Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 October 11
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| < October 10 | October 12 > |
|---|
October 11
[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:Olive-oyl-tickle.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Oanabay04 (notify | contribs).
- The film this media is taken from is not in public domain (copyright is owned by Turner Entertainment), and image is not being properly used for fair use (film is question not mentioned in text) FuriousFreddy (talk) 00:58, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- Comment Hmm, yeah according to this the B&W version was properly registered in 1934, renewed in 1961 (and the colorized version was re-registered in 1988 as "new matter"). So the {{PD-US-not renewed}} tag seem to be mis-applied here. --Sherool (talk) 14:22, 11 October 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.
- 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⚡ 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:Alice Roberts Namibia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scubadoo2 (notify | contribs).
- looks like image has been copied from a website - such as www.telegraph.co.uk and Robert's own website Snowman (talk) 11:08, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I am the webmaster for Alice Roberts and we have permission from the BBC to use these images for non-commercial purposes. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubadoo2 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- Commons has a photograph of Roberts with an appropriate creative commons license, which was in the infobox before being replaced by the image in question. If the image in question is non-commercial, as reported here, it can be replaced with the commons image. Snowman (talk) 10:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- Delete while Wikipedia itself is a non-profit the rules prohibit the use of images that are only allowed for non-profit purposes. That is a "non-free" restrictions on it's use, and since we already have a free licensed photo it doesn't qualify for use under the non-free content policy. --Sherool (talk) 12:45, 18 October 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.
That's a shame because the original image is a bad photo and Alice wanted to have this one instead. It's a BBC publicity photo and as such should be allowed. This explains why there are no nice photos of peoplw on Wiki! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scubadoo2 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 23 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- 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⚡ 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:1541047136 l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ONLINEUKNEWS (notify | contribs).
- Not used since the assosiated article was deleted, copyright status might be questionable since it's a photo of a bunch of photos. Sherool (talk) 14:08, 11 October 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.
- 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⚡ 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:Wrythepublicpark.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Qwertyuiop1994 (notify | contribs).
- Image used only in a thrice deleted article Empire of Austenasia. No other possible use for this image. SpinningSpark 14:20, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- It is not got a copyright licence, so it can not be uploaded to commons. Without a copyright licence it should be deleted from en wiki. Snowman (talk) 18:14, 12 October 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.
- 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⚡ 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:Austenasianemperor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Qwertyuiop1994 (notify | contribs).
- Image used only in a thrice deleted article Empire of Austenasia. No other possible use for this image. SpinningSpark 14:22, 11 October 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.
- 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: Never Mind Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:WhyDontWeJustDance.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CloversMallRat (notify | contribs).
- Not a single cover; rather, a placeholder image used by retail sites. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 15:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- Keep - somtimes a single cover is just an image, such as this. Examples: and CloversMallRat (talk) 19:22, 11 October 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.
- 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⚡ 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:Charlotte Lewis thumb.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Photoart999 (notify | contribs).
- Extremely dubious/undocumented licensing claim; apparently professional photo of prominent actress uploaded by SPA with blanket copyright release, but without any indication uploader actually controls rights to image; no unrelated contributions from uploader Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:33, 11 October 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.
- 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⚡ 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:Bobbyrobson autobio.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dave101 (notify | contribs).
- In the context of free images such as File:Bobby Robson Cropped.jpg, this doesn't add much. PhilKnight (talk) 18:39, 11 October 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.
- 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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:Old speckled un.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HJ_Mitchell (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable image and was tagged as such. However, I've declined the speedy, and brought it here for discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- Comment. My thanks to PhilKnight for his diligence in bringing the matter here. I have been unable to locate a "free" alternative to this image via a google image search. I feel that an image such as this is important in the article "Old Speckled Hen" as the vehicle it depicts is an essential part of the subject's history. Should another user have suggestions to look for an alternative image, I would be more than willing, should an alternative image arise, to add the "free" image and dispose of the "fair use" one. HJMitchell You rang? 22:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- Is there any reason that a free image couldn't be created? The non-free content criteria are clear that non-free images should not be replaceable, not merely replaced. J Milburn (talk) 23:38, 11 October 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.
- 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⚡ 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:FaradayDualActionPull.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wile e2005 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:20, 11 October 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.
- 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⚡ 05:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:Simplex40999003.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wile e2005 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:20, 11 October 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.
- 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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:LeBlanc-Clinton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Miesianiacal (notify | contribs).
- What this image is adding to the article is completely beyond me. We already use a non-free image of the subject, we don't need a second showing him speaking in an official capacity. J Milburn (talk) 23:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- Image orphaned as decorative non-free image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- It's a tad bit disingenuous to delete the file from the only article it was in and then come here and say it's orphaned. If anything, it illustrates LeBlanc carrying out his official duties as Governor General, hosting the head of state of another country. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 23:45, 12 October 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.
- 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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:John Diefenbaker - JFK 1961 - LAC PA154665.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Franamax (notify | contribs).
- Image apparently "illustrates an important historical event". Quite why this "important historical event" needs to be illustrated is not explained, and is beyond me. Furthermore, if it's really that important and features the US president, there are going to be PD images about. J Milburn (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- The Library and Archives Canada website states that there are no restrictions on the use of this image. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- Well, so one might think, but it turns out that LAC has a rather different idea of what "Restrictions on use: Nil" actually means. :( Here is the Commons discussion where they all got deleted from that venue. Here is the LAC rep outlining their position via email, and here is the LAC permissions page. Except for those images unambiguously out of copyright (where we can safely ignore LAC's claims to continuing ownership), I do believe we have to treat these images as non-free. It would be nice if LAC wouldn't be a bunch of jerks about it, but I don't think there's much that we can do. Franamax (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- Thanks for the background. LAC's stance certainly does smack of duplicity; no restrictions on use but get our permission first!? That puts a serious limit on our ability to illustrate pages on Canadian topics. But, I'm sure this has all been argued before. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 18:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- Well, so one might think, but it turns out that LAC has a rather different idea of what "Restrictions on use: Nil" actually means. :( Here is the Commons discussion where they all got deleted from that venue. Here is the LAC rep outlining their position via email, and here is the LAC permissions page. Except for those images unambiguously out of copyright (where we can safely ignore LAC's claims to continuing ownership), I do believe we have to treat these images as non-free. It would be nice if LAC wouldn't be a bunch of jerks about it, but I don't think there's much that we can do. Franamax (talk) 22:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- The importance of the historicl event is perhaps indirect but is alluded to in the body text at "Diefenbaker's hostility to the administration of U.S. President John F. Kennedy was pronounced." The Avro Arrow cancellation, the Bomarc muclear missile decision, conflict over the Cuban missile crisis were all bones of contention. The value of the image is to illustrate an amicable meeting at the highest level of government, which took place during a time of disgreement between these leaders. Since meetings at Rideau Hall would tend to be security-restricted, I rather doubt that PD-images would be easily available, and of course since they're all dead now, getting a replacement will be problematic. Franamax (talk) 22:22, 13 October 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.
- 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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 09:05, 23 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- File:Opening ceremony Expo 67 e001096646.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Abebenjoe (notify | contribs).
- It is not at all obvious why a non-free image of several people standing together is so important. Discuss the fact they met, discuss what was discussed, discuss the event, whatever, but what is this image adding? J Milburn (talk) 23:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- The Library and Archives Canada website states that there are no restrictions on the use of this image. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- There are no restrictions on use of this image and it adds a lot to the articles that it is associated with, as it shows the leadership of Canada at one of its most important celebrations of its Centennial, very significant moment in its history. I added a better copyright tag, as it is public domain, as it, and all the Expo 67 photos are public domain that exist at the National Library and Archives of Canada. The Expo Corporation ceased operations in 1968 and handed all its materials to the National Archives, with no restrictions. SimonP sorted through the copyright issue for all these photos and created a publc domain notice, that I forgot to use on this one photo. Honest mistakes all around. Cheers. Abebenjoe (talk) 01:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)reply
- Comment - The file is not public domain as currently tagged. The file is sourced to this page. That is a Library and Archives Canada page. On this page they state "You do not manipulate and/or modify the material reproduced". This is essentially the same as the ND attribute of the Creative Commons Licenses. In order for the file to be public domain, it has to be able to be modified.--Rockfang (talk) 20:21, 22 October 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.