Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 August 24

< August 23	August 25 >

August 24

File:Newme.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR, no target article or encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 07:02, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:Newme.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR; low quality, no encyc use or target article Skier Dude (talk) 07:03, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:Blues CD (Breakout album).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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cover is virtually identical to original--invalid FUR —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFCC#8. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:00, 25 August 2011 (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.

File:Denno.ogg

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:07, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clip of a Pokemon episode that is copywrited. I can't see that the FUR justifies use against NFCC#8 as I can't see what encyclopedic value the file adds that isn't already covered in the article. The section causing seizures is well described and watching its doesn't add any encyclopedic value although I can see some vicarious thrill in testing it yourself. That's still not a justification for breaching the rights. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:50, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the FUR and the fact that the clip is of historical importance. Theleftorium ^(talk) 15:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- How does the clip present anything extra to the text? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:18, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Less than 30 seconds, no free equivalent. Minimal extent of use. Also, because of its "historical importance". Ellomate (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2011 (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.

File:Dakshina lanka Highway5.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio of flixya.com/photo/2247841/Dakshina-lanka-highway (site is on the spam blacklist, can't provide a direct link) –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:05, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:Philo Hinduism.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on resolution and the nature of the image, I doubt that this is user-created. Orphaned. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:20, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:Vaseline Intensive Care Logo.svg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, I think this is too complex for {{PD-textlogo}}. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It's two text levels on a gradient shape with 2 accents... – Connormah (talk) 14:36, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:Waterfordslemonlime.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, poor quality, includes presumably non-free images. –Drilnoth (T/C) 14:34, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:Bianca Khatri spring 07.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, not useful. J Milburn (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:Adelaide railway station 1986.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 F9 by Calliopejen1 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file has been taken from http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozescout/844378408/ where the license is CC BY-NC-SA and the image is at a higher resolution than the version uploaded. There is no source information with the original upload and when originally uploaded there was an invalid attempt to claim the image under fair use. OTRS ticket #2011082310002928 is a recent formal complaint received about this photograph that I am following up with an attempt to delete on behalf of the declared copyright holder. Fæ (talk) 19:16, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete apologies Fæ, when I contested the speedy deletion, I did not have the context of the request from the copyright holder via OTRS. In the light of this information, I agree the claim that this image has been placed into the public domain is not credible, so this file should be deleted under CSD-F7. Best, Claviere (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:81st St. IND.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality is so bad this file is unuseable, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:GrandStIND6thAveLine.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quality is so bad this file is unuseable, orphaned. Acather96 (talk) 19:26, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:Fl intl.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. Not useful. damiens.rf 19:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete OB...and that's all you have to say, Damiens. Your additional editorial comments are not helpful: if you can't see how a college logo can be useful, then I fear we have other significant problems. Buffs (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment can't this be moved to Commons? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an obsolete image; it's been replaced by File:Florida International University FIU logo.svg...which is on commons. Good thinking though! :-) Buffs (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obsolete image per reasoning of nominator and uploader. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:53, 26 August 2011 (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.

Superfluous Edmonton Oilers logos

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, no consensus on File:Logo_Edmonton_Oilers.svg. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review/Archive_12#Superfluous Edmonton Oilers logos, the Edmonton Oilers article currently contains five different logos that are nearly identical except for color choice (not to mention the two additional logos that look quite different). The primary logo, File:Logo Edmonton Oilers Retro.svg, should be kept, but I believe having the other four violates NCFF#3. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC) – Quadell ^(talk) 20:01, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo_Edmonton_Oilers should be kept - it has been used in the most recent years and is probably most noticeable among NHL fans. The 1980s one is not much different from teh current retro, so I guess it could go... – Connormah (talk) 01:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind keeping Logo_Edmonton_Oilers if Logo Edmonton Oilers Retro.svg is deleted instead. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retro is now primary, but the old one that as recently dropped is still noticeable and used on some merchandise. Keep both and delete all the others. – Connormah (talk) 02:02, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If we already show File:Logo Edmonton Oilers Retro.svg in the article, I don't see what new encyclopedic information is provided by showing [:[File:Logo Edmonton Oilers.svg]] as well. It looks like a clear NFCC#3 violation to me... but I'd love to hear opinions from others. – Quadell ^(talk) 14:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lots of other NHL team articles also display former logos - out of curiosity, do you think this is too complex for PD-shape and PD_text? – Connormah (talk) 17:17, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - In my opinion, yes, but again, I'd love to hear opinions of other people experienced with copyright. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:34, 27 August 2011 (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.

File:Simple Circle.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. Not useful. damiens.rf 20:11, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete OB...and that's all you have to say, Damiens. Your additional editorial comments are not helpful: if you can't see how a circle can be useful, then I fear we have other significant problems. Buffs (talk) 21:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As this is a free image, why not place it in the Commons where any who might find the image of a simple circle useful, can access it? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:20, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an obsolete image; it's been replaced by File:Circle - black simple.svg...which is on commons. :-) Buffs (talk) 14:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete image in agreement with nominator and uploader. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, orphaned and obsolete. –Drilnoth (T/C) 12:53, 26 August 2011 (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.

File:MacPhail Mark Officer.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image was discussed at Wikipedia:Non-free content review#File:MacPhail Mark Officer.jpg. It's a non-free image of an officer used in an article about a case where the officer was killed. Several people alledge that this fails the significance test. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:26, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The image is used in the Troy Davis case article to show a picture of the victim. Putting aside the fact that the article is about Davis and his case, not about the victim, the image adds nothing to the textual description in the article except possibly to emphasize sympathy for the victim of a murder. It's not needed.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Concur with the above. Also, in the rationale there's a claim the image "humanizes" and is "to some extent memorializing the deceased". Wikipedia is not a memorial. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:22, 30 August 2011 (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.

File:Blackbeard POTC4.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfree image of a copyrighted character, used only in the List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters. As such, it fails our non-free content policy. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC) – Quadell ^(talk) 20:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the image being removed. It's no longer being used in the article. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is.. -- Ifrit (Talk) 01:13, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion, pictures of individual characters always fail NFCC#8 when used on a list of ... characters page. If a character is important enough to justify the use of a non-free image, that character is important enough to justify his/her/its own article. The only non-free images I consider even debatable for list of ... characters pages are group photos showing the entire or a significant majority of the permanent/primary cast. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:13, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:Jackthemonkey600ppx.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 as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfree image of a copyrighted character, used only in the List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters. As such, it fails our non-free content policy. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC) – Quadell ^(talk) 20:36, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete In my opinion, pictures of individual characters always fail NFCC#8 when used on a list of ... characters page. If a character is important enough to justify the use of a non-free image, that character is important enough to justify his/her/its own article. The only non-free images I consider even debatable for list of ... characters pages are group photos showing the entire or a significant majority of the permanent/primary cast. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:13, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:Captainteague.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nonfree image of a copyrighted character, used only in the List of Pirates of the Caribbean characters. As such, it fails our non-free content policy. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC) – Quadell ^(talk) 20:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First of all, this image was nominated for deletion as an "Orphaned non-free image". If you want to argue that the image does not qualify for fair use, do not nominate it as an orphaned image when it is most definitely not orphaned. Secondly I vote that the current usage of this image, as well as the other images you have recently nominated from the same article, should qualify for fair use. -- Ifrit (Talk) 21:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In my opinion, pictures of individual characters always fail NFCC#8 when used on a list of ... characters page. If a character is important enough to justify the use of a non-free image, that character is important enough to justify his/her/its own article. The only non-free images I consider even debatable for list of ... characters pages are group photos showing the entire or a significant majority of the permanent/primary cast. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Quadell and Sven. –Drilnoth (T/C) 13:56, 25 August 2011 (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.

File:ConstellationVengeance.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: Withdrawn by nominator, per Quadell Sven Manguard Wha? 06:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/USS_Constellation_vs_La_Vengeance/archive1, it can not be conclusively determined that this is PD in the US, the country of origin. Sven Manguard Wha? 22:03, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the FAC, i recently posted this link [[1]] that states that it was never published and therefor qualifies as pd.XavierGreen (talk) 22:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that in the snippet Google showed me. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, the Bailey collection of watercolours which the image in question belongs to were unkown until purchased by the Mariners Museum in 1940. After extensive research, the discovered that they were created for a naval history book that was never completed and the watercolors remained unpublished.XavierGreen (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously the image has been published; we're publishing it right now. Are you saying that this image was never copied or displayed for public consumption until you uploaded it in May of 2011? Or was the image first published in 1940? Or in 1995 in the Mariner's Mirror? Or what? – Quadell ^(talk) 15:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The painting is available for public viewing and research at the Mariners Museaum. An image of it is available on their website, though that is not the version i uploaded which came from another somewhat deragatory website [[2]]. Beyond publication on the internet, the painting has never been published.XavierGreen (talk) 16:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it's PD. This is a very complicated case, so bear with me. We know the painting was created before 1940, when the author died, and we know that The Mariners' Museum purchased the watercolor that same year. We know that MM displays it on the web here with a blanket statement "All images are copyright of The Mariners' Museum", but that's clearly untrue, since some of the works they display are demonstrably in the public domain. (MM couldn't have ever held the copyright to this painting anyway unless Irwin Bevan's heirs legally transferred copyright to them, and since MM purchased the painting without knowing who created it, this is extremely unlikely.) That copyright statement refers to the digitization, which is irrelevant (since we're using a different digitization) and untrue (due to Bridgeman v. Corel).

Case law has shown that a painting is published when (a) copies or photographs are distributed to the public with the permission of the creator or heirs, (b) the work is put up for sale to the general public, or (c) the painting is displayed in a place where photographs may be taken, which tacitly gives permission for copies to be made. When MM purchased the paintings, were they up for sale to the general public at auction? If so, then the painting was first published without an affixed copyright notice before 1978, and is therefore in the public domain. If not, did MM display the painting in a place where photography was permitted? If so, again, it is in the public domain due to being published without a copyright notice prior to 1978. If it wasn't published until after 1978, the relevant law is § 303 of the Copyright Act of 1976, explained by the U.S. Copyright Office in this brochure in the "Works in Existence but Not Published or Copyrighted on January 1, 1978" section. Copyright is held until 70 years after the death of the author, or until 2003, whichever is later. Since it's now 2011, this work would be in the public domain regardless of when it was first published. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Quadell's reasoning above.XavierGreen (talk) 20:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, per Quadell Sven Manguard Wha? 06:52, 29 August 2011 (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.

File:229462 210247302342053 100000703554948 621470 5973185 n.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unidentified subject. Kelly ^hi! 23:39, 24 August 2011 (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.

File:Archive piggy.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivative work. Kelly ^hi! 23:47, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What? It's an original photo, not derivative of anything. You might argue, "we already have 150 photos of piggy banks and don't need any more," or "it's not categorized properly," or "no one uses it" or "it should be renamed so more people will want to use it" or "we are running out of server space and this pig is just ugly." But it's not a derivative of anything. And I don't particularly understand how an image can simultaneously be a candidate for deletion and for transfer to commons. Thatcher 14:14, 29 August 2011 (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.

File:Asian Europe.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned PNG map. Kelly ^hi! 23:50, 24 August 2011 (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.