Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 25
Contents
- 1 March 25
- 1.1 File:Old Galt House Location.jpg
- 1.2 File:Scribner House 2.jpg
- 1.3 File:Vijay Kumar Singh.jpg
- 1.4 File:I only date guys who drink snapple.png
- 1.5 File:The Best of Court TV- Body of Evidence - DVD Front Cover.jpg
- 1.6 File:369crest.jpg
- 1.7 File:Model-4.jpg
- 1.8 File:Walter Model.jpg
- 1.9 File:Model-5.jpg
- 1.10 File:Model-nehring.jpg
- 1.11 File:Nehru and Gyatso 1959.jpg
- 1.12 File:JP SK rally.jpg
- 1.13 File:Gora Bhave.jpg
- 1.14 File:Nehru and the Mountbattens - Cartier-Bresson - NPG.jpg
- 1.15 File:Colin Brinded.jpg
- 1.16 File:Ammonium diuranate.png
- 1.17 File:SubhashBose TimeMagazine.jpg
- 1.18 File:Burningintheskiesvideo.jpg
- 1.19 File:Patel TimeCover.jpg
- 1.20 File:Patelcremation.jpg
- 1.21 File:Tkmandt.jpg
- 1.22 File:Skmalcolm.jpg
- 1.23 File:Tkmalcolm.jpg
- 1.24 File:Curcumin.png
- 1.25 More historical marker derivative works
March 25
[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: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Old Galt House Location.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads).
Derivative work of copyrighted text. Historical markers such as these are not works of the US Federal Government, and there is no evidence that they have passed into the public domain on account of their age. The images fail fair use because it is not essential to see the marker to understand the subject of the marker's content. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:00, 25 March 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.
- 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⚡ 09:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Scribner House 2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads).
Derivative work of copyrighted text. Historical markers such as these are not works of the US Federal Government, and there is no evidence that they have passed into the public domain on account of their age. The images fail fair use because it is not essential to see the marker to understand the subject of the marker's content. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:00, 25 March 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.
- 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. Jujutacular talk 18:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vijay Kumar Singh.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jeff G. (notify | contribs | uploads).
Non-free image of a living person. Damiens.rf 13:40, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is an Official Indian Army Photo of Vijay Kumar Singh; all similar official photos of the subject carry similar copyrights. — Jeff G. ツ 16:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - we do not, except in rare cases, host non-free images of living people. This image is clearly replaceable with a free alternative and fails WP:NFCC#1 - Peripitus (Talk) 05:22, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Please don't make statements about the replaceability of this picture unless you're prepared to back it up with evidence. 68.32.94.161 (talk) 18:28, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The meaning here is: He is alive -> so a photo could be taken now or in the future -> replacing this non-free image. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the meaning, then what are these "rare cases" of which you speak? The fact that there are exceptions to the rule clearly means that a picture's replaceability is not dictated solely by the subject being alive. 68.32.94.161 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The rare exceptions are those where a person is known to be exceptionally reclusive (i.e. never appearing in public, making a point of never having themselves photographed) or otherwise inaccessible (e.g. a long-term fugitive in hiding). Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's the meaning, then what are these "rare cases" of which you speak? The fact that there are exceptions to the rule clearly means that a picture's replaceability is not dictated solely by the subject being alive. 68.32.94.161 (talk) 22:00, 28 March 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.
- 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⚡ 03:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:I only date guys who drink snapple.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jeff G. (notify | contribs | uploads).
Unnecessary non-free image showing a character holding a bottle, used to decorate a passage describing that the character had a bottle once. Damiens.rf 13:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this image illustrates section Snapple#Popular_culture appropriately. — Jeff G. ツ 15:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, no visual details of the image are important enough that they would be crucial for the understanding of the article over and above what can be conveyed in text, in the context of the article it's used in. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Fut.Perf. Jujutacular talk 18:11, 1 April 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.
- 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⚡ 03:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:The Best of Court TV- Body of Evidence - DVD Front Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jeff G. (notify | contribs | uploads).
Non-free dvd cover used as a substitute for a picture of the bio's subject. Damiens.rf 13:50, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I moved the file out of the infobox, so now it's no longer claiming to be a substitute for a picture of the bio's subject. I've gotten my hands on a photo of the subject to use in the infobox, uploaded it, and used it in this edit. This is the third of my files nominated for deletion by the same user within a period of ten minutes. — Jeff G. ツ 16:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there is no additional information I can see, that is critical for reader's understanding of the article's subject, that this image adds. It is decorative and does not pass WP:NFCC#8. We don't need to see a copy of a DVD cover to fully comprehend the existence of the work. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Peripitus said all that needs to be said. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:07, 28 March 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.
- 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 (NAC). Rehman 01:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:369crest.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bluejames19 (notify | contribs | uploads).
Orphan, no source, and bogus licensing. Damiens.rf 13:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - no longer an orphan, source established, licensing rectified. — Jeff G. ツ 16:30, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Good work. Keep it, so. --Damiens.rf 18:49, 26 March 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.
- 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, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Model-4.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hongooi (notify | contribs | uploads).
We have free images of this guy. Damiens.rf 13:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - none of them appear to depict him "prior to Operation Citadel", as described in section Walter Model#Kursk_and_Orel. — Jeff G. ツ 16:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ....what ? We have a 1944 image of the man but, for some reason, must have a non-free image from the previous year. I've read the section you refer to and can see no reference to his appearance at that time that requires such an image. The image is nice and looks ok in position...neither of which in any way help it to pass WP:NFCC#8 or WP:NFCC#1 - Delete - Peripitus (Talk) 05:27, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, clear case of non-free image overuse. NFCC#3. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep After looking on Commmons [1], it is the only portrait of him I can find. All other images are snapshots of him in action, at staff meetings, etc. As a Feldmarschall, and furthermore one considered one of Germany's best during WWII, he is a very highly important historic person. This should be used as the primary identification picture in the infobox. Furthermore, the copyright holder is the former Third Reich, and the most likely copyright holder is the Bundesarchiv, which releases WWII material under a CC-license. walk victor falk talk 09:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All irrelevant, except for the fact that if this could be sourced to the free Bundesarchiv material, it would of course change the situation, but so far nobody seems to have found a copy of it there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:00, 31 March 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.
- 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 Lifebaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:14, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Walter Model.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jeff G. (notify | contribs | uploads).
We have free images of this guy. Damiens.rf 13:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy delete - I have requested speedy deletion of this file because I have replaced its use here with sufficient free replacement File:Walter Model October 1944.jpg. Sorry I was unaware of that file when I uploaded this one. Damiens.rf neglected to notify me of this Ffd. — Jeff G. ツ 18:20, 26 March 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.
- 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⚡ 17:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Model-5.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hongooi (notify | contribs | uploads).
Unnecessary non-free image showing soldiers meeting used just to make the point that they once met. Damiens.rf 13:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this photo shows Walter Model during the Battle of the Bulge in section Walter Model#Unternehmen_Wacht_am_Rhein. Do you have any free image to illustrate that section? — Jeff G. ツ 18:09, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Why would we need that? --Damiens.rf 18:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "A picture is worth a thousand words." Why wouldn't we need that? — Jeff G. ツ 02:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Why would we need that? --Damiens.rf 18:51, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, we don't need separate images of a person for every event in his life, especially if the images don't really show us anything concrete and factual over and above what the others show. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This seems to be a montage of two different pictures. walk victor falk talk 09:17, 31 March 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.
- 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 unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the image is in fact part of the freely-licensed Bundesarchiv collection. Without that, we must treat it as non-free, and as non-free it fails WP:NFCC#8 and therefore must go. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Model-nehring.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hongooi (notify | contribs | uploads).
Unnecessary non-free image showing soldiers meeting used just to make the point that they once met. Damiens.rf 13:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is an unique historical image that illustrates section Walter Model#Strengths. Do you have a free image that can do that? — Jeff G. ツ 18:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep As a colour pictures, it show details rarely seen in black and white WWII images, and makes it certain that the copyright holder is the former Third Reich, as colour photograhy was an advanced technology. The modern copyright holder is the Bundesarchiv, which releases WWII material under a CC-license.
- If you can source this image to the free Bundesarchiv material, that would of course change everything, but as long as we haven't got that reference, we have to treat it as non-free. And the colour is of course irrelevant for passing NFCC#8, it may increase its attractivity, but it certainly doesn't increase its factual information value. The colours of those men's uniforms are not what the article is about. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:55, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the fact that is a colour picture makes it virtually certain that it was a Third Reich government picture. walk victor falk talk 10:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeating that doesn't make it more relevant. Somebody needs to do the legwork and find a source, either to the Bundesarchiv or to the US government agency that seized the material as enemy property and decided to place it into the public domain. Without that, it's moot speculation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not speculation. They're simply were no private persons with colour photography equipment on the fronts of the Second World War, it was too advanced and expensive. See [2] [3] [4] [5]. walk victor falk talk 17:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: were all such pictures automatically considered seized enemy property, or only those that were actually physically seized by allied personnel at some point? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All that were property of the Third Reich. For instance, many patents in armaments, chemical industry, rocketry, etc were confiscated by the Allies. See Operation Paperclip. Besides things like propaganda photography discussed here, all political records of the Third Reich, police records, National-Socialist party documents, all diplomatic communications, all documents and communications between ministries and government agencies, and more, were released in the public domain. walk victor falk talk 19:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not quite convinced. I really don't see what Operation Paperclip has to do with anything. About the confiscation of intellectual property, the only relevant thing I'm aware of is Price v. United States, but that doesn't seem to be talking of a wholesale appropriation of all intellectual state property, but only about specific items that had been physically seized and taken away. Any further pointers? Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- All that were property of the Third Reich. For instance, many patents in armaments, chemical industry, rocketry, etc were confiscated by the Allies. See Operation Paperclip. Besides things like propaganda photography discussed here, all political records of the Third Reich, police records, National-Socialist party documents, all diplomatic communications, all documents and communications between ministries and government agencies, and more, were released in the public domain. walk victor falk talk 19:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: were all such pictures automatically considered seized enemy property, or only those that were actually physically seized by allied personnel at some point? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not speculation. They're simply were no private persons with colour photography equipment on the fronts of the Second World War, it was too advanced and expensive. See [2] [3] [4] [5]. walk victor falk talk 17:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Repeating that doesn't make it more relevant. Somebody needs to do the legwork and find a source, either to the Bundesarchiv or to the US government agency that seized the material as enemy property and decided to place it into the public domain. Without that, it's moot speculation. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:25, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said, the fact that is a colour picture makes it virtually certain that it was a Third Reich government picture. walk victor falk talk 10:20, 31 March 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.
- 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, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nehru and Gyatso 1959.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Relata refero (notify | contribs | uploads).
Non-free historic photograph of a meeting between two men. The meeting is historically important, but the photograph isn't needed to understand the event, hence fails NFCC#8. Just shows two men talking. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Why, why not delete the pics of Chang meeting his buddies Winston and Franklin [6] [7] [8] ? Just shows three men talking. The picture is a much better reference of the event than any textual source, which shows that Nehru not only granted exile to the Dalai Lama but also met personnally. Keep walk victor falk talk 09:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![[6]](/wiki/File:Cairo_conference.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](/wiki/File:Cairoconference1943ChurchillChiangMdmChiang.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](/wiki/File:ConferenciaDeElCairo1943JiangJieshiRooseveltChurchill.jpg){kind=link}
- The three images you refer to are public domain, hence the comparison is invalid. And any rationale based on the idea that image X "shows that" event Y happened is invalid in principle: we don't use images as references for factual claims, we use reliable sources for that purpose. The fact that Nehru met the Dalai Lama doesn't need to be shown, it just needs to be cited. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:52, 31 March 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.
- 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, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:JP SK rally.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Relata refero (notify | contribs | uploads).
This unnecessary non-free image without a source shows people in a rally, used just to make the point the rally existed. The reader could do without this specific image. Damiens.rf 14:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is an unique historical image that illustrates section Jayaprakash Narayan#Bihar_Movement_and_Total_Revolution - do you have a free image to replace it there? — Jeff G. ツ 18:29, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. How often do you have to be told that "it's an important event, so we'd like to have an illustration of it" is not a sufficient argument for non-free images? The criterion is that the image must show us something about the event that is crucial for the article and couldn't otherwise be conveyed in words. This one doesn't. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:15, 27 March 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.
- 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⚡ 09:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Gora Bhave.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Relata refero (notify | contribs | uploads).
Unnecessary non-free image showing some notable man together at some event. The image is not necessary for the understanding of the event. Damiens.rf 14:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This picture identifies the subject of the biography article and no free picture exists since he was an Indian who died in 1975. walk victor falk talk 09:45, 31 March 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.
- 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⚡ 17:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Nehru and the Mountbattens - Cartier-Bresson - NPG.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Relata refero (notify | contribs | uploads).
Decorative non-free image. We don't need a non-free "illustration of a historically important relationship". Damiens.rf 14:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is an unique historical image that illustrates section Edwina Mountbatten, Countess Mountbatten of Burma#Life_after_marriage. — Jeff G. ツ 18:44, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as in the cases above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:16, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, rationale is clutching at straws. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Request for clarification According to National Portrait Gallery and Wikimedia Foundation copyright dispute, it seems the National portrait gallery and Wikimedia have reached an agreement that low resolution images (like this one) may be used. I would like confirmation for this. walk victor falk talk 09:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That issue was purely over items such as old paintings, where the original work was already in the public domain but the museum was claiming rights in the photographic reproductions. Here the original photograph itself is presumedly still copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but did or did not Wikimedia and the gallery made an agreement? If so, what does it consist of? walk victor falk talk 10:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can hardly contain anything that would be relevant for this item, because items like this were never within the scope of the disagreement they had. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More than this particular picture, I am interested in what could potentially be a great resource for Wikipedia. walk victor falk talk 10:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Looking over it now, I cannot actually find anything about such an agreement. Where did you get that from? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:35, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- More than this particular picture, I am interested in what could potentially be a great resource for Wikipedia. walk victor falk talk 10:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It can hardly contain anything that would be relevant for this item, because items like this were never within the scope of the disagreement they had. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but did or did not Wikimedia and the gallery made an agreement? If so, what does it consist of? walk victor falk talk 10:18, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That issue was purely over items such as old paintings, where the original work was already in the public domain but the museum was claiming rights in the photographic reproductions. Here the original photograph itself is presumedly still copyrighted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:04, 31 March 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.
- 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⚡ 09:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Colin Brinded.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Armbrust (notify | contribs | uploads).
Non-free image with an invalid source (a Google Image Search link pointing to a web-forum where users post whatever they want to). Damiens.rf 20:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I fixed the source to 'http://www.ljplus.ru/img/a/n/anytka/02_Colin_Brinded.jpg as displayed by snooker_ru: Colin Brinded and captioned "1946 - November 26, 2005"'. — Jeff G. ツ 18:56, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Jeff that does not seem to address the issue. You've linked to a image that provides no information as to the copyrightholder. Is this a press image (in which case it may fail WP:NFCC#2) or what ? We need a better source than a link to a forum upload. - Peripitus (Talk) 08:26, 28 March 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.
- 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, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ammonium diuranate.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by NotAnonymous0 (notify | contribs | uploads).
Image tagged with disputed structure, not used anywhere, svg structure on commons Ronhjones (Talk) 20:31, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, wasn't able to find the Commons file. Delete only if replacement if found on Commons. Rehman 01:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider the discussion at User talk:Petergans#Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 25#File:Ammonium diuranate.png. --Leyo 19:15, 31 March 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.
- 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⚡ 09:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:SubhashBose TimeMagazine.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vizziee (notify | contribs | uploads).
Non-free magazine cover image being used just to stress the point that the guy was featured on the cover. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 since we could give the reader the same information without the use of non-free content (using just text, for instance). Damiens.rf 20:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 'The image is not used to only convey that the guy was on the cover. In the colonial India, very few leaders were featured on the cover of international magazines. Therefore, appearance on the cover of Time magazine was a moment of recognized leadership of a politician from a colony. This is used as an example to illustrate how widely Bose was known, something which text may not be able to convey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizziee (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)'[9][reply]
- Keep per Vizziee. — Jeff G. ツ 19:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![[9]](/w/index.php?title=File_talk:SubhashBose_TimeMagazine.jpg&oldid=420852549){kind=link}
- Delete – What Vizziee says about the significance of the fact that he was on the cover may all be true, but there's still nothing about the visual details of the image that we would need to see in order to understand the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The visual details (flowers and guirlands) make us understand that the Time was subject to Orientalism in this particular instance, as explained by Edward Said, and this is not conveyed by any text. walk victor falk talk 10:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If the "orientalism" on the cover is important for the article, find a reliable source that talks about it, and then write it into the article. Failing that, your observation is a moot point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:07, 31 March 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.
- 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⚡ 17:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Burningintheskiesvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jal11497 (notify | contribs | uploads).
Delete: a non-free image without any commentary about the image fails WP:NFCC#8. The article already has one non-free image identifying the song the article is about so also fails WP:NFCC#3a. ww2censor (talk) 20:37, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, technically, since the article already has one non-free image, we should try to minimize the use of non-free images of the page? Just asking. --Jal11497 (talk) 10:57, 27 March 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.
- 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⚡ 09:10, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Patel TimeCover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Vizziee (notify | contribs | uploads).
Non-free magazine cover image being used just to stress the point that the guy was featured on the cover. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 since we could give the reader the same information without the use of non-free content (using just text, for instance). Damiens.rf 20:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - 'The image is not used to only convey that the guy was on the cover. In the colonial India, very few leaders were featured on the cover of international magazines. Therefore, appearance on the cover of Time magazine was a moment of recognized leadership of a politician from a colony. This is used as an example to illustrate how widely Patel was known, something which text may not be able to convey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vizziee (talk • contribs) 05:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)'[10][reply]
- Keep per Vizziee. — Jeff G. ツ 01:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, as in the case above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
![[10]](/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Patel_TimeCover.jpg&oldid=420908409){kind=link}
- Keep The visual details (the cow in the background) make us understand that the Time was subject to Orientalism in this particular instance, as explained by Edward Said, and this is not conveyed by any text. walk victor falk talk 10:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See comment in the Subash Bhose case above. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:08, 31 March 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.
- 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, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Patelcremation.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Rama's Arrow (notify | contribs | uploads).
Unnecessary decorative picture of a dead man. We can report on his death without the aid of this specific imagery. Damiens.rf 20:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Biographies are about the lives and deaths of people. Pictures of them lying in state, mummified (like Lenin) or like here at a cremation are appropriate in such articles. walk victor falk talk 10:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A Lenin picture would be PD, so this parallel, again, is irrelevant. What is the concrete, factual piece of information that is (a) conveyed by this picture, (b) cannot otherwise be completely conveyed in words, (c) sourced, and (d) so important to the article that the article needs to talk about it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:15, 31 March 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.
- 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 Lifebaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Tkmandt.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sfarrer (notify | contribs | uploads).
Invalid use of a non-free magazine cover, just to decorate the mention of the existence of the published article. Damiens.rf 21:12, 25 March 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.
- 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 Lifebaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Skmalcolm.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sfarrer (notify | contribs | uploads).
Non-free magazine cover image being used just to stress the point that the guy was featured on the cover. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 since we could give the reader the same information without the use of non-free content (using just text, for instance). Damiens.rf 21:13, 25 March 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.
- 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 Lifebaka (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:08, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Tkmalcolm.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sfarrer (notify | contribs | uploads).
Non-free magazine cover image being used just to stress the point that the guy was featured on the cover. Fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 since we could give the reader the same information without the use of non-free content (using just text, for instance). Damiens.rf 21:14, 25 March 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.
- 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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Curcumin.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Mykhal (notify | contribs | uploads).
Already on commons, but by a different author, so could not use CSD:F8 Ronhjones (Talk) 21:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, iff replacement exists on Commons. If no replacement exists, please move to Commons, and delete this. Rehman 01:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would someone please link to where the file is on Commons? Am hesitant to delete without it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:19, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Same name, different author, slightly different orientation commons:File:Curcumin.png Ronhjones (Talk) 16:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I'm glad you brought it up - I suddenly realised that the commons one was incorrect - so I've reverted it to the correct structure (for now - both aren't that great, so I'll make an SVG one from scratch and put that on commons.) Ronhjones (Talk) 17:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- SVG version done and on commons commons:File:Curcumin.svg Ronhjones (Talk) 18:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. I'm glad you brought it up - I suddenly realised that the commons one was incorrect - so I've reverted it to the correct structure (for now - both aren't that great, so I'll make an SVG one from scratch and put that on commons.) Ronhjones (Talk) 17:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Same name, different author, slightly different orientation commons:File:Curcumin.png Ronhjones (Talk) 16:06, 2 April 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.
More historical marker derivative works
[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: Keep and relicense the first image as PD-USGov, Delete the remainder as works not of the federal government. VernoWhitney (talk) 16:42, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:James Whitcomb Riley Museum Home marker.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads).
- File:James Whitcomb Riley Museum Home marker.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads)
- File:Schofield House marker.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads)
- File:Old Greensburg courthouse marker.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads)
- File:Tebbs Bend Michigan Monument.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads)
- File:Wyandotte Marker.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads)
- File:Georgetown Cemetery KY.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads)
- File:Breckinridge Memorial M2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads)
- File:Breckinridge Memorial M1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads)
- File:Glendale OH marker.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads)
- File:Meade Co COurthouse M1.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads)
- File:Fort Harker sign.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bedford (notify | contribs | uploads)
Derivative works of copyrighted text. Historical markers such as these are not works of the US Federal Government, and there is no evidence that they have passed into the public domain on account of their age. The images fail fair use because it is not essential to see the marker to understand the subject of the marker's content. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- File:James Whitcomb Riley Museum Home marker.JPG is a National Register of Historic Places marker provided by the Department of the Interior. So in a sense, it is a Public Domain marker not subject to any copyright laws.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the others? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I dunno, I can't offer an opinion on the others.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:33, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What about the others? SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:14, 6 April 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.