothing to say that VHS/DVD covers have to be elaborate works of art and a one word nomination is not sufficient justification for deletion. Archivey (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's a VHS tape with a boring blank B&W label and white slipcase. This adds nothing to the article at all. Nate • (chatter) 07:57, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Doesn't seem to be a suitable illustration for the article. --Carnildo (talk) 09:13, 18 January 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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Image has been replaced by the higher-quality, less blurry version of the same subject, File:K9teeth00345 edited.JPG --Icarus (Hi!) 22:07, 14 January 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: Deleted by Peripitus. Steel1943 (talk) 21:41, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vmaq1_insig.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Obsolete by File:VMAQ-1 patch.png. howcheng {chat} 18:59, 14 January 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.