Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 April 27

April 27

Mallika.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mallika.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dipayan777 (notify | contribs).

Orphan, Unencyclopedic, Low quality. Jay (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Did you see that "she is friendly"? Does that influence your vote? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete .... but OMG how can we be deleting friendly people? What is this website coming to? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:27, 27 April 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.

Tumbleweed.gif

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete per CSD:F3. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tumbleweed.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deacon of Pndapetzim (notify | contribs).

Released maybe under a non-commercial license, not acceptable here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is completely free and I and others like using it on wikipedia. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is under a free non-commercial license, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/. Uncyclopedia is licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA 2.0. I have changed the tag to the correct one on the image, unfortunately is a redirect to a speedy tag. Non-commercial licenses are not acceptable here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: under a free license, and harmless. Highly unlikely to be commercial. Also compare licensing to "File:2ch AA Characters.gif"; in the case where the non-commercial image has no obvious owner, it cannot be held as under copyright. Shapes used are also too simple/common to be considered original work, and therefore copyright, as there is little detail other than a MS Paint doodling which somewhat resembles "tumbleweed". Can be used in the User namespace to decorate userpages. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email guestbook complaints 07:09, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userspace is where it cannot be used. A non-commercial image can only be used under fair-use, otherwise it is deletable under CSD F3, improper license. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-free image in userspace. – Quadell ^(talk) 16:07, 27 April 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.

Turkish plates.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Turkish plates.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ZoRCoCuK (notify | contribs).

LQ and CV. This is a scan of a brochure or other publication; note the tiny size of the image and the illegible labels still visible below each plate. This cannot be the uploader's own work, and there is no reason he or she cannot create a similar personal work without using someone else's work as their own. Jappalang (talk) 01:35, 27 April 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.

Maria Elena Fuseneco.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Elena Fuseneco.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ruuta 25 (notify | contribs).

Obvious copyvio (promotional image from the Argentinian TV show Casados con Hijos uploaded by a user with a horrible track record for image copyvio. He took this image off of facebook, which is full of copyright violations. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:48, 27 April 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.

Moni Rodriguez Argento.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Moni Rodriguez Argento.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ruuta 25 (notify | contribs).

Same as above: obvious copyvio (promotional image from the Argentinian TV show Casados con Hijos uploaded by a user with a horrible track record for image copyvio. He took this image off of facebook, which is full of copyright violations. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:48, 27 April 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.

01-16-06 0006.jpg

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: Kept

File:01-16-06 0006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by K-LIDD (notify | contribs).

Questionable encyclopedic use, absent uploader. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:15, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it's being used on someone's userpage and not doing any harm. The user may not be highly active, but he's not retired; he just made an edit less than a week ago [1]. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 03:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per r-something-anaG. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:28, 27 April 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.

Temple of Our Lord’s Resurrection.JPG

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Temple of Our Lord’s Resurrection.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Boksi (notify | contribs).

Orphaned. DavidDCM (talk) 05:58, 27 April 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.

Stubo-Rovni Dam.JPG

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stubo-Rovni Dam.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Boksi (notify | contribs).

Orphaned. DavidDCM (talk) 05:58, 27 April 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.

Cathedral in Valjevo.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cathedral in Valjevo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Boksi (notify | contribs).

Orphaned. DavidDCM (talk) 05:58, 27 April 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.

Recnaflotila.png

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Recnaflotila.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Boksi (notify | contribs).

Orphaned. DavidDCM (talk) 05:58, 27 April 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.

SAJ member.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SAJ member.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Boksi (notify | contribs).

Invalid licence. The URL leads to an online forum, with no hint whatsoever who the actual uploader is or were he could be asked for permission. (Not that it would be my job to do so...) DavidDCM (talk) 06:02, 27 April 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.

Jimbo Wales when he was bad.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jimbo Wales when he was bad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ballchef (notify | contribs).

Unused image copied from a copy of whatever. No source, no real usable license, not useful anyway. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:29, 27 April 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.

Papadontpreachmusicvideo.jpg

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 NFCC#8 and 1. Increasing understanding a bit, or adding somewhat to the text is not the same as significantly increasing reader's understanding. The NFCC rules essentially require a compelling reason, not simply a reason, to host an image, which is lacking here - Peripitus (Talk) 12:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Papadontpreachmusicvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Legolas2186 (notify | contribs).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 as the image is merely a depiction of the artist. Does not add to readers' understanding of the article, and its removal would not be detrimental to that understanding. Stifle (talk) 11:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly Keep:This is getting ridiculous. There is clear description of the reason why the image has been used, the commentary is there in the section where the image is used. It visually describes the new look, a particular line on her dress and is simply enhancing the commentary.*shrug* --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She does not appear to be wearing a dress, but a t-shirt. The text 'Madonna wore a black t-shirt bearing the slogan "Italians do it better" in the music video' would easily replace this image. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The image represents one of Madonna's best known looks, and the "Italians do it better" line is now famous, Madonna herself referenced in the Re-Invention Tour by wearing T-shirt with the same message (and even spoofed it with "British do it better"). Alecsdaniel (talk) 14:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I remain at a loss to why an image, and not free text, must be used to convey this information. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a fairly interesting test case. I have no opinion on whether this use passes NFCC#8, but I'll be watching it closely. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - image contain no unique relevant information that can't be explained with text (which is free). --Damiens.rf 17:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - doesn't add enough understanding to overcome NFCC8. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sure the line: In the video Madonna played a tomboy....and a slogan T-shirt that announced "Italians do it Better". could replace the image, but I believe that her "new look" could not be easy described without the photo, sure now everyone saw it, but not everyone will bother to find out what "gamine" means, (by the way the article only have a picture of Audrey Hepburn and don't mention Madonna anywhere), so perhaps the description could be changed to Madonna showing the gamine look, wearing an "Italians do it Better" T-shirt in the "Papa Don't Preach" video. Frcm1988 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image portrays a scene from the music video. This is a production separate from the music itself, though the two are linked. Video, by definition, is a visual medium and absent an image, this article is missing a significant portion of what the artist was trying to convey. We've got three paragraphs (okay, the last one is kind of weak...) describing the video and we would be remiss not to show some image of it. Personally, I would think such a music video could even have its own article, in which case the image would be much better suited as a lead image. To answer stifle's question, it is not so much the T-shirt as it is the entire look (hair, makeup, t-shirt, smile, demeanor, etc.) which is unique to this video. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-free image replaceable by a free means. The image only shows Madonna wearing a t-shirt that says "Italians do it better", which can be replaced by text. We don't get to show a non-free image of something just because there isn't a free image, there has to be information we can't otherwise express. Having seen the entire video, I can safely say, there is nothing in the video that can't be expressed in a free means. Jay32183 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 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.

Robert Brackman.jpg

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: - Kept and licence updated as {{PD-Pre1964}} - Peripitus (Talk) 11:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Brackman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carptrash (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted picture of a copyrighted sculpture is not being used to illustrate the three-dimensional work of art in question, to discuss the artistic genre or technique of the work of art neither to discuss the artist or the school to which the artist belongs. Damiens.rf 13:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is being used as a portrait of the person sculpted, since no others could be found. it was also intended to be the begining of an article about the artist, Max Kalish, since he was an important artist in his day and there is no article about him However i can see that this is going to be another of those exercises in who can do what to whose edits and I no longer am inclined to get into that stuff. Delete away. Carptrash (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether that's a keep vote or a delete vote. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, we're making two unauthorized copies (that of the sculptor and the photographer). There is almost certainly a free photo of him in existence, and if not, we could find one that doesn't use a sculptor's copyright as well. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:53, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - ~~more Damiens.rf trolling/stalking. Radiopathy •talk• 19:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)~~ I apologize for that - but since the nominator seems to have more than a passing interest in the article - multiple edits over several days - he could search for an appropriate image himself and, if one exists - replace the one that's currently at the article; deletion should always be a last resort. My !vote still stands. Radiopathy •talk• 00:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't know about all the dramahz, but if we aren't even crediting the sculptor that is totally unacceptable. If the name can't be discovered, then this photo should be deleted. If the sculptor is credited, the picture might still need to be deleted. If a sculpture exists, why is it impossible that a free picture of it could not be taken? Then we would only be violating one copyright, would would be acceptable under our fair use policies. it may not be ideal, but it is possible to talk about someone without having a photo of them. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the sculptor is Max Kalish; the image in question, which he sculpted, appears in the book which is cited in the fair use rationale. Radiopathy •talk• 04:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: Max Kalish is also the author of the book in which the image is appears. Radiopathy •talk• 04:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: The book is copyrighted in 1938 (A 115580).[2] However, it has to renew its copyright before its 28th year (i.e. 1965–66) to continue enjoying that right. None of the renewal texts from 1965 to 1967 show its renewal.[3] Therefore its contents should be in public domain, right?[4] Jappalang (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe, but it's the statue and the picture that matter more than the book. A faithful reproduction of a photo doesn't add or take away from the copyright, at least in the US. As all three copyrights are by the same man... I dunno. The statue is still copyrighted, right? I have not been able to find any portraits of this guy, so it is possible that this is the only one we're gonna get. As this is an unusual case, I'd say this just squeaks in as acceptable. I'd be inclined to keep, provided that the sculptor is clearly credited in the caption (and preferably in the text as well), and provided that no free or purely photographic portrait can be found. To put it plainly, there is really no difference between a copyrighted photo and a copyrighted statue, as both are artistic works of a particular subject. Pictures of statues are frowned on because they are usually supplementary to photos, but this is in place of one. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 08:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kind of forgotten about the statue's copyright; as the statue is likely to be the only one (hence unpublished), the copyright will elapse only after 2014 (his death 1945 + 70 = 2015, 6 more years). That throws a spanner in the works... although whether the statue has been copyrighted is another question. Anyway, as for photos of Brackman, I could only find two on the web, albeit not in a portrait fashion: from the Smithsonian, and filmset of Portrait of Jennie (larger version). Would the Smithsonian photo be a better choice for fair-use identification? Jappalang (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Smithsonian seems to encourage fair use, but I dunno. Does the Smithsonian hold the copyright to the photo, or are they using under fair use? Who took the photo? Which one is more informative? Thinking on it further, the sculpture might be misleading as he is an artist, they might think he made the statue. At this point I don't know either way. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 04:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the contact info for trying to clarify the Smithsonian image copyright status. --Damiens.rf 17:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JohnnyMrNinja. This is highly likely to be {{PD-Pre1964}} in any case. Stifle (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Do we know when the sculpture was created? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:32, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep nominator seems to have a vendetta concerning this artist and this article. Nominator has repeatedly made excessive aggressive actions towards removing material from this article - including deleting the previous illustration, and fact tagging every sentence in the article, and eliminating valid sources. The image should stay and nominator should be banned from editing the Brackman article see this outrage here: [5]...Modernist (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - preponderance of evidence thus far indicates PD-64. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep {{PD-Pre1964}} seems to be applicable here. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:17, 3 May 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.

Bob_YouTube_character.png

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bob_YouTube_character.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JordanPereira (notify | contribs).

Orphan, unencyclopedic – Quadell ^(talk) 15:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wha? Bob from Youtube? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:42, 27 April 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.

DSCN0070.JPG

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSCN0070.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Giancarlo1972 (notify | contribs).

Orphan, never used, presumably a non-notable (though good-looking) person – Quadell ^(talk) 16:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not really useful unless he is famous somewhere. Agree he is good-looking, though. He could be a wallet-model. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 17:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no opinion on aesthetic quality of subject. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:21, 29 April 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.

Ogum.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ogum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Limongi (notify | contribs).

The uploader is not the author, and therefore cannot release it into the public domain. No source give. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:23, 27 April 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.

Caesars_Atlantic_City_-_Chariot.jpg

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 ⚡ 12:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Caesars_Atlantic_City_-_Chariot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by B64 (notify | contribs).

Copyright violation. Image is a derivatives of the copyrighted statues. Rettetast (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't violate any copyright I took and own the picture. B64 (talk) 20:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you didn't create the statues? 20:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

then just about most the pictures should be deleted then, shouldn't the pictures of the casino then be deleted in the Caesars Atlantic City, because they didn't build the building. What about pictures in Caesars Windsor - Valet Entrance and Caesar
- Photos of building are exempt under U.S. copyright law. But all photos of copyrighted statues should be deleted, unless the copyright holder of the statues has released his/her works under a free license. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Rettetast made claim of copyright infirment but failed to show and prove of it. B64 (talk) 00:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What? 01:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete, no freedom of panorama for sculptures in the US = not possible to make free pictures of these artworks. Caesars Windsor is a special case since Canada does have FOP for buildings, sculptures and "works of artistic craftsmanship" permanently installed in a public place. ViperSnake151 Talk 02:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Windors is no different then Atlantic City, They are in private areas (on Casino Grounds) and that makes them, not in/on a public space. B64 (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, "public place" is usually defined in UK-style FOP as any place that the public can access. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Copyvio. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It may not be copywrited to have a photo of a statue [Dead link]. I checked to see if it's listed with in the copyright section Library of Congress which it's not.B64 (talk) 01:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You only had to register copyright before 1989. Since then, it's optional; works are copyrighted when they're created. Even before that, you only had to register a copyright when it was published, and this statue would not have ever been "published" unless multiple statues were made from the same mold. I have no idea why Mr. Sarno (in your link) says that he doubts if a statue in a public park can be copyrighted; many clearly are. (See this, for example.) His advise about searching online is also bad, since it doesn't take into account that such registration is no longer required. Bottom line: there's no reason to think these statues are PD. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, presumably non-free, and the image would never pass NFCC#8 as used. – Quadell ^(talk) 02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unneeded Non-free image. Please realize that WP:FOP applies differently in different countries. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:19, 3 May 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.

DSCN0382.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSCN0382.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pearldrums611 (notify | contribs).

orphan, bad name, no description, some house, bad lighting, never used – Quadell ^(talk) 20:02, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - low-quality photo of non-notable house. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:51, 27 April 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.

DSCN0386.JPG

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSCN0386.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AshRouten (notify | contribs).

(Absent) Wikipedian's photo of himself, but this photo was never used on his user page (or anywhere else). I don't think it's useful. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It'd be a pretty neat picture if that guy wasn't in it. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - Props to the ninja. ;-) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:20, 29 April 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.

Intro_to_show.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Intro_to_show.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Turqoise127 (notify | contribs).

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Image rationale says it is used as a souurce for a claim that the article makes. We do not need an image on wikipedia to use it as a source, and it constitutes original research anyway. Rettetast (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This should be at fair use review, but the picture is not informative anyway. If it were free it should probably be deleted anyway. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 20:55, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep; -NFCC#8 has been amended (the segment of the rationale that is mentioned above). In addition, the picture IS informative. It is an into to a daily news show that identifies it to the public (just like everyone is familiar with an intro to a popular show in the US), even more so because it is a foreign show. I do agree this should be at fair use review. On one hand we are insisting that articles we submit be of significance and notability and on the other we do not allow proof that it is so...Turqoise127 (talk) 21:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this image and the next. Use of these images does not increase readers’ understanding of the article as required by WP:NFCC#8. And it adds nothing to the article’s plain text assertion about the Zagrebacka panorama coverage; so it also fails WP:NFCC#1. Multiple non-free images are used in violation of WP:NFCC#3a. —teb728 t c 23:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this image doesn't give important information that can't be conveyed by text. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quadell. You don't need to upload the image to cite it. See also WP:OI. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 28 April 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.

Novinari.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Novinari.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Turqoise127 (notify | contribs).

as above Rettetast (talk) 20:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly keep; -NFCC#8 has been amended (the segment of the rationale that is mentioned above). The list of journalists accredited to the story segment would make it easier to research this segment if it were ever necessary. I do agree this should be at fair use review. On one hand we are insisting that articles we submit be of significance and notability and on the other we do not allow proof that it is so...Turqoise127 (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this image doesn't give important information that can't be conveyed by text. – Quadell ^(talk) 00:03, 28 April 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.

Z%27ev_StefanWeisser_Smiling.jpg

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 G7 by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Z'ev_StefanWeisser_Smiling.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Je VH (notify | contribs).

ask for deletion of my own upload because of rather low quality of photo, file name can be better, etc. The picture wasn't used Je VH (talk) 20:50, 27 April 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.

FedFluPandemicResponse.gif

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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FedFluPandemicResponse.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kencf0618 (notify | contribs).

"converted to FedFluPandemicResponse.png, updated wikilink" aremisasling (talk) 21:27, 27 April 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.

Triangle green.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Triangle green.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kmhkmh (notify | contribs).

Superseded by SVG, lower quality, simple gometric shape, orphaned Zoo Fari 22:41, 27 April 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.

Triangle red.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Triangle red.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kmhkmh (notify | contribs).

Superseded by SVG, orphaned, low quality, simple geometric shape Zoo Fari 22:46, 27 April 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.

Triangle green red.jpg

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 Quadell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Triangle green red.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kmhkmh (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, superceded by SVG, low quality, simple geometric shape Zoo Fari 22:49, 27 April 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.

James Stanhope.jpg

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 ⚡ 12:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:James Stanhope.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rodolph (notify | contribs).

Image is very tainted and partially overlaped by possibly a stamp. A much better version from Commons is already integrated on the respective article (see File:James Stanhope, 1st Earl Stanhope by Sir Godfrey Kneller, Bt.jpg and James Stanhope, 1st Earl Stanhope. Phoe (talk) 23:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this is an artistic 21st century tribute to Stanhope. The so-called 'much better version' is in fact very mean in that the resolution is low.15:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A resolution of 2.400 × 3.091 Pixel is low?

~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 18:17, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. A significantly better version already exists. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:21, 3 May 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.