Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 28

< January 27	January 29 >

January 28[edit]

File:Norwegian Air Boeing 737-800W LN-NOE.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the copyright holder release the use of this image "for any purpose". Damiens.rf 18:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Norwegiandreamliner.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the copyright holder release the use of this image "for any purpose". Damiens.rf 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:DY 738 interiors front.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the copyright holder release the use of this image "for any purpose". Damiens.rf 18:39, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Norwegian network OCT 2010.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the copyright holder release the use of this image "for any purpose". Image is not even found on the source URL. Damiens.rf 18:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LN DYC.JPG.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the copyright holder release the use of this image "for any purpose". Image is not even found on the source URL. Damiens.rf 18:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:LN NOD Take Off.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the copyright holder release the use of this image "for any purpose". Damiens.rf 18:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Copyright violation used in massive ammount by User:Naigenors, claiming that he is allowed to use the copyrighted material without posting a license. (Joakim 08:01, 30 January 2011 (UTC)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhz94 (talk • contribs) [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:DY738 rearview 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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:23, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence that the copyright holder release the use of this image "for any purpose". Damiens.rf 18:41, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The company has released the images for free download on their press site, which should in itslef be evidence enough. Furhter, they state that the images are "Free for publishing". To me the combination "free for publishing" and the fact that the images are downloadable in high res from the press site under the designator "images" makes it crystal clear that these images are intended for public use. If you interpret it differently it would be intersting to learn how and why.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Naigenors (talk • contribs)
Unfortunately, "free for publishing" and "downloadable" is not enough for Wikipedia. For it to be free content, modification should also be allowed. --Damiens.rf 19:02, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So what does it take to comply? Is it possible to set a different copyright note, or does it have to be free content? For it to be free, what does the company have to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naigenors (talk • contribs)
The company could explicitly release it under some free license, like CC-BY or CC-BY-SA.

Wikipedia accepts non-free image on very special cases, basically when (1) it's legally fair use, (2) a free alternative image is impossible (or veeeery difficult) to be created or obtained in the foreseeable future, and (3) we really need the image to make the reader to properly understand the article. With these image, I believe we're only o.k. in what regards item (1). --Damiens.rf 19:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Time Magazine Cover - Baltimore.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a hand-made portrait of John Franklin Enders commissioned by Time Magazine to show its readers what John Franklin Enders looks like. There's no fair use justification in we using this image to show our readers what John Franklin Enders looks like. Damiens.rf 18:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kutter Luxembourg 1937.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 discussion was: keep, but I am reducing its usage to only Joseph Kutter, and adjusting the amount of fair use rationales accordingly due to WP:NFCC#8 concerns on the other two articles. Feel free, however, to use the image however you want after it passes into the public domain at the end of this year. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:14, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free piece of work of art (painting) that is not discussed (just barely mentioned) in any of the 3 articles it's being used in. Damiens.rf 18:58, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You were quite right to point out that there was not sufficient discussion of the actual painting in the articles in question. I had thought it important to provide a key work by the painter who is considered to be Luxembourg's finest artist but I have now added more explanations of the painting itself. I am still working ón the articles in question, two of which are very recent indeed. I hope the present discussions of the painting will justify inclusion of the image. - Ipigott (talk) 15:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to have been a rushed request while the articles are "work in progress". The articles now do describe the painting, which appears to be a very good choice for illustrating the painting of Kutter, as a major Luxembourg artist. --Elekhh (talk) 20:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The painting is now described in all three of the articles. (Incidentally, the reproduction really is small, unlike a lot of "fair use" graphics, which I occasionally think have been reduced just small enough for the copyright holder to be less likely to complain about reusability.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obviously valid fair use at least in the painter's main article. Moreover, the painter died in 1941, which means it will become officially PD-old at the end of this year. (Some other paintings of his are already on Commons and claimed to be free.) If that wasn't the case, I'd have said we must review justifications for the other two articles, because I'm not certain about the rationale for having a detailed discussion of a single painting in such a large overview as a "culture of..." article. It smacks of "cramming in a discussion just as a pretext to show the image", rather than "showing the image in order to support the discussion". That's the tail wagging the dog, especially as it's redundant across articles. But in view of the short time towards expiry, honestly, I can't be bothered. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Gilbert-london-wasps-rugby-ball--yellow-black-.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not used. No license tag. No source. Damiens.rf 19:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kylie minogue got to be certain 02.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Random screenshot from a music video used to decorate a two-line long mention about the video. Damiens.rf 19:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Djchrisiceman.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vanity. Damiens.rf 19:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Bankswikiphoto.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 discussion was: Keep. Image now licensed and in use. Jujutacular ^talk 05:30, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No info. No use. Damiens.rf 19:32, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, personal photo used nowhere. Hairhorn (talk) 22:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:JosefLeviBotero.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 discussion was: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No use. Vanity article deleted. Damiens.rf 19:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Indiana State Budget forecast of 2009.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image that should not be an image. Has been replaced by real table. Beao 20:27, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Better off in a wikitable instead. Reh man 00:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:County Route S18 shield.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 discussion was: delete. If you could actually read anything in the photo, since the title indicates that the subject of the photo is supposed to be of a highway sign, it might be worth moving to Commons, but since you can barely even make out the shape of the sign due to the low, low resolution, it's not worth the trouble to transfer. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such a small photograph, barely encyclopedic. Unused. Admrboltz (talk) 20:40, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—low quality, small size makes the photo almost unusable in an encyclopedic context. Imzadi 1979 → 21:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Despite the quality, this photo can still be used in articles at a low resolution. Dough 48 72 00:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused. Don't see much use of it. If kept, move to Commons. Rehman 00:36, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The photo can be added to California County Routes in zone S. Dough 48 72 00:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:PICT2377.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, unidentified subject. Kelly ^hi! 22:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unused and random. Reh man 00:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Kurtmuehmel.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned userphoto. Kelly ^hi! 22:23, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Reh man 00:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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