Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 November 17

< November 16	November 18 >

November 17

File:428774625 921399c7b1 o.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:428774625 921399c7b1 o.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ocifuen (notify | contribs).

OR, subject not identified, no encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 02:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyright violation. Hekerui (talk) 08:44, 17 November 2009 (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:Alcazargay2.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Alcazargay2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Londonstan (notify | contribs).

OR, blurred, subjects not ID'd - no target article Skier Dude (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2009 (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:811823731 m.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:811823731 m.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ludilyts (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, no encyc use or target article Skier Dude (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2009 (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:Levi-strauss 260.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: - Kept - permission has been received via OTRS and the image is now free. Kudos to Evenfiel for obtaining a free quality image - Peripitus (Talk) 20:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Levi-strauss 260.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Evenfiel (notify | contribs).

Same reason as recend ffd: WP:Files for deletion/2009_November_5#File:Levi-Strauss1939.jpg Damiens.rf 03:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't see how it can be the same reason. The other picture was deleted because "Copyright unknown. This image was just grabbed from a blog/forum.", but the one I uploaded was taken from UNESCO and the copyright is given. Evenfiel (talk) 12:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That was not the reason it was deleted. Follow the link again and read the whole nomination (instead of just the few first words) and read also the closing admin's rationale. You can't be this lazy. --Damiens.rf 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see then. You said that it should be deleted due to (My answers inside the brackets) Copyright unknown (The copyright of the image I've uploaded is correctly tagged). This image was just grabbed from a blog/forum (Taken from UNESCO). Although this man died last Saturday, he has been photographed professionally and unprofessionally a thousand of times in life (The affirmation that he was was photographed unprofessionally a thousand times is completely baseless). There's no reason for using a non-free image (Fair use). Let alone one randomly copied from the Internet (Certainly not randomly copied. I chose one which had a clear copyright). Evenfiel (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is dead so no Wikipedian can reasonably obtain a new free image, so the reason living people articles don't allow fair-use images doesn't apply. Hekerui (talk) 13:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Death doesn't immediately implies irreplaceabillity. A lot of old and recent discussions (some even involving Jimbo himself) had established that. --Damiens.rf 20:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stated "new free image". Regardless, there is an absence of clarity on the issue (and no advice on how long dead someone has to be to get an image either etc.). KeepHekerui (talk) 20:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Note that I was the closing admin on the previous debate. Looking on the net he was a very widely photographed person. I can see absolutely no evidence that anyone has spent a reasonable effort to obtain a free image. There not being a free image findable in a few minutes on google search means nothing for this type of subject. If someone were to present evidence they had put in a reasonable effort I might be convinced but here we have the process.... person dies->grab and image from the web->must be irreplaceable as they are dead. Unless this search is evident, especially for such a widely photographed person, this image clearly is replaceable with a free alternative that could be found or created and fails WP:NFCC#1 - Peripitus (Talk) 21:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about the free artist's impression that is used for his article on most other language sites - File:Levi-strauss-by-pablo-secca.png ? - Peripitus (Talk) 21:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this painted after a photograph? If so, this would be more problematic because it makes a copyrighted image "free" via derivative work. Hekerui (talk) 22:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through all the google images results, and found one unprofessional picture, which doesn't seems suitable. Lévi-Strauss always was a very reserved person, specially during the last few years of his life. He hardly appeared in public. He was only widely photographed professionally, in private circumstances, like interviews. I seriously doubt that a wikipedian could have bumped into him in a Parisian café during the last few decades of his life, or even attend a public lecture, which was also rare after his retirement in the 80s. You and Damiens.rf say that he was widely photographed unprofessionally. How exactly did you reach that conclusion? Can you prove it to me? It seems that he was only photographed professionally. His English Wiki page is around since 2001. There are articles about him in almost 50 other wikis. In eight years, no free image of him surfaced, even though he's a well known scholar. Evenfiel (talk) 02:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this free painting has noted "My drawings aren't based on photographs or any one source, just my impression of the men (and women) from watching videos of them, looking at lots of photos." - I cannot see anything that this could be said to be a derivative work of. As for the free image....has anyone spent the time to contact copyright holders of existing images and asked for a free one ? - Peripitus (Talk) 03:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've contacted two persons, but I'm waiting for a reply. Evenfiel (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Ravassard, who took the picture in question for deletion, just gave me a CC-BY permission to use his picture. I've forwarded his permission to Wiki commons. I believe this issue is settled. Evenfiel (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2009 (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:MiyazakiAoi Olympus.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MiyazakiAoi Olympus.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JKSarang (notify | contribs).

Currently unused in the article the rationale is written for, no rationale given for the current use in Aoi Miyazaki. In any case, lacks contextual significance and the rationale seems rather specious and appears completely unrelated to the image. Mosmof (talk) 05:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 15:26, 17 November 2009 (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:YoonSoYi ShadowlessSword.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:YoonSoYi ShadowlessSword.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JKSarang (notify | contribs).

Decorative image without contextual significance. Simple screenshot in an article about the actor without any commentary or discussion of the image itself. Mosmof (talk) 05:58, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NFCC#8. ww2censor (talk) 15:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per ww2censor Hekerui (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'm not seeing what knowing what the actress looked like while portraying this character is adding to the article. Purely decorative. J Milburn (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2009 (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:Gourmetcharacterschart.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gourmetcharacterschart.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JKSarang (notify | contribs).

Image without contextual significance. A character link tree/diagram could be created without use of non-free images. Mosmof (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Illustrates the relationship between the characters of the drama. A character link tree/diagram could be created without use of non-free images. But there isn't any without non-free images so it can stay. Colleen16 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Images are not required for a chart. Ω phois 21:18, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Individual images of the characters cannot be uploaded here so using a chart is sufficient and this chart was published by SBS. JKSarang 15:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Free chart could be created with words, the character portraits are not required and are decorative. J Milburn (talk) 12:11, 19 November 2009 (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:MISC27x.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MISC27x.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Puzhok (notify | contribs).

The user has removed a "no source" tag. I doubt they are the copyright holder. I think they believe they are the copyright holder since they scanned it... Killiondude (talk) 06:51, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a photograph that was given to me by the person in the photo as a Christmas card. I have scanned the card, and cropped the area around his face. 23 November 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzhok (talk • contribs) 17:31, 23 November 2009 (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:NCAA Football 2001 Coverart.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NCAA Football 2001 Coverart.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Salavat (notify | contribs).

A video game cover image is unnecessary to communicate to readers that Shaun Alexander appeared on a video game cover. Mosmof (talk) 07:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Originally it was on the NCAA Football 2001. I guess someone added it to the players article and then when the game got merged it was just completely overlooked. I definately support deletion as the uploader. Salavat (talk) 07:25, 17 November 2009 (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:MizzouSI.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 - consensus is that it fails NFCC#8 Peripitus (Talk) 23:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MizzouSI.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grey Wanderer (notify | contribs).

Cover not specifically discussed in the image, failing WP:NFCC#8 for contextual significance. The appearance of the team may have been important to the program, but the image itself is not. Mosmof (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: decorative image fails WP:NFCC#8 in 2007 Missouri Tigers football team. ww2censor (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. lead paragraph of 2007 Missouri Tigers football team now discusses the cover as significant as the first time the tigers appeared on the cover of the publication and represents first time the team had been placed under national scrutiny. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You can communicate to viewers that the program made the SI cover without showing the image. As far as I can tell, the cover image was not part of the story. We're not talking about the Demi Moore Vanity Fair cover here. --Mosmof (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2009 (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:Th 2pts.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Th 2pts.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bucs (notify | contribs).

Inadequate rationale for two-point conversion or Tampa Bay Buccaneers. A free image can be created for the former and the image does nothing to help the reader understand the subject in the latter. Mosmof (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2009 (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:Ladyvols.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ladyvols.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Irish Souffle (notify | contribs).

Decorative image with no significance of its own right, fails WP:NFCC#8 Mosmof (talk) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (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:Playful Sunny Afternnoon 2009.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Playful Sunny Afternnoon 2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jandlfraser (notify | contribs).

Low quality, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (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:ST Kilda Days 2009.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ST Kilda Days 2009.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jandlfraser (notify | contribs).

Dim, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 07:37, 17 November 2009 (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:Paul Henderson 1972.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: kept Skier Dude (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Paul Henderson 1972.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Resolute (notify | contribs).

Although the image may show a significant, unpeatable moment, there is no indication that the image itself is notable, and there is no contextual significance to the image other than to illustrate accompanying text. Mosmof (talk) 07:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As noted in the FU rationale, the image itself is considered iconic, and text alone cannot capture the emotion of the moment, which is considered one of the greatest in hockey history. It is used exclusively in an article on hockey history in a section that specifically discusses the event. As to the notability of the image itself: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. It is the image of the event, and its enduring fame is very easy to show. Reso lute 14:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Resolute, this is an iconic image that is pretty much the image of the event, and pictures can convey alot that words cannot, and this is one of those situations. -DJSasso (talk) 16:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I stand corrected - image itself is pretty iconic and notable. But as far as I can see, there is no mention of the photograph or its notability within the section. It seems that the image is being used to illustrate the event rather than to illustrate itself. Non-free images aren't used to illustrate what is already described in news reports or "capture the emotion of the moment". Given the sources already cited in the rationale, it probably wouldn't be too hard write a section about the photograph. I'd be happy to do it when I have a spare 20 minutes, but I'd defer to editors who've already worked on the article. --Mosmof (talk) 00:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was figuring you might say that. ;) I'll add a sentence or two on the NHL history article, likely tomorrow, to satisfy this. The image itself could (and should) get greater coverage on the Summit Series article, but that likely wont happen for a bit. Reso lute 01:02, 18 November 2009 (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:C Gleeson Phoenix Park Monument.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:C Gleeson Phoenix Park Monument.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Car200606 (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, wrong rotation, date watermark Skier Dude (talk) 08:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unnecessary in this layout and we have a very similar image on the commons at: Commons:File:Ireland - Dublin - Phoenix Park - Wellington Monument 2.jpg. ww2censor (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2009 (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:BuckyBadger.png

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BuckyBadger.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Edddeduck (notify | contribs).

Unused non-free image, universally replaced by svg version. Hekerui (talk) 08:42, 17 November 2009 (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:Sero kevqa.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sero kevqa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kevorkmail (notify | contribs).

Delete: "Armenia has freedom of panorama limited to de minimis use and non-commercial purposes." per commons:Commons:Licensing#Armenia but this is clearly no a de minimis use. ww2censor (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2009 (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:East horndon petrol station.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:East horndon petrol station.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dabbishaw (notify | contribs).

Copyright attribution displayed in image. oneblackline (talk) 15:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is free and used. Watermarking is not a reason to delete as it can be fairly easily removed - Peripitus (Talk) 14:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image is also over manipulated, and this cannot be corrected by anybody other than the author. The image will eventually be deleted anyway when it's corrected counterpart is transferred to the commons. oneblackline (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2009 (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:Elliots nightclub 2009.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elliots nightclub 2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dabbishaw (notify | contribs).

Copyright attribution displayed in image. oneblackline (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is free and used. Watermarking is not a reason to delete as it can be fairly easily removed - Peripitus (Talk) 14:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image is also over manipulated, and this cannot be corrected by anybody other than the author. The image will eventually be deleted anyway when it's corrected counterpart is transferred to the commons. oneblackline (talk) 16:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the image is free and used in an article. Free and used images should not be deleted - find a better one to replace it - Peripitus (Talk) 05:14, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the attribution graphic; it's not clear whether we should believe the image is free, or it's copyright belongs to the author. And the image is over-manipulated, and keeping it is not going to change it, or change the manipulation which distracts from and overburdens the subject. oneblackline (talk) 22:32, 30 November 2009 (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:Img 8848 18x12 jpg w680.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Img 8848 18x12 jpg w680.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dabbishaw (notify | contribs).

Copyright attribution displayed in image. oneblackline (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is free and used. Watermarking is not a reason to delete as it can be fairly easily removed - Peripitus (Talk) 14:01, 20 November 2009 (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:BenfleetClock.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:BenfleetClock.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dabbishaw (notify | contribs).

Copyright attribution displayed in image. oneblackline (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is free and used. Watermarking is not a reason to delete as it can be fairly easily removed - Peripitus (Talk) 14:01, 20 November 2009 (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:Bluebellswood.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bluebellswood.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dabbishaw (notify | contribs).

Copyright attribution displayed in image. oneblackline (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is free and used. Watermarking is not a reason to delete as it can be fairly easily removed - Peripitus (Talk) 14:01, 20 November 2009 (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:Wattyler 2a.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wattyler 2a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dabbishaw (notify | contribs).

Copyright attribution displayed in image. oneblackline (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is free and used. Watermarking is not a reason to delete as it can be fairly easily removed - Peripitus (Talk) 14:01, 20 November 2009 (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:Wattyler 1a.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wattyler 1a.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dabbishaw (notify | contribs).

Copyright attribution displayed in image. oneblackline (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is free and used. Watermarking is not a reason to delete as it can be fairly easily removed - Peripitus (Talk) 14:01, 20 November 2009 (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:Wattyler 3.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wattyler 3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dabbishaw (notify | contribs).

Copyright attribution displayed in image. oneblackline (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is free and used. Watermarking is not a reason to delete as it can be fairly easily removed - Peripitus (Talk) 14:01, 20 November 2009 (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:Img 8906 12x18 jpg h680.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: The result of the discussion was Keep; watermarking is not a valid reason for deletion. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Img 8906 12x18 jpg h680.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dabbishaw (notify | contribs).

Copyright attribution displayed in image. oneblackline (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wouldn't it make more sense to crop out the watermark rather than rush to delete these? Resolute 15:46, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Cropping would be the cheap option because most are pretty well composed; however they're also over processed, and considering I would've transferred them to the commons had this (and the copyright graphics) not been the case (meaning they would be deleted anyway) - I think deleting them now would save a lot of hassle... and a bit of drive space. oneblackline (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for drive space: images are not usually totally erased, I managed to have File:Bmk.JPG restored in August 2009 after it was mistakenly deleted in September 2008. Hekerui (talk) 17:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the deleted files are simply removed from public access and retained for a set period (say 12 months) in case of exceptional circumstances... e.g. the realisation that a deleted image was the last unique image of a notable person before their death, or a building before demolition... but I'm not sure this would be an efficient policy; and would seem to be taking too much responsibility for image makers.oneblackline (talk) 17:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like any other edit, an image is permanently retained. It is simply hidden from view unless un-deleted. Reso lute 20:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It the problem that a) the work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License, or b) the watermark. If b), cropping would be sensible. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case perhaps cropping would be acceptable, but others are also over-manipulated. All the users images I've nominated for deletion are attentively composed and the cropping would eliminate this, so I thought it would be considerate to allow Dabbishaw to correct the images himself and upload them straight to the commons. oneblackline (talk) 16:04, 21 November 2009 (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:Img 8848 18x12 jpg w680.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: The result of the discussion was:Keep; watermarking is not a valid reason for deletion. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Img 8848 18x12 jpg w680.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dabbishaw (notify | contribs).

Copyright attribution displayed in image. oneblackline (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is free and used. Watermarking is not a reason to delete as it can be fairly easily removed - Peripitus (Talk) 13:58, 20 November 2009 (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:Img 1062 3 4 jpg h680.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Img 1062 3 4 jpg h680.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dabbishaw (notify | contribs).

Copyright attribution displayed in image. oneblackline (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is free and used. Watermarking is not a reason to delete as it can be fairly easily removed - Peripitus (Talk) 13:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The image is also over manipulated, and this cannot be corrected by anybody other than the author. The image will eventually be deleted anyway when it's corrected counterpart is transferred to the commons. oneblackline (talk) 16:17, 21 November 2009 (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:Img 0985 6 7 a jpg h680.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: Relisted at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Img 0985 6 7 a jpg h680.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dabbishaw (notify | contribs).

Copyright attribution displayed in image. oneblackline (talk) 15:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the image is free and used. Watermarking is not a reason to delete as it can be fairly easily removed - Peripitus (Talk) 13:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An image is already used to describe this building. The image is also over manipulated, and this cannot be corrected by anybody other than the author. The image will eventually be deleted anyway when it's corrected counterpart is transferred to the commons. oneblackline (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2009 (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:Otto Strandman stamp.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 01:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Otto Strandman stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Karabinier (notify | contribs).

- Delete: No fair-use rationale for the current use. Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 17:07, 17 November 2009 (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:Pakstamp.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pakstamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Drshenoy (notify | contribs).

- Delete: No fair-use rationale. Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. Pakistan copyright for non-photographs lasts for 50 years after author's death and this is a 1960 stamp. ww2censor (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2009 (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:Savitribai phule stamp.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Savitribai phule stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shivashree (notify | contribs).

- Delete: No fair-use rationale for one current use. Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose is already perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image in one article and not in the other. ww2censor (talk) 18:04, 17 November 2009 (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:Semmelweis stamp Austria 1965.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 - this is still tagged as non-free, and there are free images currently used in the article. PhilKnight (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Semmelweis stamp Austria 1965.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Power.corrupts (notify | contribs).

- Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp (there are already two images of the subject in the article Ignaz Semmelweis) and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 18:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Keep Looked around for other Austrian stamps on Commons and found File:Stamp Austria 1964-1193-UPU.jpg - stamps are in public domain. Tried to copy template {{PD-AustrianGov}} but it is not recognized in Wikipedia. Solution: Transfer to Commons and add the template there. I don't know how to operate the bot that does that. To ww2censor: I'm on/off Wikipedia depending on other committments; I believe it would be more constructive for the Encyclopedia to leave a note on my talk page, asking for clarification, instead of hacking content away with only seven days notice. Power.corrupts (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually the use of the {{PD-AustrianGov}} template might be an invalid licence for Austrian stamps even though I was the editor who specifically added that template to commons:File:Stamp Austria 1964-1193-UPU.jpg but now think was incorrect. It appears that interpretation of Austrian law is too liberal to include stamps as official works: if they have been published as part of a law or official decree or edict, or if they have been released as an official announcement or for public information. ww2censor (talk) 05:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldnt a 100 years commemoration for somebody's death qualify as the latter, public information? I would still say that the existing non-free rationale, if relevant at all, is quite solid. Power.corrupts (talk) 09:07, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but only if it was a law or official decree or edict which a stamp is not. ww2censor (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The seven days limit is soon up and your language is vague. Should all Austrian stamps for which no law or official decree or edict is registered be deleted, or what is your view on this? Power.corrupts (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2009 (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:Reda 2008.gif

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 - this is a non-free image of a living person, and so is deemed replaceable. PhilKnight (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Reda 2008.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fredy.00 (notify | contribs).

Non-free image of a living person. Replaceable with a free image that could be created. No evidence that anyone has tried to obtain such an image. Fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 21:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once a suitable free replacement for this image is found, feel free to nominate for deletion, but until then, this should be kept. Mononomic (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per WP:NFCC#1, which states: Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. A free equivalent can be created, making this file breach our non-free content criteria policy. — ξ^xplicit 05:38, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Meh, I doubt we'll ever find a free image, but I guess deleting wouldn't be the end of the world. Go ahead with whatever you like. Maybe I should just keep my mouth shut ;) Mononomic (talk) 06:01, 29 November 2009 (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:Siarhei Papok.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Siarhei Papok.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Andrei Anghelov (notify | contribs).

Delete: No fair-use rationale. Replaceable image fails WP:NFCC#1 and is using a postage stamp licence when it is in not even a stamp. ww2censor (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2009 (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.