Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 17

< January 16	January 18 >

January 17

File:Spalding.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 Bkell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:04, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No description; no context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 04:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. Deleted as a copyright violation of [1]; see also File:PhinizySpalding.jpg, which was the same image and was deleted as a copyvio four years ago. —Bkell (talk) 04:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Commons image showing through. —Bkell (talk) 04:49, 17 January 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:Nick Miranda South Carolina.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 ⚡ 08:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused personal photo. —Bkell (talk) 05:33, 17 January 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:USAClimates.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 ⚡ 08:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The file is unused and it seems to be disputed. MGA73 (talk) 10:39, 17 January 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:Bouazizi.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: keep. Additionally, I strongly recommend that Lihaas read 10 Big Myths about copyright explained, paying extra attention to section #3 (and substitute "social media" for "usenet"). SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:46, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

non-free image of a living person. no effort had been made for trying to have a picture released under a free licensing. Damiens.rf 13:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep, for now~~ - He's dead. There's a deletion discussion going on on the host article Mohamed Bouazizi. If the article gets deleted (doesn't look like it will right now) then delete the image. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(changing to) Delete Source is so vague as to be unusable/unverifiable. I concur with Fut.Perf.. I tried to ascertain the source of this image. There's various copies on the net. But, I did find a predecessor image from which this image is derived. See this, about half way down and you will see this image. No attribution for the image. It was posted on January 15 on that page. Not sure where the author got it from. I did find this image on Facebook. The problem is the image there is a derivative of an original, and the Facebook profiles were not created by Mohamed Bouazizi, but someone else. They took the image from somewhere. Unless we can determine the actual source and verify the copyright situation, the file should be deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hows it non-free? seems like his facebook (or other such) picture which has no copyrights, especially since no one is there to use.(Lihaas (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]

Every image is presumed copyrighted by default, unless somebody has explicitly placed it in the public domain or released it under a free license. In fact, right now the image has a defective source declaration that doesn't really allow us to assess its status; that in itself is grounds for deletion under NFCC. Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if and only if his article is not deleted. As a deceaced person, free images may not exist. Tbhotch* ^{۩ ۞} 00:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep nothing to say it is a copy vio, as it turns out it seems to be social media and that is not copyrighted anywhere. if it can be proven to be a copyvio of someone (who i wouldnt know since its not a BLP), then we can consider it as "illegal" (also note the above comment came on jan 17 when it was already NOT a BLP)(Lihaas (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]

Lihaas, just because something appears on Facebook doesn't mean it's free of copyright. Further, we don't work to prove something is copyrighted, we work to prove something isn't copyrighted. If we can't prove it's free, we assume it isn't. --Hammersoft (talk) 03:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

what reasoni s there for it to be beleived that this is a copyright?(Lihaas (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC));[reply]

Don't you listen? Somebody went and took that photo, otherwise it wouldn't exist. If somebody took it, they are the copyright holder. Every photograph is copyrighted, unless it's very old or the owner deliberately released it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legally, if someone took a picture and posted it online, it's assumed copyrighted non-freely unless there was a specific release under a free license by the copyright holder. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, person is deceased, he is historically significant, image is of very low quality already, But it needs filling in of its FUR.--Obsidi♠n^Soul 07:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as long as it fails NFCC#10 (no proper source documentation); otherwise keep. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We routinely claim fair use for one picture of a deceased person when there are no free alternatives found. /ƒETCH COMMS / 04:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bouazizi is deceased and very notable for what he started. Who knows where his actions and subsequent effects will lead. I second Fetchcomms. Glennconti (talk) 05:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP France is now using the same image under a GNU License. I don't read french that well but they have found a legal way to use the image. Can't we use the same rationale or their image? Glennconti (talk) 12:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

French wikipedia? I can't find anything there; link plz? But in any case, they might have just as many clueless uploaders as we do. Random, baseless GFDL claims abound, and cannot be taken seriously without clear evidence. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link: [2] but I just saw the image go away :( Glennconti (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, Commons speedied it [3]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:13, 23 January 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:PingWang.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no licensing, no info, no use. Damiens.rf 14:22, 17 January 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:QEII-1987.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image showing an important couple in an important meeting. We can understand the meeting without the aid of this image. Damiens.rf 14:37, 17 January 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:Queenmum-Ont.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image showing important people meeting. We can understand the text about the meeting without the aid of this image. Damiens.rf 14:38, 17 January 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:France 7.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative non-free photo showing a transatlantic docking contains no necessary visual aid for the understanding of the text in the article. Damiens.rf 14:40, 17 January 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:Can-Mon-booklet.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bogus licensing for otherwise unnecessary image. Damiens.rf 14:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Created by uploader. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is unlikely. --Damiens.rf 14:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And how exactly do you know that? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a magazine cover. --Damiens.rf 19:10, 24 January 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:GrainElev1939.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: keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No found on source. No reason to believe it's really on the public domain. Damiens.rf 14:50, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I updated the source location. An uncropped version is located here that gives the date as being 1939, which would make it PD in Canada. Them From Space 22:51, 24 January 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:EIIR-VicDay.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free picture showing an important person on an important date. But sill, an unnecessary non-notable picture, that is not a visual aid for understanding the article. Damiens.rf 14:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It illustrates the presence of the sovereign in Canada on her official Canadian birthday for only the second time in history and it otherwise meets all the fair use criteria. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:25, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
delete, nominator is correct. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:31, 24 January 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:EIIRNB1951.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: keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:49, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to believe this is in the public domain. Damiens.rf 14:54, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. According to this description at the New Brunswick Archives site, the image was taken for/by the Office of Protocol (presumably of the provincial government, otherwise it would be in the federal archives if it were the federal government - although it doesn't really matter either way). We can safely presume the photo was taken by government staff or by someone hired by the government. Copyright thus expires 50 years after creation (as opposed to 50 years after the photographer's death, which would have been the case had the photograph not been a work for hire or a work done in the course of employment). Thus, the image is public domain in its source country. I am not sure about the rules here on en-wiki about also requiring that an image be public domain in the U.S., but my suggestion is that this image be transferred immediately to the Commons once this discussion is closed, tagged with {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} over there, and then the local version here tagged with {{NCD}} for deletion here. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Skeezix1000. Them From Space 22:52, 24 January 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:Prince-tent-w.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: keep. I will leave it up to others whether to move to Commons or not. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No source. Website given as a source was apparently a personal webpage and is now down. We can't be sure this image really shows what it is said it shows. Damiens.rf 14:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - We know Prince Edward visited the area at that time, and this photo shows him on the Nipigon wearing the same hat. The real issue is that this image ought to have been transferred to the Commons long ago. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:03, 24 January 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:EoWPEI.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary non-free image showing important people meeting. We can understand the text about the meeting without the aid of this image. Damiens.rf 14:56, 17 January 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:Lavender bar txt.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Useless. Damiens.rf 14:59, 17 January 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:Purple bar txt.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Useless. Damiens.rf 14:59, 17 January 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:Silver bar txt.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Useless. Damiens.rf 15:00, 17 January 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:Red bar txt.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Useless. Damiens.rf 15:01, 17 January 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:Blue bar txt.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan. Useless. Damiens.rf 15:09, 17 January 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:EIIR-Canadian Parliament.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 due to finding of free equivalent. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Decorative nonf-free image showing important people in an important date doing important things. But still, seeing this image is not necessary for the understanding what's going on. The usual case of a non-notable photo of a notable event. Damiens.rf 15:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Illustrates a historic event, the three parts of the Canadian parliament together, the monarch's role in parliament, and the sovereign carrying out her constitutional duties in a Commonwealth realm outside the UK, for which there's no free alternative. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a free alternative showing those three things. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:39, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete, per nomination, fails NFCC8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't follow. The image increases readers' understanding of the topics by illustrating what is said by the adjacent text in the articles in which the image is used (see Monarchy of Canada#Parliament (Queen-in-Parliament), Parliament of Canada#Term, and Commonwealth realm#Monarch's role in the realms); its deletion would hence obviously be detrimental to that understanding. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 17:05, 24 January 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:Torenbreskens2.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

replaceable non-free image. Damiens.rf 15:13, 17 January 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:KimJongUnLarge.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photographs taken by Rodong Sinmun have been uploaded on Commons and deleted multiple times, see 1 2 and 3. Apparently this image is not "a document of state management". Karppinen (talk) 16:23, 17 January 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:Iqbal Z. Ahmed.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence uploader is copyright holder. Web resolution, no metadata. Uploader has talk page history of copyright problems. Kelly ^hi! 17:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also the following files. Kelly ^hi! 17:38, 17 January 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:Eurocopter 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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an outdated logo for Eurocopter. It has been superseded by the current logo, File:Eurocopter-eadscompany.jpg, which is pretty much the same except for a few cosmetic changes. We already have one non-free logo in the article—there is no need to show a very similar logo that is no longer in use (see WP:NFCC#3a). This image provides no more understanding to the reader than the current logo does alone (see WP:NFCC#8). This old logo is not mentioned in the Eurocopter article, except in the image caption, which just says, "Logo of Eurocopter until 2010." The fair-use rationale for this image says merely, "Illustrates the entire subject of the article Eurocopter Group"—there is no explanation for why it is necessary to show an outdated logo when the current logo is also shown and is substantially the same. See Wikipedia:Logos#Logo choice, which says in part, "When a historical logo is used, the caption should indicate this, and there should be a good reason for the use of the historical logo (whether the current logo is used or not) explained in the historical logo's fair use rationale." —Bkell (talk) 18:39, 17 January 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:Cropped roger rabbit elmer fudd screen shot highlighted.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a frame from Who Framed Roger Rabbit, taken from a video uploaded to YouTube, with a crudely drawn circle around the head of Elmer Fudd (supposedly, though the quality of the image is too poor to be sure). Elmer is just one of many cartoon characters in this frame; this image is used to illustrate his "cameo appearance." Showing a blurry image of the top of his head in one corner of a single frame of a film in which he does not play an important part does not significantly increase readers' understanding of Elmer Fudd; the use of this image fails WP:NFCC#8. This image is not necessary to convey the information that Elmer had a cameo appearance in this film—such information is easily conveyed in text—so the use of this image also fails WP:NFCC#1. Note that the statement in Elmer Fudd#Later appearances about his cameo appearance in this film has a link to this image as its only reference. We should cite sources—we shouldn't be uploading copyrighted material to Wikipedia so that we can then refer to the uploaded material as a source. Anyway, if Elmer's cameo appearance in this film really is notable enough to be mentioned in the Elmer Fudd article, we should be able to cite a reliable source that mentions it, rather than having to edit a frame from an illegal YouTube copy of a copyrighted film in order to provide evidence for the claim (see Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability). —Bkell (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I drew a circle on that frame from the clip. That wasn't in the video clip. Why do they keep deleting the statement that he was in Who Framed Roger Rabbit? He was in the movie. If it's illegal to include screenshots from Youtube videos, that how should I upload a screenshot from this film? I don't have a DVD of the film. I keep trying to include links to prove this, but those sites I try posting links to were blacklisted. —Mavericker (talk) 6:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

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:IHMS WLY.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: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Release from the composer, but apparently not from the performer, Arnold Zamora. Kelly ^hi! 20:01, 17 January 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.