Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 24
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < October 23 | October 25 > |
|---|
October 24
[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: moved to commons. Meh, they'll take it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Chariot file2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Jrsanthosh (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Very poor quality. Drmies (talk) 02:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This image is used on wikipedia article "Karnataka history timeline", so try not to delete it.I will try to upload new file when available.
Jrsanthosh (talk) 09:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:16, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even with the new upload, the quality still stinks. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete F3. While the license may have been a valid CC license, the comment added essentially voids it by making it into a no-derivatives license, making it eligible for speedy deletion. Additionally, there is no evidence of permission on Facebook, which means that this was probably also a copyvio. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:37, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Find us on Facebook .gif (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Elie plus (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Tagged {{cc-by-sa-3.0}}, but the source page [1] has no mention of a Creative Commons license and there is no evidence this image has been released under the CC-BY-SA-3.0. In addition, the uploader included in the copyright tag, "permission to use only unaltered copies of the work, derivative works based on the image are not allowed"—if derivative works are not allowed then this license is not free enough for Wikipedia; see Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Guidelines. This image is not being used in any articles, but only in the Wikipedia namespace, so it must be freely licensed. —Bkell (talk) 17:18, 24 October 2010 (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 and mark as fair use. It is definitely not PD in the US, and is probably PD in India but we aren't sure so commons can't take it. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:11, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Bidhan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by BengaliHindu (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Mr Roy was died in 1 July 1962.The image is look his old ages. So copyright is not expired. - Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 18:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Bidhan Chandra Roy was born on 1st July, 1882. By 1st July, 1960 he was 78 years of age, very old. At that time he was partly bald, his hairs had turned white, he wore spectacles and he used to shave his moustache. However, the picture in question shows him in his youth sometime in late 30s or early 40s, without the specs, having his trademark stubble moustache and full hair. This clearly proves that the photo was taken a long ago, and certainly before 24th October, 1960. Therefore I would request you to kindly unmark it from deletion. BengaliHindu (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear BengaliHindu this is your assumption there are no strong reliable source of above comments. If this image publish before 1950 then we could use as as public domain.Still now we have to wait up to 2012 use as public domain.- Jayanta Nath (Talk|Contrb) 15:30, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear Jayantanath, I would request you to have a look at File:Dr. BC Roy at Durgapur copy.jpg. Compare the two pictures. How come this picture of Bidhan Roy, taken at an old age is a valid picture, but the one at is young age is invalid? BengaliHindu (talk) 12:47, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- However, as there is no evidence regarding dates from the source, we are best served by erring on the side of caution and removing the image unless it can be proved without doubt that it is indeed free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:46, 24 October 2010 (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. We don't need a non-free (is it? it might not be) picture to show co-operation between De Havilland and Handley Page as has been noted. Fails NFCC #1 and #8 seemingly. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Geoffrey De Havilland With Frederick Handley Page.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ian Dunster (notify | contribs | uploads).
- I really don't understand the rationale for this image. It is just gibberish. But there is a free image in Geoffrey de Havilland and this one fails WP:NFCC#1. Rettetast (talk) 23:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The point is that it shows the cooperation between de Havilland and Handley Page, which is itself significant (that's a DH aircraft, fitted with HP's innovative slat design). It's not just an image of de Havilland alone. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why do we need a photo of these two men to convey the fact that they cooperated? What significant understanding is conveyed by this photo that is not conveyed by a simple sentence about their cooperation? How would it be detrimental to readers' understanding of Geoffrey de Havilland if this image were removed? It seems to me that this photo fails WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On that basis, we can delete all portrait images from all biographical articles, with the possible exception of Joseph Merrick. Geoffrey de Havilland wasn't notable for his appearance, but for his aircraft. Yet for understandable human reasons, we believe that biographical articles should be illustrated by portraits. As the DH/HP collaboration was technically significant (and rather unusual for its day), in large part due to the rapport between the two patrons of their respective firms, it's appropriate to illustrate them together during the development of this collaborative project. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a free portrait of de Havilland, so there is no need to include a non-free portrait if it doesn't add anything significant. All non-free content must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria, including WP:NFCC#8. This photo does not. —Bkell (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does add something significant, in that it documents the collaboration between two aircraft makers (personal and corporate) at a time when such companies were generally in secretive competition with each other. It's not quite Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin sitting down together, but it's still worthwhile just as an illustration of their collaboration, even with an ample supply of individual images. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're saying that we should keep this image as a source to support the claim that the two men cooperated, please read Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources, which apparently is written from the point of view of textual sources but should apply equally well to including copyrighted photographs rather than just citing them. —Bkell (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It does add something significant, in that it documents the collaboration between two aircraft makers (personal and corporate) at a time when such companies were generally in secretive competition with each other. It's not quite Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin sitting down together, but it's still worthwhile just as an illustration of their collaboration, even with an ample supply of individual images. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- We have a free portrait of de Havilland, so there is no need to include a non-free portrait if it doesn't add anything significant. All non-free content must satisfy all of the non-free content criteria, including WP:NFCC#8. This photo does not. —Bkell (talk) 11:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On that basis, we can delete all portrait images from all biographical articles, with the possible exception of Joseph Merrick. Geoffrey de Havilland wasn't notable for his appearance, but for his aircraft. Yet for understandable human reasons, we believe that biographical articles should be illustrated by portraits. As the DH/HP collaboration was technically significant (and rather unusual for its day), in large part due to the rapport between the two patrons of their respective firms, it's appropriate to illustrate them together during the development of this collaborative project. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Handley Page's article does not have an image. Perhaps a new rationale for use on Handley Page's page should be made? 76.66.196.13 (talk) 08:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a good idea too. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - removing this image wouldn't meaningfully affect the educational value of the article. PhilKnight (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There is already a free image of the article's subject included, and therefore short of a very compelling reason to keep a non-free image is unwelcome. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:12, 31 October 2010 (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.