Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 27

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 August 27)
< August 26 August 28 >

August 27 edit

Image:ZKeyHebrew.PNG edit

Image:ZKeyHebrew.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Epson291 (notify | contribs).

Image:ZEEGRASS_ZEEROK.JPG edit

Image:ZEEGRASS_ZEEROK.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zeegrass (notify | contribs).

Image:ZBL_-_Omot_za_prvu_demo_kasetu_1_manji.jpg edit

Image:ZBL_-_Omot_za_prvu_demo_kasetu_1_manji.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Branislavsmuk (notify | contribs).

Image:ZOLTRON.jpg edit

Image:ZOLTRON.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stickertraders (notify | contribs).

Image:ZThree_Slim_Jims.JPG edit

Image:ZThree_Slim_Jims.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mikercool1 (notify | contribs).

Image:ZNN_tv.JPG edit

Image:ZNN_tv.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ZombieNotes (notify | contribs).

Image:Zaki_nassif...jpg edit

Image:Zaki_nassif...jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Totheleftofmee (notify | contribs).
  • appears to be a derivative work (photo of a photo - his head is disembodied, plus the glare) Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Taken from the website mentioned in the article. Possible copyvio. De728631 (talk) 02:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Zane_Savage_X.JPG edit

Image:Zane_Savage_X.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sameyejara (notify | contribs).

Image:MissPooja3.jpg edit

Image:MissPooja3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bal537 (notify | contribs).

Image:Pooja3.jpg edit

Image:Pooja3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bal537 (notify | contribs).

Image:MissPooja1.jpg edit

Image:MissPooja1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bal537 (notify | contribs).

Image:MissPooja2.jpg 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 debate was: 

- 'Deleted - commons image now showing - Peripitus (Talk) 05:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:MissPooja2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bal537 (notify | contribs).
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.

Image:Dionemap.jpg 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 debate was: 

- Keep - Looks like someone can find a use for it (thought it is not used now) - will mark it to move to commons - Peripitus (Talk) 03:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Dionemap.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hurricane Devon (notify | contribs).
  • It's a nice image but instead of the 2005 versions, Image:Dione PIA08413.jpg is the 2008 version that NASA made of Dione. Now orphaned and completely UE. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The two photos might one day be used for a comparison, either to illustrate the increase in quality from 2005 to 2008 or someone actually finds a new crater in the 2008 image.
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.

Image:Interview--XGEN.pdf edit

Image:Interview--XGEN.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ajaydata (notify | contribs).
  • PDF file (a bad format that should be avoided) which is unused and contains the interview of a non-notable person. As an interview, it is almost certainly either a copyvio or original research. J Milburn (talk) 11:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BrettAnderson2008.jpg 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 debate was: 

- Delete - while the below conversation may truly reflect that the image is correctly licenced, it does appear on a commercial website (www.brettanderson.co.uk) and there needs to be an OTRS email to confirm that it has been freely licenced - Will drop a note on uploaders talk page about this - Peripitus (Talk) 04:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:BrettAnderson2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by P586 (notify | contribs).
  • Photo tagged as {self|cc-by-3.0}, but author is stated to be "Paul Khera" -- Wbrz (talk) 14:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note the user name P586. P like Paul? If he doesn't respond to the notifications on his talk page, delete per nomination though. De728631 (talk) 01:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


i've uploaded some photographs which i own, to allow them to be freely used, which are all listed for deletion, why do you have copyright choices from your list which mean that the image will be deleted, surely better not to let them be uploaded, rather than involving me in excessive admin, for trying to give you images for free, essentially i think wiki is great, but i dont have the will to work out what you want regarding the copyright of my images —Preceding unsigned comment added by P586 (talk • contribs) 07:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • That seems to be a "Promotional photo". -- Wbrz (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


whether it's promotional or not doesnt seem to have any relevance to it's copyright status?

There are countless promotional images in wikipedia

Your comment doesnt answer any of my queries

You can check other images on my site www.paulkhera.com

The image that replaces it doesnt show much of the man's face and is blurred

help me out here...

What kind of proof are you looking for that I am the owner of the image?

paulkhera —Preceding unsigned comment added by P586 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment: User P586 is Paul Khera (of www.paulkhera.com) owner of the image copyright. The picture he submitted is a recent picture of singer-songwriter Brett Anderson taken in Spring 2008 as the musician was recording his latest album "Wilderness". He is credited on the album and is also the photo-editor on the website www.brettanderson.co.uk . I have seen Mr Khera taking photographs of Mr Anderson in a professional capacity and the picture he submitted depicts the musician and the atmosphere of his music very well - as in "a picture says a thousand words". Furthermore, I have corresponded a few times with P586 regarding Mr Khera's photography and I can vouch that P586 and Mr Khera are the same person and therefore there is no breach of copyright and no reason for deletion. - d.a. hoffman, writer - www.geocities.com/zebras54 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.188.240 (talk) 11:47, 29 August 2008 (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.

Image:In Love Again.JPG edit

Image:In Love Again.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Billy4kate (notify | contribs).
  • Unused, at best useless as original research, at worst misleading. J Milburn (talk) 14:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikipic omernadeem.jpg edit

Image:Wikipic omernadeem.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by W1a2s3e4y5 (notify | contribs).
  • Picture for a soon to be deleted article. Source says from google. Possible copyvio. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wikipic omernadeem1.jpg edit

Image:Wikipic omernadeem1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by W1a2s3e4y5 (notify | contribs).
  • Picture for a soon to be deleted article. Sourced as facebook, but might be copyvio or just a self photograph. Wikipedia is not the place to upload personal self pictures. Undead Warrior (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blair logo.jpg edit

Image:Blair logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cmc0 (notify | contribs).
  • does not increase understanding. ViperSnake151 16:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - completely unnecessary non-free image for any of the articles it's currently used in. --Damiens.rf 16:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paris_Hilton_Responds_to_McCain_Ad.jpg edit

Image:Paris_Hilton_Responds_to_McCain_Ad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justmeherenow (notify | contribs).
  • Following the closure of this discussion and deletion of that image, Justmeherenow has reuploaded a noncropped version of the still from the video. This image fails the NFCC for all the same reasons that the previous version did. Now that the article has been merged, there is even less of an argument for keeping it since there are numerous free images of Paris Hilton already available on that page. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as it's basically a reupload of deleted material. Although uncropped, the use and origin of this image is basically the same of the previously deleted file. --Damiens.rf 16:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thomas_Sankara.jpg edit

Image:Thomas_Sankara.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Acntx (notify | contribs).

Image:Jean_Servais_Rififi.jpg edit

Image:Jean_Servais_Rififi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tlinsenm (notify | contribs).

Image:New_Yorker_1980_10_27_p194.jpg edit

Image:New_Yorker_1980_10_27_p194.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tomgally (notify | contribs).
  • fails WP:NFCC8 - don't need copyrighted image to demonstrate colon usage (can be easily conveyed in words) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this really copyrightable? Doesn't {{PD-ineligible}} apply here? If not, delete per nominator. --Damiens.rf 17:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wouldn't the passage be copyrighted? I feel like this would be the same case as a pdf copy of a page out of a book. It's not so much that the font is copyright (since it isn't), but that the information in the text is. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, the text itself is copyrighted. Obviously this isn't a huge deal, since it's a short excerpt, but it's just totally unnecessary to the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Indeed, very subtle. We would have to claim fair use of the text, in order to illustrate the discussion about The New Yorker's witting style. And while I think this would be a good example of fair usage, I'm with Calliopejen1 that we can do without this in Wikipedia, and thus, WP:NFCC#8 isn't satisfied. Delete. --Damiens.rf 17:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aleko-moskvitch.jpg edit

Image:Aleko-moskvitch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Josef_Sábl_cz (notify | contribs).

Image:Prien-hitler-schmidt.jpg edit

Image:Prien-hitler-schmidt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).
  • copyright holder not identified, also violates WP:NFCC8 (doesn't add significantly to readers' understanding). note that we already have a free image showing what he looks like. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:25, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MorrisonTribute.jpg edit

Image:MorrisonTribute.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).

Image:FvSwWP.jpg edit

Image:FvSwWP.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ansbachdragoner (notify | contribs).
  • violates WP:NFCC3a (already have another nonfree image showing what he looks like), WP:NFCC8 (doesn't add anything beyond the other nonfree image) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Someone might want to write an article about Walter Plöw who is on the image. De728631 (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that there is already another nonfree image of Walter Plow in the article. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um, the article linked to FvSwWP.jpg is about Fritz von Scholz and yes, von Scholz has got two non-free images. But Walter Plöw doesn't even exist yet and that image seems to be the only one of him on here. De728631 (talk) 11:43, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry. Still, we cannot keep around a nonfree image because it might be useful someday. It is not needed in the FvS article, so it should be removed. Then it is orphaned, but we can't keep orphaned nonfree images. If it ever needs to be undeleted, we can undelete it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FritzvScholz1.jpg edit

Image:FritzvScholz1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ansbachdragoner (notify | contribs).
  • violates WP:NFCC3a (already have another nonfree image showing what he looks like), WP:NFCC8 (doesn't add anything beyond the other nonfree image) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Totally redundant. De728631 (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GMSoutside.jpg edit

Image:GMSoutside.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bensun (notify | contribs).

Image:Sword.style1.jpg 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 debate was: 

- Keep - Peripitus (Talk) 05:34, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Sword.style1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stbalbach (notify | contribs).
  • replaceable (presumably someone could photograph a similar sword in a museum) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not replaceable. a) because such swords are definitely rare to find and museums showing them are even rarer; And b) all museums I've visited so far did not allow photographing objects at their exhibitions. De728631 (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about images like this (and other images in related articles)? Clearly some similar swords are in museums. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • They might look similar, but the styles are totally different. The 5th century sword doesn't have a crossguard yet and is merely plated with gold, while the other one from the 6th century does have a short crossguard and intricate ornaments. It is the evolution from the Roman spatha to medieval swords with full crossguards that may be documented by this image. De728631 (talk) 11:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative Keep, the image is used to illustrate some very specific stylistic properties, therefore not replaceable with just any other image of some other old sword. And given the fact that in most museums you can't easily (or legally) take photographs, I believe non-free photos are legitimate in such cases. This must be an image that a museum once provided for scholarship to use, this is how they want that item to be seen, so that's how we should use it. The only problem I see is that we don't know the ultimate source. The immediate web source doesn't even say where this particular sword is kept. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further comment: Found the museum. There is another (better) photograph of the same sword here, in a collection of promotional press kit photographs from Oslo Kulturhistorisk Museum (page here). Of course that image is still non-free. License conditions: " [...] can be used free of charge for editorial news coverage on The Museum of Cultural History [...] must not be reproduced for any purpose other than for that specified above without permission". Which unfortunately doesn't cover us. But it might be worth asking for permission for Wikipedia use. Well-documented source plus Permission plus watertight NFCC8 case = legitimate non-free use. Dang it, that museum charges very high fees for publication rights [1]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep reasonable rationale, unless we obtain permission for better. Museums that charge fees may be willing to forgive the fees if approached by someone who knows them, but only much more rarely to permit GFDL licensing. DGG (talk) 22:35, 31 August 2008 (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.

Image:Dogpatch_USA_Ticket.jpg edit

Image:Dogpatch_USA_Ticket.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by The_stuart (notify | contribs).

Image:Deisenhofer_-_near_Caen,_1944.jpg edit

Image:Deisenhofer_-_near_Caen,_1944.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ansbachdragoner (notify | contribs).
  • violates WP:NFCC3a - redundant to Image:Deisenhofer.jpg (also nonfree, used in same article) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:38, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, WP:NFCC3a is about having multiple non-free images that say "Here is the subject from this angle", "here he is from another angle", this isn't the case here; this is an image of the subject in the middle of a battle; and the image represents no financial loss to the copyright holder (the Third Reich, now Germany government). It would seem unwise to delete. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 18:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • But how does this add anything additional to the article that contributes to readers' understanding? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It contributes by showing that, while being called an "educated SS-man", which associates a leading role at a desk, this guy did not hide in a background office but saw combat in the field. Keep. De728631 (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And why can't we just write that he participated in combat Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because I see the fact tag crowd jumping on the article and question it until someone digs out an easily accessible source other than this image. De728631 (talk) 11:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • If no reliable source has ever written that he has participated in battle, clearly the fact is not important then? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:10, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - I don't see the need to see the guy at the battle field. --Damiens.rf 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Very blurry Mrmariokartguy (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ST-VOY_Unforgettable.jpg and others edit

Image:ST-VOY_Unforgettable.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Living_Witness.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Vis_a_Vis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_The_Killing_Game,Part1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Retrospect.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Random_Thoughts.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Year_of_Hell,Part2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_The_Chute.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Remember.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_False_Profits.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_The_Swarm.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Futures_End,Part1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Warlord.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Futures_End,Part2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_The_Q_and_the_Grey.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Fair_Trade.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Alter_Ego.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Darkling.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Scorpion,Part1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).
Image:ST-VOY_Rise.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thealok (notify | contribs).

Image:NOT_Travis_picking.PNG 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 debate was: 

- Keep - though I will delete the old version that existed when the Ifd Began - Peripitus (Talk) 05:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:NOT_Travis_picking.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hyacinth (notify | contribs).
  • replaceable - someone should be able to create an original sample of pattern picking Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prove it by doing it. Hyacinth (talk) 18:37, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, that's not how it works.... Why couldn't we create a free image? Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would a free image be different? Hyacinth (talk) 19:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could use a different tune, created by the author of the image. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a tune, it's an accompaniment pattern that may be played behind many tunes. Though pattern picking may be used to play tunes, this pattern does not. Hyacinth (talk) 03:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just meant different notes. Whether it's the melody is irrelevant, obviously. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I made an image exactly like the current one but transposed up a major second and did not credit the source, how would that be a free image? Hyacinth (talk) 17:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conversely, I could make an image with the same rhythm but with pitches that would stylistically never be used in pattern picking, not credit the source, and the image would be highly misleading. Hyacinth (talk) 17:18, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We need to distinguish two things here: the graphic realisation of the music typesetting, and the musical substance encoded by it. The graphical realisation has been re-done for Wikipedia, as I understand, and is therefore free. And the musical substance is not a copyrightable work at all. It is an entirely stereotypical, anonymous piece of material and hence doesn't meet the threshold of creativity required for copyright. Also, it is not a creative invention of the authors of the textbook from where it is taken; the textbook provides it just as a piece of information, in the sense of: this is what many people regularly do. (Analogy with language would be: It's more like a conjugation pattern in a grammar book than like a copyrighted poem.) Mere information as such is not copyrightable, hence it's free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify: I'd recommend re-tagging the image as a free one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete What is this?!?! Mrmariokartguy (talk) 01:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    See Fingerstyle guitar#Travis picking, where you will find a succinct description. Hyacinth (talk) 01:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not replaceable by unverified unsourced image, nor by image which is simply mis-tagged, if this article is not mis-tagged, which it may be. Hyacinth (talk) 01:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hyacinth, you being the author of the image file, could you then re-tag it as a free image? It's up to you to choose the license. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    May I do that, since it is currently nominated for deletion? Hyacinth (talk) 08:33, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, just leave the IfD tag in place for the sake of correctness until this gets closed. If this discussion should conclude that our argument is faulty, somebody will just change it back (or, alas, delete it). But I don't think that's likely at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Done. Hyacinth (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2008 (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.

Image:Save-ironcat,_Otakon_2003.jpg edit

Image:Save-ironcat,_Otakon_2003.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mitsukai (notify | contribs).

Image:Fu2hellf.jpg 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 debate was: 

- No Consensus - The kennedy one has been removed and there seems to be discussion in the article about this image which is enough to push it out from a delete result - Peripitus (Talk) 04:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Fu2hellf.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tktruong2 (notify | contribs).
  • violates WP:NFCC3a (redundant to Image:Hellgreenback.jpg) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • very weak keep - the different designs of these banknotes are in fact presented and discussed in the article, so I guess a case for keeping them can be made. I'd personally tend to remove the Kennedy one though. Two is more than enough. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:44, 3 September 2008 (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.

Image:IMG_0076.jpg edit

Image:IMG_0076.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thetruthaboutfgs (notify | contribs).
  • violates WP:NFCC3a (redundant to Image:Hellgreenback.jpg) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: not sure whether the presentation of non-free elements in this image overshadows the creative work of the photographer to such an extent we'd have to treat the photograph as a non-free work in the first place. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:China_hellnotekennedy.jpg edit

Image:China_hellnotekennedy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tktruong2 (notify | contribs).
  • violates WP:NFCC3a (redundant to Image:Hellgreenback.jpg) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. Given that typical designs of these notes are discussed extensively in the article, I'd tend to find two contrastive examples (like the US-dollar one and the Chinese one) permissible, but a third is surely not needed; the fact that it shows Kennedy can easily be understood by text alone and any further details of design are not crucial for the context. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brody-14WGdSS.jpg edit

Image:Brody-14WGdSS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ansbachdragoner (notify | contribs).
  • no copyright holder identified, very poor quality so it doesn't contribute to readers' understanding anyways Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ClarencePage.jpg edit

Image:ClarencePage.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mhym (notify | contribs).
  • Copyrighted image of a living journalist. Damiens.rf 17:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:OttoAbbadabbaBerman.JPG edit

Image:OttoAbbadabbaBerman.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mistergrind (notify | contribs).

Image:Harpo_a_la_Dali_.jpg edit

Image:Harpo_a_la_Dali_.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yossarian (notify | contribs).
  • violates WP:NFCC8 - does not add significantly to readers' understanding (several other images of him already in article) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Salvador Dali didn't portrait anyone who asked for it. A portrait by Dali underlines the importance of a subject, Harpo Marx in this case. De728631 (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need to show the painting to prove that Harpo Marx is important. If the fact of the painting is needed, it can be mentioned in the text. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Samael_Aun_Weor_Meditation.jpg edit

Image:Samael_Aun_Weor_Meditation.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by T._Baphomet (notify | contribs).

Image:Rochon_Sculpture_Gallery_outside.jpg edit

Image:Rochon_Sculpture_Gallery_outside.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ianthegecko (notify | contribs).

Image:Anka2-2.jpg 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 debate was: 

- Delete - while it could be used in the article noted by De728631 it is not currently and fails the NFCC requirements for the current article - Peripitus (Talk) 04:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Anka2-2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Darinderelict (notify | contribs).
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.

Image:HeinrichiHitler.jpg edit

Image:HeinrichiHitler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).
With all due respect, bullshit; an image of Heinrichi and Hitler together at a party says a lot more than an image of a man in a hat. There is no private copyright holder, the image perfectly satisifies FU criteria. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 20:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is your only warning to be civil and refrain from personal attacks on Wikipedia. Intimidation in IFD will not be tolerated. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - image is not helpful for the understanding of the article. --Damiens.rf 20:48, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Salvatore_Riina.jpg edit

Image:Salvatore_Riina.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Orzetto (notify | contribs).
  • copyright holder unknown, possibly replaceable, Image:Salvatore Riina ID Card.jpg is a better nonfree image to identify him anyways because it's not a press photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Queens1977GoldenJubileeMedal.gif edit

Image:Queens1977GoldenJubileeMedal.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dowew (notify | contribs).
  • replaceable with a free photo (even if the object is necessarily nonfree). 60,000 of these were distributed, we should be able to take a photo of one of them. Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question about this, if the object itself is copyrighted, what is the issue here; any image uploaded, regardless of who takes the picture, will always be non-free. I don't think there is any question an image (which will always be non-free) is warranted in the article. I am willing to be convinced, but currently, keep. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here though, we have to invoke the doctrine of fair use with respect to two copyrights - that of the photographer, and that of the medal-maker. We should delete this in favor of a photo whose licensing allows us to only worry about the latter. Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I have been convinced -- it makes sense. I wonder tho, is there somewhere that it could be posted that the article will need a new image? I can easily see that once this image is deleted, someone will come along and realize that there is no image in the article and then go looking for one -- the easy way to find one will likely result in one with the same issues. Is there a Medal group or a photo-request page we can notify?--Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Found a project and have notified them here.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up - image has been replaced PalawanOz (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cap_ufrj_wall.jpg edit

Image:Cap_ufrj_wall.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LaVega (notify | contribs).
* 'delete - clear case of nfcc2 violation. --Damiens.rf 21:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Moidedos.jpg edit

Image:Moidedos.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kikoogay (notify | contribs).
  • Kikoogay is a vandal on French wikipedia (using sock puppets). He uploaded this image from rotten.com (so there is a probable copyvio) in order to vandalize an article. Chphe (d) 20:19, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fonddecranfacile.jpg edit

Image:Fonddecranfacile.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kikoogay (notify | contribs).

Image:Howe802.jpg edit

Image:Howe802.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MJR (notify | contribs).

Image:DDandBBDougherty.jpg edit

Image:DDandBBDougherty.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dankstick (notify | contribs).
  • copyright holder not identified, fails WP:NFCC8 (does not significantly contribute to readers' understanding) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete decorative image. --Damiens.rf 21:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TonyEsposito.jpg edit

Image:TonyEsposito.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MJR (notify | contribs).
  • Copyrighted image of a living person (WP:NFCC#1). Additionally, this is an image used to illustrate a hockey player's bio, that was copied from this player's bio at a hockey specialized site. That hockey-site may see our web-accessible bio as competition, what makes our use completely unfair. Damiens.rf 21:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fantômas.jpg 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 debate was: 

- Keep as the licence has been changed the nominator's rationale has been addressed. No objection to this image returning here though for discussion as invalid fair use - Peripitus (Talk) 04:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Fantômas.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tasoskessaris (notify | contribs).
  • apparent screenshot from 1964 film, no reason given that this is under GFDL Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I found it at another wikipedia and there it was licensed under GFDL. I'll change it to fair use immediately. Dr.K. (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the link where it is listed as GFDL (also on image page): eo.wikipedia.org. If you don't think this is valid we can keep it here under Fair use. Dr.K. (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
License changed to Fair use. Dr.K. (talk) 23:28, 27 August 2008 (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.

Image:Kryptonian.svg edit

Image:Kryptonian.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PJonDevelopment (notify | contribs).
  • The file is a vector image the uploader created (stated as original source) based on elements from the Superman comics published by DC Comics and used within the television show Smallville. At best this is a character font for English, at worst a constructed language. In either case it is an element that would be protected under copyright by DC, not the uploader. Scans of the use of the graphic element in either the comics or the television show would be reasonable fair use. This isn't. J Greb (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think we used to be able to speedy images if they were uploaded with the wrong license, not sure if that still applies. Hiding T 09:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: how is this image different from the similar Image:Interlac Landscape.JPG? According to the article, both are simply substitution ciphers (although the Kryptonian graphic doesn't give the correspondence). Does the Interlac image have similar copyright problems? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:32, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The honest answer is no. The only difference is that I wasn't aware the interlac image was there. And being a "simply substitution ciphers* isn't a good defense when the image is of a typeface/font. And that's what both this and interlac are: fonts created for a specific purpose within the comics. They have been used both as "objects" — part of the artwork — and as "text" — within word balloons and captions. The interlac one should be nommed as well.
      And IIRC the interlac "key", or something close to it, was published by DC on a letters page. That image would be valid to pull for a NFC image. Almost any othe "key" is going to be from a source book, which isn't usable. Again, the best likely image for wither is going to be a scan of the font in use. I know there are a few good images from Smallville for the Kryptonese, and one really good Legion" cover for interlac. - J Greb (talk) 22:41, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bat Logo.svg edit

Image:Bat Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PJonDevelopment (notify | contribs).
  • The file is a vector image the uploader created (stated as original source) based on a key visual element for the character Batman from comics published by DC Comics. This is an element that would be protected under copyright and trademark by DC, not the uploader. Scans of the use of the element in either the comics would be reasonable fair use. This isn't. As a side note, I've changed the liscence from {{PD-self}} to {{non-free logo}} but the source is still very questionable. J Greb (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think we used to be able to speedy images if they were uploaded with teh wrong license, not sure if that still applies. Hiding T 09:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Superman Logo.svg edit

Image:Superman Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PJonDevelopment (notify | contribs).
  • The file is a vector image the uploader created (stated as original source) based on a key visual element for the character Superman from comics published by DC Comics. This is an element that would be protected under copyright and trademark by DC, not the uploader. Scans of the use of the element in either the comics would be reasonable fair use. This isn't. As a side note, I've changed the liscence from {{PD-self}} to {{non-free logo}} but the source is still very questionable. J Greb (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think we used to be able to speedy images if they were uploaded with teh wrong license, not sure if that still applies. Hiding T 09:09, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Devils.jpg edit

Image:Devils.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Evhs00 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphan, probably copyvio. Uploader is indef blocked as a sockpuppet, most/many of his other uploaded images have already been deleted as copyvios. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_August_27&oldid=1089074300"