Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 November 2

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. This found an obvious use in the imageless Marco Aponte. Please check more closely before declaring images to be of no encyclopedic value. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:020 17A marcoaponte.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carlo de lima (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, no encyclopedic value. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 13:26, 2 November 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.

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 - has a home now (seems Illmari is correct) - Peripitus (Talk) 07:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:05-12-MX Tetzco Esplanada.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nq04 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, no encyclopedic value, not really sure what it is Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 13:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I suspect this one is also from Texcotzingo, whose article currently has no images. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:17, 6 November 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.

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 - has a home now (seems Illmari is correct) - Peripitus (Talk) 07:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:05-12-MX Tetz Baño Rey.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nq04 (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, no encyclopedic value, not really important Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 13:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and preferably move to Commons). The image appears to be from Texcotzingo: compare with e.g. [1]. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:15, 6 November 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.

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: - Commons'd to Image:GroupMercuryCover3.JPG - Peripitus (Talk) 07:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:-23GroupMercuryCover3.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DianeLytwyn (notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, no encyclopedic value. Ceran →(sing→see →scribe) 13:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, seems like a reasonable illustration for Mercury glass, which currently has no images. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:19, 6 November 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.

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 - Strip appears commented on in the article and no real deletion reason offered - Peripitus (Talk) 07:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Db701026.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JohnDBuell (notify | contribs).

• Single panels of a comic can be fair use, but not entire strips. PhilKnight (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The very first strip, does indeed qualify as fair use. -Nard 20:49, 2 November 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.

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 Fails WP:NFCC1. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CharlesBlunt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).

• Copyrighted headshot of a living Australian. (I've tried to nominate this pic before but the nomination got incomplete.) Damiens.rf 17:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Good claim for fair use already on image. Rebecca (talk) 06:56, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Really? What do you think about this claim of irreplaceability: "A pictureaustralia.org and images.Google search reveal no other photo of Blunt whatsoever, there are no copyleft alternatives of such a photo"[2]

  And the rationale goes on with some blatant lies, like that "the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article" and some other non-senses, like saying that the person featured on the photo "is no longer in the public domain" and that the image (a headshot) shows a "major event in significant person's life"

  Rebecca, as an admin, make Wikipedia a favor and try to keep some distance from non-free content policy issues. --Damiens.rf 12:33, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep It looks already appropriately tagged prior to nomination and seems bordering on disruption, seeing that nominator has had history of bad faith edits. --Arnzy (talk · contribs) 07:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - meets NFCC criteria and appropriately tagged for fair use. It is NOT used on the subject's biography page which would be in breach of NFCC criteria; it is used on a separate page to do with a party the person was involved in. Also bordering on disruption to renominate this. JRG (talk) 12:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Why is it replaceable the subject's biography but no on "a separate page to do with a party the person was involved in."? --Damiens.rf 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is faulty reasoning. Just because it is not on his article does not mean it passes NFCC. Either way (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete does not meet NFCC. There is absolutely no reason for this image to be used in that article. He is mentioned once, in the party leaders list. In no way does the article make critical commentary about the subject of the image that warrants this photo. Additionally, he is a living figure and, as such, a free image is feasible to obtain. Either way (talk) 01:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not feasible to obtain. You cannot think like an American and consider it is easy to get. Blunt is not in public life anymore. JRG (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the article, Charles Blunt, he is still working so I presume he leaves his house pretty frequently and attends public events as part of those jobs. either way (talk) 02:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I gotta agree with Damiens and either way. on the failure of NFCC -- He is not a reculuse, the image in no way has historical significance, and just because an image does not currently exist does not mean it is appropriate to use a non-free image. Many people on WP believe no image is better then a non-free one.--Jordan 1972 (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per .--Jordan 1972's comments. Fails NFCC #1. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." While there may be no images available, one could be created. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, while an image of Blunt now could presumably be acquired, it would not be appropriate to have a modern image of Blunt on the page of his political party (National_Party_of_Australia), given that his appearance is presumably rather different, and for the reasons enunciated in the Fair Use rationale. NFCC therefore does not apply as any image that we could create of Blunt would not serve the same encyclopædic purpose as this image. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • What purpose did it serve to the article? As I noted, all it was was a picture of him that had the caption of his name and when he served. The article also had his name in a list. There was no critical commentary gained through the usage of this image. either way (talk) 02:03, 6 November 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.

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 It's of decent quality, so I was considering keeping it per Lifebaka. However, the licensing is extremely suspect and I'm guessing it's a copyvio. No use keeping an unused image that's a potential legal liability, especially when we have about a million photos of moustaches already. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aasisvinayak.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Karthika.kerala (notify | contribs).

• This image of a guy with a mustache became orphaned since his bio was deleted. Damiens.rf 20:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The GFDL tag on it looks kosher. If it is, send it to Commons. No point deleting a perfectly good free image. Cheers. lifebaka++ 16:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • What use would be that on commons? Moustache has enough pictures already. --Damiens.rf 16:34, 3 November 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.

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 - a true and accurate (as this appears to be) rendition of a public domain work is subsequently public domain. It has been variously expounded that, no matter how skillfull, slavishly copying something that is PD does not add a layer of copyright over the top. The sites (c) notice DOES apply to text on the page however - Peripitus (Talk) 07:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:YorkshireFlag2008.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Howard Alexander (notify | contribs).

• Copyright violation[3], also a free svg version is available on commons anyway. S Acaster (talk) 23:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I can't find any explanation on their site regarding the licensing of their images. Can you enlighten me how this image is a copyvio? ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 23:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Original voter has not come back and answered my query, therefore I see no reason why the image should be deleted. ~~ [ジャム]^[talk] 08:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The image of the flag is straight from the Flag Institute's "UK Flags Register". A condition of registration is that the flag design be freely available and subject to no copyright claim. I suspect that the one on Commons is the older version, not the official, registered flag.

Howard Alexander (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as above how can it be subject to copyright? To quote from the Flag Institutes site - Criteria for inclusion in the Flag Registry - The design must be in the public domain, ie. not subject to copyright. Keith D (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The design is not copyright, but the specific image file is copyright because Howard Alexander simply clicked "right click save" on an file which is owned by the Flag Institute website. There is nowhere that says on the website that the specific file hosted on the website is public domain, infact there is a "©2008 The Flag Institute" at the bottom. S Acaster (talk) 14:06, 13 November 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.