Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 November 28

< November 27	November 29 >

November 28

File:Harrisonhowelldonquixgeorgiatech.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, photo of copyrighted sculpture, no freedom of panorama in the united states Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that we can fix the orphaned part. I don't think freedom of panorama applies to an architectural element, as this is. That dorm is also particularly old (built in 1939) so I'd imagine that life of the sculptor + 70 years has passed. By the way, the link to the deletion discussion from the image page is broken. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely is not a mere "architectural element". It is akin to a mural on a building, which is definitely copyrighted. And I'm not sure how you're doing your math, but it is rather unlikely that something created in 1939 satisfies the 70 years after death rule. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:45, 1 December 2011 (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) 05:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's currently be used on the article of a different building with the caption "Architectural features on a nearby wall". That's not something that would get put into an article even if the image were free. My reading, however, is that it's not free. This is a sculpture installed into the wall of a building, and therefore is considered artwork, subject to the restrictions outlined at commons:freedom of panorama. We cannot assume that the artist has been dead for 70 years, we don't decide copyright by guessing that it might not be copyrighted. It might be {{Template:PD-US-not renewed}} or even (and this is unlikely) {{Template:PD-US-no notice}}, but we don't have any way of knowing, and as I said, we can't assume. Since it's not being used in a way I'd consider valid, I say axe it. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:31, 28 November 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:3D Virtual Creature Evolution Logo.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; concerns addressed. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:52, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect license. This logo is not PD-text as it contains an intricate design of cubes Sreejith K (talk) 07:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I may, I believe you are correct. I did set the incorrect license. I believe I should have set it as a released image to the public domain by the copyright holder, but I did not realize I set it incorrectly. I am not the copyright holder, but was given permission from the copyright holder to release this image as described. Should I go to the file and change the information to it's proper status or is there something else I should do? Is it proper to change the licensing if it is indeed incorrect? I thank you for bringing this up and for any further assistance you can offer. Zach Winkler (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have changed the licensing of this image to it's proper license status. I also provided a Fair Use Rationale. This image is no-longer in violation of any copyright rules to my knowledge. Zach Winkler (talk) 16:09, 5 December 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:Suicide Booth.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; IMO, keep !vote does not adequately explain, in terms of WP:NFCC, why file merits retention and inclusion in the article. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:53, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the image is necessary for the understanding of what is being described in the article, and therefore fails the NFCC. The article already describes the object well enough. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:06, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The image improves my understanding of what is being described in the article in general, and this section in particular, in a way that mere words cannot. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 10:03, 4 December 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:Lamivudinidmitt.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, SVG version now on commons. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 23:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: BadJPG --Leyo 08:19, 29 November 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.