Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 October 10

< October 9	October 11 >

October 10

File:South Korea India Locator.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:South Korea India Locator.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]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:David-burt.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned userphoto Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:42, 10 October 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:Mastery3.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; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:45, 10 October 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:Members-cars1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, relatively low-quality for generic car images Calliopejen1 (talk) 01:49, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A Ford Capri and a European Ford Escort? Looks like a potential commons candidate there to me, with categories for both models. ----DanTD (talk) 04:48, 11 October 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:As-the-world turns 320.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary to article -NFCC #8.We hope (talk) 02:21, 10 October 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:BobKimtogether90's.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary to article-NFCC #8We hope (talk) 02:27, 10 October 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:Kimsullivan1972.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary to article-NFCC #8 We hope (talk) 02:30, 10 October 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:Mariemasters68.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary to article NFCC #8. We hope (talk) 02:34, 10 October 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:Chupacabra.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Amateur drawing of a "legendary" creature. Given that no such monster actually exists, this drawing is certainly not representative of one. The article itself admits that physical descriptions of chupacabras differ from one "sighting" to another. /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:58, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A high-quality illustration typical of "eyewitness" accounts would be useful, but this drawing is very poor. Also, the user says changes to the image are not permitted, so this is a borderline speedy deletion. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This looks like some eight-year-old's drawing that was uploaded either by a kid who was trying to play grown-up by editing Wikipedia or by a vandal for laughs. 71.66.99.231 (talk) 01:15, 11 October 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:MEC Flying Yankee.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 October 18.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 00:18, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#1, as this locomotive still exists, and thus one could reasonably take a photo of it. Earlier nomination for speedy deletion was challenged with the rationale, "sounds like it's on private property", which doesn't quite hold water, since it just means that one has to go the extra mile to get a photo, and WP:NFCC#1 doesn't say it has to be easy. Just possible. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It does have to be legal, though. Furthermore, we have no idea of the locomotive's condition (since we can't see it). NFCC #1 states "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect." If the locomotive is undergoing substantial refurbishment it may well look quite different from how it did in its prime, and such an image (assuming arguendo we could create one) would not convey the effect. A pile of metal would not, in fact, assure the reader that they had arrived at the correct article. Mackensen (talk) 10:57, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No one is saying do something illegal. Make the proper arrangements with the people who have it and go make a visit. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:29, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Some of the arguments above (on both sides) are off-topic, but I do not accept the argument that the file fails NFCC#1. According to the article, the vehicle is being revamped. Therefore, the argument that a new photograph of the historic version of it could be obtained is unconvincing. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a photo of the train in an ad for Veedol motor oil in the April 1935 issue of Popular Mechanics that would qualify as PD-pre 1978 as the ad is not copyrighted. Will gladly upload if wanted/needed. We hope (talk) 19:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - please upload that to Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:35, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flying Yankee 1935.jpg We hope (talk) 20:46, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I've swapped the non-free image out for the free one, and so this one is now ready to delete, as it's been replaced by a free image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:55, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close the discussion as there is a Commons file now replacing the non-free image? We hope (talk) 14:35, 17 October 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:Centre North East, from street level looking up.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Long orphaned image taken at an angle that makes it all but unusable. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is no longer orphaned, but the image is still pretty unusable. Also note that the uploader contested the FfD by removing the template from the image. It's been restored, and I'll point him here. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

there nothing wrong with my photo which as been with Centre north east page from the start. only that somebody replaced it with a photo which is not as good.Nez202 (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)nez202Nez202 (talk) 13:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i rename the file per request, action file name. Ald™ ¬_¬™ 22:18, 16 October 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:Centre North East from street level.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and low quality image, taken at a less than idea angle. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)* Note: The file was moved from File:Centre North East.JPG to File:Centre North East from street level.jpg by Aldnonymous (talk · contribs) at 22:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 17 October 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:Convention Center.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 as F9 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No description, extensive digital editing renders the image without encyclopedic value. Note to closer: Please salt this file name after deleting the image. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:18, 10 October 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:Convention Center.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: moved to Commons. The file is now located at File:Palm Beach County Convention Center.jpg. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unidentified building, no description, orphaned. Note to closer: Please salt this file name after deleting the image. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only if we can't identify it. If we can, then move to Commons. Otherwise, I see no need to salt the title, since this is the only file to have ever been uploaded on the name. If we get another case like this, then I'll support salting. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's the Palm Beach County Convention Center. Please check uploader's contributions immediately after uploading before you nominate an image for deletion. Here, the first thing the uploader did was add the image to an article.[1] Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:09, 10 October 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:Distortion.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned and unencyclopedic. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:20, 10 October 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:Dreddup2007.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, no description information. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:26, 10 October 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:DreDDup2007.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, no description information. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:26, 10 October 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:Continuous.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unidentified/unexplained diagram Sven Manguard Wha? 04:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral Based on user's contribs, this is a Continuous reactor, but the user's photos are all random and low-res. Not sure if they should go through a batch PUI. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 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:Corridor.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, unidentified/undescribed, no apparent encyclopedic value Sven Manguard Wha? 04:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - would you please "salt" this image name if deleted as a too 'generic file name'. Skier Dude (talk) 05:07, 12 October 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:Cyber.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some sort of comic/video game/etc. character poster, possibly fan art, either way highly probable copyvio. No description, not used in articlespace. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:29, 10 October 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:Darren.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image of an unidentified person. Uploader long gone. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Looking back at the history, it was an image of an uploader who was a gay politician in England, who didn't understand the guidelines of writing an article and originally thought the deletion of his article was a plot by homophobes who didn't like his politics. See here. ----DanTD (talk) 03:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - if deleted, please "salt" this image name as a "generic image name". Thanks. Skier Dude (talk) 05:15, 12 October 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:Dray1.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image, possibly a userphoto of an inactive user, no apparent encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:33, 10 October 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:Drosopigi, Florina.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality image thrown in a gallery, dosen't really illustrate anything. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:35, 10 October 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:Druid.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No source, no description of the painting's name or author. Orphaned, low quality. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:37, 10 October 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:DSLite.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality. Screenshot of game presents copyright issues avoided in other images of this product. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:40, 10 October 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:DSLite.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality image of a common object. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:40, 10 October 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:Dudley Hewitt Cup.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned table, no description, can be replicated using wikipedia code if needed. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:42, 10 October 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:Dsbnfallsanimation.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; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No need for animated logo, the unanimated version is in use on the same page. Therefore fails NFCC. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:42, 10 October 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:Dudley Hewitt Cup.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. No evidence that the image is in fact free, and the license appears to have been for the original image, with no update for the new version. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:44, 10 October 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:Human face lit by candle.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 as G6 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, artsy but useless. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)* Note: The file was moved from File:Eye2.JPG to File:Human face lit by candle.jpg by Cloudbound (talk · contribs) at 19:16, 15 October 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:10, 15 October 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:Eye2.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, there is already a gallery of eye colors that includes Hazel. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:08, 10 October 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:FairbanksGrizzlies.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 as F1 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lower quality version of File:FairbanksGrizzlies.PNG Sven Manguard Wha? 05:09, 10 October 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:FamousRUS.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality collage, several of the photos used in the collage have been subsequently deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:12, 10 October 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:FamousRUS.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality collage, several of the photos used in the collage have been subsequently deleted. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:12, 10 October 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:FASCINATION.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: keep (i.e., moved to Commons) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unidentified. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you checked the uploader's contributions, you would see that this is a variety of dahlia called "Fascination". Keep and move to commons - reasonable quality. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, move to commons, and rename as "Dahlia (Fascination)" or similar. There's already a GNU license. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:50, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:45, 12 October 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:Featured List award.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also File:Featured list award.PNG.

Proposed barnstar idea from 2008. Apparently was not adopted. Not in use except in the discussion three years ago. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:52, 10 October 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:Fibonacci spiral.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned diagram. Commons file File:FibonacciBlocks.svg is used instead. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:00, 10 October 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:Vulcan Iron Works print advertisement from Railway Age Magazine, February 5, 1944.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: on Commons as File:Vulcan Iron Works print advertisement from Railway Age Magazine, February 5, 1944 large pre1978 noC.jpg. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:21, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for deletion per WP:NFCC#8 and challenged - see User talk:SchuminWeb#Image on Vulcan Iron Works. As used, this non-free image is purely decorative, without any discussion in the article, nor can I foresee any use of this non-free image that would comply with WP:NFCC#8. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (Sorry if I'm not following the correct protocol, never done this before.) The Locomotives depicted were apparently the principal products of the Pennsylvania Vulcan Iron Works, one of several independent companies of that name. The page is the only one which discusses these historic iron works, important in the history of industrial development, and the Pennsylvania works is the only Vulcan Iron Works in the USA so far on the page. The image is not there as decoration but to show what the Pennsylvania works produced, as well as its logo (actually a figure of a smith, presumably Vulcan himself), both of which are directly relevant to the article and thus constitute fair use, for the history of mechanical engineering. This is not a frivolous or trivial use, if that is being suggested. I'd be happy to write any further NFUR or other explanation if that is what is needed - if you'll point me in the right direction, I'll try to help, given that the original author/uploader does not seem to be around. Thanks! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to keep taking up everyone's time. I have updated the article to make it clear that the image has always been central to the article's theme, with main text and an image caption "Wilkes-Barr Pennsylvania Vulcan Iron Works produced both steam and diesel locomotives in 1944". The image makes this point immediately clear visually and in its text. The original uploader has left Wikipedia (note on his user page). There is a note on the talk page Talk:Vulcan Iron Works/to do dating back to 2006 to "Expand the company history" and to "Add a photo or two of Vulcan locomotives" (from user Slambo, whom I will now attempt to contact - he is an administrator interested in rail transport, so he's not my puppet! I hope this is all right. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:17, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You've not addressed the central point here - how is the image indispensable to the understanding of the article? For all the work you've done on it, you still haven't made the image's inclusion essential to understanding the concept. So at this point, it's still ripe for deletion. My recommendation is to let this one go, since you are never going to be able to make this ad satisfy WP:NFCC#8 because it's simply not essential to understanding the concept. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the guideline says "Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Well, I suggest that the image exactly increases readers' understanding, and its omission would be highly detrimental. It showed me just what Wilkes-Barre was producing and when, and gave me an idea of just how significant the company was at that time in that market. The guideline does not say "essential to understanding", so that is not the criterion here. I would like to add that I am not a railway enthusiast, but a Wikipedian who believes in making articles clear, readable, notable, and verifiable. This image contributes to this article, and I hope very much it will be allowed to stay. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what makes this non-free image necessary compared to a similar description using text? SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a picture is said to be worth 1000 words: it is extremely difficult to describe an image in text, and even if one manages to name the elements and style of the image, the words fail to convey what the image conveys immediately and forcefully. If I were poetic and not constrained by NPOV, I might say "two massive locomotives march boldly across the Americas", or "the mighty image of the Smith-god, Vulcan, stands hammer poised, framed by the arms of the V of the Vulcan Iron Works name", or something equally non-encyclopedic. By showing the image, Wikipedia removes the need for such poetic utterance, and allows readers to see for themselves the striking image of confidence, patriotism and technology that was presented by the firm, while the text of the article remains neutral and encylopedic. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Keep, but my mind is still open. This strikes me as something where there is a strong potential to write the page in a way that the image would readily pass NFCC#8, perhaps by going into the historical role of the Pennsylvania site in contributing to the war effort. To Chiswick Chap, since I notice your comment about being new to FFD, please let me advertise, I mean suggest, that you take a look at WP:AAFFD, which will point you to ways that you can (as well as should not) make a better case for the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question-from the size of the file I'm viewing, I don't see any copyright marks on it on Vulcan's part. The Railway Age copyrights wouldn't apply. United States Copyright Office page 2 Can't the file be changed to PD-pre 1978 because Vulcan didn't copyright their ad in the magazine? We hope (talk) 21:10, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both, Tryptofish and We hope. I have taken both your suggestions, extending the article and moving the image to Wikimedia Commons with a PD-US-no notice (pre-1978, no copyright notice) license. I believe this means I can withdraw my objection to the deletion of the non-free image on Wikipedia, and the (reduced) image can be deleted speedily.

May I also suggest that it could be very helpful to articles using other railway images threatened with deletion if they also could be moved to Wikimedia Commons under the pre-1978 license, rather than randomly deleted when nobody happens to be around to fight for them? I see that at least one other is under immediate threat, to no-one's benefit and to the loss of historic value to Wikipedia. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I've been saying - if we can verify for certain that they're actually PD, then GREAT! If that's the case, let's move them to Commons and retain 'em, since they're certainly valuable if they're free content. It's just that if they're non-free, they fail that strict criteria and we can't use them. It's not the content of the images I'm being a stickler about - it's the NFCC and excessive use of non-free content that I'm being a stickler over. I would love to retain the images if we're able to verify that they're free. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:18, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this discussion as there is a copy now at Commons? We hope (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where is it on Commons? SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vulcan Iron Works print advertisement from Railway Age Magazine, February 5, 1944 large pre1978 noC.jpg We hope (talk) 15:59, 17 October 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:Empire Express Streamlined 1941.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image removed from Empire State Express for failing WP:NFCC#8 and challenged, though without explanation. I claim that this image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it is use is purely decorative without contextual significance. Additionally, I claim that there is no foreseeable way that this image can be used in a way that satisfies all ten non-free criteria. SchuminWeb (Talk) 08:24, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and I agree with SchuminWeb. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP: This file has been in place in this article from more than three years (since June 1, 2008) without objection or complaint by any editor or user. It directly relates to the surrounding text in the article and illustrates exactly what it says it does in the rationale regarding the importance of the "Empire State Express'" and other similar long haul "Fast Mail" trains of that era to the operation of the USPOD's Railway Mail Service. The image is not there for "decorative" purposes and the deletion proposer has provided no evidence whatsoever to support his personal opinion other than his own unsupported "claim" that the image in some unspecified way fails to meet his interpretation of WP:NFCC#8 which has been found to be incorrect in a very similar case in the past. The image is appropriate, well sourced, correctly licensed, and its relevance to both the subject of the article in general, and the specific context in which it is placed therein, is fully provided by the statement of rationale for its use on the file's host page. Centpacrr (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: What difference does it make that an image has been around for three years without objection? Just because it was wrongly included three years ago and no one caught it doesn't make it any less wrong now that it's been around for three years. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You have provided absolutely no evidence, objective or otherwise, to support your contention that this is exclusively "decorative" other than that is your own personal opinion. The image directly illustrates and relates to the context of the article both as to December 7, 1941, being the first run of the streamlined "Empire Express" service, and the fact that this service was a USPOD designated RMS "Fast Mail" train (with a ref) which had an RPO car and provided high speed collection and distribution of mails between New York and Chicago as well as other cities along the NYC grade (Buffalo, Cleveland, Detroit, etc.). The fact that an image has been around for years also affirmatively implies that it has achieved de facto consensus that it is useful, appropriate, and acceptable to the WP community as a whole. Centpacrr (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I also have to object that this image isn't "purely decorative." It illustrates the text immediately adjacent to it and as an example of the mail in question couldn't be replaced by some other image.Mangoe (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's already tagged as PD because it's a first day cover printed by the postal service. Is someone saying this isn't true? Mangoe (talk) 10:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Only the stamps are noted as being public domain. There is no evidence that the remainder of the image is public domain. If you'd like to crop out the remainder of the image and show only the stamps... SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is also no evidence whatsoever that the remainder is not in the public domain as it carries no copyright notice or other indication of copyright protection. Irrespective of that, however, you have also not challenged it on copyright grounds, only that you claim that it is "exclusively decorative" so by your silence in this issue you have already accepted that even if it is still copyrighted, it meets the "fair use" tests of 17 U.S.C. §107. Centpacrr (talk) 11:39, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - If we can determine with certainty that this image is public domain (along with all the other old images that I've nominated for deletion), then great. Let's determine that with certainty, and if they are PD, then they need to be tagged as such and moved to Commons. Otherwise, the legal definition of fair use is irrelevant in this case, because Wikipedia's fair use policy is WAY stricter than the legal requirement. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the answer to SchuminWeb's comment immediately above my own is that, despite the tags on the description page at this time, the entire image is actually a free file. If you follow the links back from the file description page, you will eventually come to Railway Mail Service, who, as best as I can tell, are the creators and owners of the entire postcard. It seems to me that the image is of the work product of US government employees in the course of their government work. It's PD. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Then let's change the license to reflect that and move it to Commons. SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:43, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You really could do this with a lot of the railroad-related images you keep tagging for deletion. ----DanTD (talk) 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I said above: "If we can determine with certainty that this image is public domain (along with all the other old images that I've nominated for deletion), then great. Let's determine that with certainty, and if they are PD, then they need to be tagged as such and moved to Commons." SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are some pre-1978 First Day Covers from the US at Commons used here on WP: File:Four Chaplains stamp2.png, File:Harry S. Truman first day cover 1973-05-08.jpg, File:Firstdaycover JC.JPG. These 3 are using the PD-US Gov template. They're using this as the rationale for PD. According to the footnote, it looks like this changed when the need for copyright notice needed to be given--after 1977. The USPS says it is the one who has issued the covers. That makes sense re: the rationale being valid. Am suggesting asking User:Moonriddengirl and User:Quadell to weigh in on this as both of them have worked with copyright issues for some time. We hope (talk) 23:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this first day cover the first time that train image was published? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First day covers Event cover It looks as if the images or cachets as the collectors refer to them, are specially designed for the event covers and don't appear in that particular way on anything except the covers and probably some commemorative material given to VIPs when the announcement/ceremony takes place. In this case, I'd expect that NYC and Budd (produced cars for the train) bigwigs received things like plaques with the image on it. FWIW, looked at a lot of images of the train yesterday and didn't see this particular depiction anywhere else. We hope (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This appears to be the first time this image was published (as a first day cover), and it was first published in the U.S. without a visible © notice. Therefore {{PD-Pre1978}} applies. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note Licensing has been corrected to "Public Domain - Pre 1978" as the cachet was first published in 1941 without copyright notice. "Non-free" was thus clearly the wrong original licensing choice and the image is thereby not subject to WP:NFCC. Centpacrr (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday while I was looking for information re: something else, I was at the Pioneer Zephyr article and saw that there are two similar covers there File:Pioneer Zephyr first run and millionth mile covers.jpg and they're also licensed as PD-pre 1978. We hope (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Close as Moot As this file has now been properly relicensed as "PD-pre 1978" making a claim that it violates any provision of WP:NFCC fail as this is not a "Non-Free" image. That being the case, this discussion should properly be promptly closed as being moot. Centpacrr (talk) 22:05, 16 October 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:Fig2.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no apparent encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:42, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The person who uploaded the image claims it's of a "Wound Dressing Impervious To Chemical And Biological Agents Fig. 2" and another person claims it was uploaded into the commons under another name. I went to look for it under that other name, and no such file exists there. ----DanTD (talk) 03:35, 11 October 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:FIS.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Low quality, unencyclopedic, joke. Used in a user talk archive from 2006, will never be used in the article space. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:29, 10 October 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:Endgame.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:06, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned diagram from a half decade ago. Sven Manguard Wha? 09:52, 10 October 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:Pioneer Zephyr Dawn to Dusk Club.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: rationales provided. This would have been far less painful for all involved if the fair use rationales had been placed on the description page when first requested rather than being blindly challenged. And for the record, the deletion review discussion is meaningless if the fair use rationales aren't there. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:32, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image fails WP:NFCC#10 for insufficient fair use rationales, and surprisingly was challenged on this rather than simply corrected. Original fair use rationale dispute message was, "Fair use rationales do not discuss respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2) and contextual significance (WP:NFCC#8)." This would normally be a no-brainer - bring the fair use rationales up to standard and the tag goes away. However, as an editor appears to firmly believe that a deletion review discussion (last one on that page) gives a non-free image a free pass to have a woefully insufficient fair use rationale, it's going up for a deletion discussion, since obviously if people aren't willing to assign a complete and proper fair use rationale to the usages that they are claiming fair use for, then we can't keep it around. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw. Bad faith nomination. In the time he took to nominate this he could have written the rationale himself. It's well established--by the debate he linked to even--that this falls under fair use. Bureaucracy isn't a stick with which to beat editors. In the meantime I'll write up some rationales, and they had better be sufficient. Mackensen (talk) 10:44, 10 October 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:KSBY6.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete logo for a television station. The current logo is File:KSBY 6 2010 logo.jpg, which is being used in the infobox in the KSBY article. This old logo has no commentary or indication of importance. It is unnecessary when we have the current logo, and it does not significantly increase readers' understanding of KSBY; its use fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 12:20, 10 October 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:For Wikipedia.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, lacks adequate description, no apparent encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 12:28, 10 October 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:Fredmanila5.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lower quality version of File:Fredmanila5.jpg (yes, they are two separate images, stupid case sensitivity and all that) Sven Manguard Wha? 13:17, 10 October 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:Gargnano-stemma.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is most certainly not licensed under GFDL/CC, and File:Gargnano-Stemma.png, a better version, also exists. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:20, 10 October 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:Glans penis.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: moot point, moved to Commons by me. If you still don't like it, please open a discussion there. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We have enough of these types of images, thank you very much. Not likely to be used, in light of the oversupply. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nominator's right, we do have a lot and this one is unused, apart from the fact that it is available on Commons under another name. I will post the file name here, but not now; there are a lot of people around me and ... well. Fleet Command (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sever, I mean delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is that what that was? It was so small that I wasn't sure. I think it's just about deleted itself on account of its (lack of) size, but let's just finish the emasculation and delete it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:08, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't know what's supposed to make this pic any different than all the other shots of fools taking pictures of their penises. If there were some evidence of any distinction, I might be open to the idea of keeping it, but I seriously have to go with everyone else here. ----DanTD (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep (and move to Commons) - how else can I put this? There are many different types of penises: ones that curve up, down, right, or left; thick ones, thin ones; long ones, skinny ones; circumcised, natural; hairy, well-kempt; erect, flaccid (and the different types therein, such as growers). I for one find it fascinating to know the size and apperance of different body parts (although, er, I'm not really a fan of looking at penises in general). This information could be useful, especially for a body part which is hidden from society (i.e., that one is not going to know the appearance of simply by walking down the street) and whose apperance is well misrepresented elsewhere on the internet (my guess is that a Google search would skew towards the virulent variety, if you catch my drift). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - it's also good we have a picture that, a) respects the privacy of the individual (i.e., the individual kenw it would be uploaded, and isn't identifiable by facial features regardless), b) appears to legitimately be of proper copyright (my experience shows a high number of copyright violations with sexual images), and c) is almost certainly of someone 18+ (the username being JPaul81). Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll try to carry this line of thought further. As best I can guess, the appropriate page for such comparison of size and appearance would be Human penis size. At present, the page does not have such an image gallery. However, I think that we can reasonably look at what I assume is Category:Penis at Commons, as well as at the restricted image list here, for suitable candidates, and I'm going to predict that we have, already, rather a lot to chose from. The issue, then, is WP:NFCC#8. Given that readers currently understand the page without any such image, and given our existing supply of other images, I don't see a very compelling #8 argument to keep. I'd still say chop it off. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC doesn't apply to free images. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:56, 14 October 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.

I know this is closed, but I just want to dope-slap myself for not realizing it is a free file. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Good Conduct ribbon.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no description. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

superceded by File:Army Good Conduct ribbon.svg Mangoe (talk) 16:54, 10 October 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:Grafiti.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image does not depict what is being described by the title. mspaint editing of a unsourced file, so probable copyvio. Orphaned. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:30, 10 October 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:Graphic Design.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no description (i.e. what software was used, what it is depicting), therefore will likely never be used. Source website appears to be down, so no help there. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:31, 10 October 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:Graphic design.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, no apparent encyclopedic value. Joke? Sven Manguard Wha? 13:32, 10 October 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:GO-File.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, no apparent encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:36, 10 October 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:Green Eyes by User Xcoker.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, smaller and lower quality than other alternatives on Wikipedia. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:40, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

N.B. Moved to File:Green Eyes by User Xcoker.jpg Skier Dude (talk) 06:13, 13 October 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:Group.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; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, possible copyvio, no apparent encyclopedic value. Sven Manguard Wha? 13:42, 10 October 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:IMG 0935.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the top image is already on commons at File:Stadionul Municipal (Vaslui).jpg. the image underneath it is Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:12, 10 October 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:High volt MOT with spark.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:57, 10 October 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:Coat of Arms Roclincourt.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Roclincourt The Coat of arms.jpg Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:18, 10 October 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:Lee 2.36.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Lee Behnken) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:19, 10 October 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:H-16-66 early.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image fails WP:NFCC#8 for lack of discussion in the article, and was challenged. Additionally, unsuitable for use as an infobox image, as other examples of a FM H-16-66 still exist, and thus a free image of this type of locomotive can reasonably be created, if not necessarily this particular variation on it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP If the nominator would have actually looked at the nominated image, and compared it to the other image (of the later variation) he removed from the article, he would have seen that these 2 locomotives are of almost completely different external construction, having significantly different trucks, frames, radiator sections, as well, as many and various other details. As the nominator has stated, a single example of the LATER variation still exists, but there are no surviving examples of the EXTINCT earlier version, as depicted by this photo. To provide a non railroad example, this would be like nominating a picture of a '54 Ford, because '59 Fords still exist. I would suggest the nominator cease his destructive deletion nomination crusade, and instead start creating or finding free alternatives of the photos whose licensing ovbviously offends him. 69.47.180.115 (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the article doesn't discuss those differences. This particular image isn't needed to fully understand all the text in the article, in ways that a new, free image would not provide. I don't disagree that the old train looks different, just that those differences are apparently not important in the article. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2nd paragraph of article discusses these differences. 69.47.180.115 (talk) 20:22, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replaceable. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. Regardless of NFCC#8 considerations, the file fails WP:NFCC#2, and that's that. If you follow the link on the description page to the source website, the image is being offered for sale there. (The link about "encouraging educational use" is a dead link.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Correct. The Denver Library's current policy is listed here, and the relevant portion of that states, "All images from the Denver Public Library collection are copyright © protected and may not be reproduced in any way without permission from the Denver Public Library. Commercial use of images is subject to service fees." Thus it would appear that all images from the Denver Public Library, unless we can determine with absolute certainty that they are public domain, fail WP:NFCC#2, and thus must be deleted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Does that mean we are going to also destroy all those for which explicit permission was obtained (e.g. File:SP Dynamometer.jpg)? Mangoe (talk) 19:31, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have no evidence of permission that we can use that image. The only evidence that I have is that we are explicitly not permitted to use the image without paying their fee, as our use replaces the market value of the image. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, something has come up that calls into question the argument based on NFCC#2. Please see the discussion about various Denver Library files on the next day's log. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:52, 14 October 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:Mckinstry coachoftheyear.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Johnathan Brian McKinstry) Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:33, 10 October 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:Redskinsplate.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, incorporates copyrighted logo Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:34, 10 October 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:Ganghwa Island letters.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, these letters are already in Ganghwa Island incident as text Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:50, 10 October 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:Hoxton Story.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, promotional image, no verification of permission Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:52, 10 October 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:IMG 00241.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: keep (i.e., moved to Commons) Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, dark photo, bad title, it's unclear what's going on, it says "The photograph of chakkamaram", but I have no idea what that is. (Google returns little that can be informative.) – Quadell ^(talk) 16:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on [2], it seems like this is probably a photo of Union Christian College, Aluva. We don't seem to have any other images of that college, so I'd keep this one and move it to commons. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then great! – Quadell ^(talk) 11:51, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(I would love to move this and others to Commons, but the Toolserver times out when I try. After ten tries, I'm giving up.) – Quadell ^(talk) 12:32, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Commons, finally. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:13, 12 October 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:IMG 0183red.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad title, orphan, no description, uploader has a bad history of copyvios – Quadell ^(talk) 17:08, 10 October 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:IMG Dehua BW.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bad title, orphan, no description, uploader has a bad history of copyvios – Quadell ^(talk) 17:10, 10 October 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:Long Celedon Bowl 1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, no description, uploader has a bad history of copyvios. Here he claims both GFDL and fair use. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:12, 10 October 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:Hosaka-Cohen Transformation.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of File:Hosaka-Cohen Transformation.jpg, just with a slightly different font. Should be PNG or SVG regardless. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:13, 10 October 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:COQ.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Low quality Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:35, 10 October 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:Kage.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Kage (Wrestler)) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 10 October 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:IMG 0221 Adm.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both PD and "fair use" claimed, bad title, uploader has a history of copyright violations – Quadell ^(talk) 17:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - see my comment at #File:IMG 0227 lyn.JPG. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:15, 12 October 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:IMG 0223 clin.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: keep (i.e., moved to Commons) Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No telling what this is. Orphan, bad title, no description – Quadell ^(talk) 18:00, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marginal keep. Not great quality but now described based on user contribs. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:22, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, well done. Yes, it should be kept now. – Quadell ^(talk) 11:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:22, 12 October 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:IMG 0227 lyn.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both PD and "fair use" claimed, uploader has a history of copyright violations – Quadell ^(talk) 18:01, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this would better go at WP:PUF. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:14, 12 October 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:Paleopolyploidy.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Useless alternative version of File:Paleopolyploidy.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:03, 10 October 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:Wall-Street-1.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: No Consensus. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 02:25, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This file fails Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 8. As the image is not discussed in the article proper and is not a fair representation of what the protests have looked like, it is not being used to to illustrate the subject in question. Its use in the info box is designed to brand the article, as stated on the file description. This is not a proper fair use of Non-free content. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, previously nominated by another editor at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_October_3#File:Wall-Street-1.jpg, as a violation of NFC criteria #4, resulting in a no-consensus close. That discussion did not address the applicability of NFC criteria #8. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's still Keep. The previous discussion was badly closed, as it was not at all "no consensus". Even if one discounts the numerous off-topic IP comments, there was still a clear consensus to keep. The new deletion argument is just WP:DECORATIVE. NFCC#8? Well, the image caption discusses who created the image, and why. In fact, the image is equivalent in function to a corporate logo (irony duly noted), and as such it is intended to be widely distributed. It isn't branding the article, but branding what the article is about, and dislike of the brand isn't a reason to delete. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:37, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a caption is enough. If the image is as important to the movement as you suggest, how come it hasn't been discussed at length in the article proper? A corporate logo is a core part of the corporations identity. I don't see a parallel claim for the image, but again, if it is such a core part, it should be established as such in the article with references. Monty ₈₄₅ 20:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well, corporate logo are not discussed in length in the articles. SYSS Mouse (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a corporate logo is also the clearly established representation of the corporation. For many companies, an article that doesn't discuss the corporate logo is fundamentally incomplete, and a textual discussion of the logo is unlikely to illustrate the concept as well as a logo. Here the logo is neither official, nor is it really helpful in illustrating the concept of the protests. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Clearly fails WP:NFCC#8. According to the fair use rationale, the purpose of use is, "It is only being used to illustrate the article in question." That's simply not enough. I also disagree with Trypto. This is, quite simply, not a "logo"; it's fairly equivalent to a film poster, but the difference is that this article can be illustrated with free images, so promotional posters should absolutely not be used. This is simply not an official logo for the Occupy Wall Street movement. It's not remotely essential to the article. As an aside, the last discussion was disturbing— on both sides. "Keep per the above keeps" shudders. I'm not sure if either side of that discussion had any understanding of our non-free content criteria. Swarm 04:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The movement has heretofeore advertised itself as "leaderless" or amorphous in leadership, so there is not going to be an "official" approval authority of a brand or logo... even so, it has a media center that may be disseminating images like this one. Unless we have a pedigree for it, this poster should be considered "a piece of OWS-related artwork that was found on the street" . Do we have a reliable source that tells us where it came from and how it is commonly used as a branding icon? For this article, I am not opposed to having it up as long as there is some verbaige on pedigree. Alternative "icons" in the infobox could be suggested... the header from the semi-official OWS website... or a generic text of "#OccupyWallStreet" since this thing sort of blew up via twitter. Peace,MPS (talk) 16:54, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there is enough critical commentary to satisfy NFC #8, this remains a copyright question, not a question of editorial judgment. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is it too much too ask that the instigator of this deletion send a query to AdBusters about licensing? They might actually do it, you know. Mangoe (talk) 17:21, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is too much to ask. If you wish to ask them to license the image, by all means, go ahead. If they license the work, my deletion nomination here would be rendered moot. Monty ₈₄₅ 19:36, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, assuming we can find a good free replacement, which I think we can. Shii (tock) 09:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Replaced with what? – Quadell ^(talk) 12:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's tons of free images out there that can be used to illustrate this article. Swarm 07:45, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the copyright holder is not identified per WP:NFCC#10. Occupy Wall Street is not a legally constituted organization that can hold copyright - the copyright is held by some individual. Kelly ^hi! 01:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is ample documentation out there from reliable sources that adBusters created the poster (e.g. this article from The Nation) and did so as an organizing point for the protest. Indeed, on the basis this report alone I would say that the poster is a key piece of the story, and I ahve updated the article accordingly. It's not just decorative, not that that is a valid response anyway.

At any rate I have sent adBusters a query as to their willingness to license us the poster. But the invocation of NFCC8 is clearly, um, bull. Mangoe (talk) 02:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any evidence of the author/copyright holder of the image? Kelly ^hi! 03:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bull? Ha. Anyway, the NFCC8 violation seems clear to me. If you really think that's a "bull" argument, why not address it? I certainly haven't seen any argument as to how this image "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" or how its omission would be "detrimental" to that understanding. Just saying "that argument is bull" really isn't helpful. Swarm 07:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep – It's one of the main posters that identify with Occupy Wall Street, though it's not official due to the movement's mercurial nature. In that regard, it lets readers know that they have gotten to the correct article just as any other poster would. Given, this movement is all over the place, and if a free image exists that accurately displays Occupy Wall Street, then I would support replacing this one. –MuZemike 18:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Is there also a reason that any free photographs that accurately summarize the movement wouldn't be reasonable for an infobox image, if we cannot get a free equivalent of this poster? –MuZemike 18:57, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The main objection seems to be that this image fails Criteria 8. I completely disagree with that. This single poster illustrates how this entire world movement all began. It illustrates that the entire movement started organically with simple posters and viral marketing to spread the message. Seeing the poster for themselves lets the readers see exactly what sparked hundreds of people to spontaneously gather at one spot on a given day. Without being able to see this poster, that entire experience of the reader would be lost. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article barely mentions the poster, and the mention certainly falls short of establishing that "The poster is a fundamental document in the event and sources agree on its importance as an organizing medium and as an emblem." as the current fair use rationale claims. What is needed is for the article to provide critical commentary on the poster, not just mention its existence as it does now. Short of that, this is just being used to illustrate the article, which is not an acceptable use of non-free content when there are plenty of other ways it could be illustrated. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The deletion nominations are becoming disruptive. This was just kept a few days ago. This image is not replacable by a free alternative as no free alternative would convey the same information. A photo of a few protesters would not be representative of the entire movement, however as an iconic image, the poster IS representative of the movement as a whole. Image is not replaceable. Night Ranger (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it is disruptive to raise an issue that was not addressed at the previous deletion discussion, and which if I'm right requires that we remove the image as a copyright violation. Irreplaceability is not the only requirement to use non-free content. There is no critical commentary on the poster sufficient to justify fair use. The article doesn't even claim it is an iconic image, only saying
Adbusters promoted the protest with a poster featuring a dancer atop Wall Street's iconic Charging Bull.
that is far short of justifying the use. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This iconic poster provides the name, place and starting date for the initial protest, so is valuable. The image is low-resolution to establish it as fair use (not that Adbusters really cares about copyright). +mt 22:35, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment has not addressed any of the justifications for deletion advanced above, being valuable and low res is not enough to satisfy the non free content rules. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, being "valuable" (a totally subjective concept) doesn't necessarily satisfy NFCC8, which states quite clearly that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." A non-free image is not remotely necessary to describe the "name, place and starting date". Swarm 04:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--Natkeeran (talk) 01:07, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:DEMOCRACY, we do not WP:!VOTE in deletion discussions, particularly when the discussion is about copyright issues. Monty ₈₄₅ 03:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this poster also includes content copyrighted by a third party - Arturo Di Modica holds the copyright for Charging Bull. There is no freedom of panorama for artistic works in the United States, so unless Di Modica agreed for his work to be used in this way, the poster is a copyright violation. Kelly ^hi! 03:44, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the copyright owner has a history of defending his copyright in court - see Charging Bull#Ownership. Kelly ^hi! 03:50, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment And yet you have provided a link to another image used on Wikipedia that is actually been released as CC 2.0. The information being added to the rational would provide the needed information to comply with wikipedia policy.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP. The image is used under fair use. It appears to have the proper tag. It appears to have the proper rational. It is also of value to the encyclopedia beyond mere illustration as this image is from the adbuster magazine that basically started the movement and is mentioned a number of times. Whoever is stating delete due to illustrative purposes is just incorrect and i assume did not actually read the article.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Wikipedia is restrictive in what and how non-free images can be used; a fair use rationale isn't the only thing required. Non-free content can be used under fair use, but it must also satisfy a specific set of requirements called the non-free content criteria. This image, in my opinion, fails to meet rule number 8. To make this a productive discussion, you should address the arguments for deletion. I'm open-minded, but I haven't seen my concerns addressed by any of the 'keep' !voters. If you have any questions, feel free to ask! Regards, Swarm 04:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there back. You are clearly not reading the article or you fail to see that there is indeed context in the article itself. To make this a productive discussion please do not ignore facts. It's there.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The poster is how Adbusters proposed the idea of Occupy Wall Street and this poster helped inspire the movement. This is stated in [3], [4], and elsewhere. As such, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria 8 is satisfied: the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. Justinform (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment. AdBuster might itself be violating the copyright of the Charging Bull since it is featured prominently in the poster. This constitutes as derivative work. The Bull is copyrighted as a public sculpture and US does not have freedom of panorama on sculptures.

No, they're not. Their use of the Charging Bull in the poster is certainly protected under the fair use doctrine. Rreagan007 (talk) 15:26, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the poster's use of Charging Bull is not fair use, which is typically "commentary, criticism, news reporting, research, teaching, library archiving and scholarship". This is just an appropriation of the work for another purpose. Kelly ^hi! 17:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just admitted that fair use includes "commentary, criticism, ..." The poster's use of the charging bull is precisely that: commentary and criticism. It therefore constitutes fair use. Justinform (talk) 21:22, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the image use of the "Charging Bull" is most certainly Fair Use as the image itself is critical commentary. Also, news reporting is not part of fair use case law (there are no actual laws regarding fair use). There is enough precedence at Wikipedia for the image to stay, including this image: [[5]]. Legal arguments have no place in Wikipedia and all comments in regards to lawsuits constitute legal threats. I find this nomination the day the last nomination was pulled to be a huge disruption and is NOT editing in good faith. It smells of political agenda and censorship.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By the way the image was not produced in the US. Therefore, US law is not applicable. If Canadian law recognizes freedom of panorama then that is the law to which we turn, not US copyright law...but Canadian. This is Wikimedia Foundation policy and it is not negotiable.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:41, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The sculpture of the bull is protected by US copyright, and is in the US, therefor the photo of it must have been taken in the US and US freedom of panorama law governs photos of it. That the derivative work was created in Canada does not avoid the issue. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:04, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The bull sculpture cannot be protected by copyright; no copying of the bull took place. Unless you mean the picture of the bull is protected. --Fayerman (talk) 05:09, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The image was first published in Canada and that is how copyright status is determined. Your argument is false and is not substantiated by US or Canadian copyright law.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:14, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If its a copyright violation under US law, which it is absent a fair use justification, then it cannot be on Wikipedia servers as they are located in the US and must obey US law. So it is extremely important that fair use be established. Monty ₈₄₅ 22:19, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is not absent a fair use justification, it has the needed rational and falls under "Fair Use" by US and Canadian law.--Amadscientist (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The artwork itself was placed in the streets of New York without permission by the artist as an act of guerrilla art similar to the way the image taken is used. The artist does still own the copyright...but I find the argument that he has sued over it's replication for sale and it's use on the cover of a book being sold to be false arguments to any danger of legal action. The artist himself placed this work for the people and it was the people of New York that demanded the city keep it. Anyone else find this IRONIC?--Amadscientist (talk) 22:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We have TWO case here. 1) On whether this picture, when created by AdBuster, constitutes a fair use of the Charging Bull (Both US and Canadian law); and 2)On whether this poster, when used on Wikipedia article Occupy Wall Street, constitutes a fair use of the poster. Failing either one of the question means that the picture has to be deleted. SYSS Mouse (talk) 01:03, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the image is used on two articles and the only thing we as Wikipedians should be concerned with is whether or not the image meets the standards of Wikipedia. We are not concerned with the legality of the use by the original artist or photographer as is the case with many controversial images used on Wiki. As stated Wikipedia has a number of images that have been or may be in a legal struggle concerning the artists use. As editors our concern is whether the image is being used properly on the article and meets the standards for fair use claim on the encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I haven't yet seen a good argument addressing WP:NFCC#1, replaceability. Why is it necessary to use copyrighted material as the lead image rather than a free image of the protest itself, as is done in Tea Party movement and similar articles? Kelly ^hi! 01:27, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It has not yet been established that the image is truly copyrighted. No copyright claim can be found or has been found other than the source of the original work, however, as pointed out they do not make the claim of copyright that anyone can find. As such it is simply assumed to be copyright of the magazine. As for the claim by editors that it does not meet WP:NFCC#1, that was established by the use of the image for critical commentary on the image itself within the article. It cannot be replaced as no free equivalent exists.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Basically all creative works are automatically copyrighted, that is the default status, we need evidence to show otherwise or we must assume it is copyrighted. Monty ₈₄₅ 04:12, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm...I just said that. We assume it is, that's why it's licensed as "Fair Use". My point is, it has not been established as fact, therefore may well have been released under a different license or to the public domain. We also have no evidence that the original artist objects in anyway or that it matters for it's use on Wikipedia. The Obama "Hope" poster was a "Fair use" upload in the middle of a law suit between the parties involved. That did not involve Wikipedia policy in regards to Fair Use on the encyclopedia.--Amadscientist (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This poster was clearly not produced for economic gain of the creator, but to encourage participation in a non commercial event through the poster being distributed as widely as possible by others without charge. Also in the two discussions of this image the vast majority (83%) of editors who have commented favor retention (34 of 41) providing a broad consensus to keep it. Centpacrr (talk) 04:44, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — The image has contextual significance as per WP:NFCC: The poster featuring the Charging Bull was used to promote the protest, the fact of which is referenced in the article. The presence of the poster increases my understanding of the topic. --Fayerman (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's fair use. As a comment, it strikes me a bit absurd to argue that a poster for an event is shouldn't be reproduced because of copyright when the whole purpose of such a poster is to promote the event. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:41, 17 October 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:Laser show at Turnmills.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dark, blurry, not useful, bad title – Quadell ^(talk) 18:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and possibly move to the commons. I just found out about the article it was attached to, and I'm going to give it a new name now. ----DanTD (talk) 03:07, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I just renamed the image. However, I abstain. I repeat, I neither support keeping nor deletion. Fleet Command (talk) 09:40, 11 October 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:IMG 0408.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 as F9 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:01, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction of copyrighted content. Also, bad title. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:29, 10 October 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:IMG 0178.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: moved to Commons. The file is now located at File:Brooklyn Bridge as viewed from pedestrian walkway.jpg. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:08, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, bad title, no description. Some bridge. Uploader's history does not show what bridge this is. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:53, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to commons. This is the Brooklyn Bridge - see [6]. We have similar photos, but this is reasonable quality - doesn't hurt to have another. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It still ought to be renamed, though. ----DanTD (talk) 02:53, 11 October 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:Shopping area in Klaipeda.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 as F8 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, bad title, not useful – Quadell ^(talk) 19:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and Move to Commons - It's a McDonalds and a shopping center in Klaipėda, Lithuania. The least we can do is add it to their commons and throw some appropriate categories onto it. ----DanTD (talk) 03:05, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Nix on Commons. Per Commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama#Lithuania, freedom of panorama is limited to non-commercial use. So Commons can't accept it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:18, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Wow, the exact oppposite of us. What's wrong with us? ----DanTD (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As mentioned above, insufficiently free freedom of panorama in Lithuania, and therefore we can't move it to Commons, and the photo isn't that great to begin with. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Commons - FOP concerns are minimal because it is too simple of a building at this view ({{PD-simple}}). Otherwise, keep and mark with {{FoP-USonly}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The file was moved from File:IMG 0427.jpg to File:Shopping area in Klaipeda.jpg by Cloudbound (talk · contribs) at 19:00, 15 October 2011 (UTC). AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:09, 15 October 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:IMG 0449 50 51 fused.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source website does not indicate free license – Quadell ^(talk) 19:11, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw that the image description at File:Richard Byrd memorial on Mt Victoria Wellington.jpg indicates that the uploader, User:Partyzane, is the copyright holder, Alex Efimov at http://www.e-gallery.co.nz/. Unfortunately, the user seems unresponsive. What should be done with his uploads? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:15, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of permission on all of them. Obviously there is some question as to the authenticity of the uploader, and so we should tag them all for no permission. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:21, 11 October 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:Fran wild wellington.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source website does not indicate free license. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:13, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(As above) – Quadell ^(talk) 19:16, 10 October 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:IMG 0499.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of text. This translation may be copyrighted. – Quadell ^(talk) 19:21, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless better information provided. FYI, this would be a good use of {{subst:dw-nsd}}. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:13, 12 October 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:IMG 0521M.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: keep and moved to Commons Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, bad title, no description – Quadell ^(talk) 19:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to commons. Now described based on user contribs. Not totally sure how useful this image is, but seems marginally okay, and the colors are nice in any event. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Yes, it should be kept and moved now. (Calliopejen1 is awesome.) – Quadell ^(talk) 11:55, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Commons. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:27, 12 October 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:IMG 0568.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphan, bad title, no description – Quadell ^(talk) 19:34, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impossible to identify based on user contribs, bad quality. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note The original uploader claimed it was a Golden Buddah at Mount Emei, but that file somehow got eliminated by a glitch, and was replaced with this flower garden. ----DanTD (talk) 02:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - uploader overwrote another file with a non-trivial change and didn't provide any source or licensing information. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:34, 14 October 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:ORGovCounties06.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by SVG Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:34, 10 October 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:CALtGov06Counties.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:CA2006LtGovCounties.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:37, 10 October 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:CASecofState06Counties.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:CA2006SecOfState.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:53, 10 October 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:CATreasurer06Counties.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:CA2006Treasurer.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 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:CAInsComm06Counties.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:CA2006InsCom.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:54, 10 October 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:CAController06Counties.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:CA2006Controller.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:55, 10 October 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:CTSen06Counties.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, we have a better SVG by municipality: File:Connecticut Senatorial Election Results by municipality, 2006.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:04, 10 October 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:CASen06Counties.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:CA2006SenCounties.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:04, 10 October 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:CAGov06Counties.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:CA2006Gov.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 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:MEGov06Counties.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Mainegovelection2006.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:05, 10 October 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:BIMR-1808PMinv.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, encyclopedic value unclear, possible original research? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 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:BIMR-1808PMinv2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, encyclopedic value unclear, possible original research? Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:41, 10 October 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:Fogwater.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, marginal quality for generic photo of fog on water (no location identified) Calliopejen1 (talk) 22:44, 10 October 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:IPhone4S.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NFCC#8, WP:NFCC#1 - Fails #8 because it's not part of a critical commentary about the iOS platform. Fails #1 because this is a consumer product that is displayed in public (and on sale to the public this Friday) and any concern about the platform image can be addressed by masking the screen. Mosmof (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's delete this image as well. The only thing I don't understand is that the iPhone 4 image is also non-free and has been up for over a year. Zach Vega (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is no free equivalent of iOS, which the iPhone is basically unrecognizable without iOS. Zach Vega (talk) 23:25, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, delete the iPhone 4 image as well. And I don't know if the iPhone is "basically unrecognizable" without iOS. I see the phones out in the street all the time and don't have trouble recognizing them without seeing the screen. Or on my friend's jailbroken iPhone - I still recognize it as an iPhone 4. --Mosmof (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would editing the iPhone 4S image to take out the screen and re-uping it to commons work? Zach Vega (talk) 23:30, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see showing the screen is an issue, but you're free to use File:IPhone 4S Tokyo (cropped) black screen.jpg as a replacement. Also, File:IPhone 4 in hand.jpg has been replaced with a free image and marked as an orphan. --Mosmof (talk) 02:33, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If this were an otherwise free photo of the phone, then yes. However, the source on this one is listed as "Apple", which means that no, this image *isn't* free. So we will need to delete this one, but we can replace it with a completely new image fairly easily. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:31, 11 October 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.