Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 March 10

< March 9	March 11 >

March 10

Watchmen smile.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Watchmen smile.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nite Owl II (notify | contribs).

Invalid fair-use. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 01:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no fair use on this image, uploader claimed CC. — neuro^(talk) 20:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uploader isn't the author. The image is copyrighted and non-free. Jay32183 (talk) 00:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry for being unclear. This is a copyrighted image from Watchmen from DC Comics. It is being used only for userboxes. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 00:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Improper fair use given. This could be deleted under WP:CSD#F3. - Fastily (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Busterrr (notify | contribs).

orphaned, unclear target article/encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 05:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom - Fastily (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Goose.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) An image with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

OR, UE Skier Dude (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

PRelic.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

orphaned, unclear target article/encyc. use Skier Dude (talk) 05:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - Fastily (talk) 05:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sleeping bono2.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sleeping bono2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hippieness (notify | contribs).

orphaned, blurred image of personal pet Skier Dude (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Image is orphaned, serves no encyclopedic value. - Fastily (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sigroc.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sigroc.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sigroc (notify | contribs).

OR, UE Skier Dude (talk) 05:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Orphaned, serves no encyclopedic value. - Fastily (talk) 05:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

PwC 5452435243452435.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:PwC 5452435243452435.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Offshoreholdingco (notify | contribs).

orphaned, unclear target article/encyc use Skier Dude (talk) 05:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Armenian+Andranik+Pasha+and+Cihangir+Axa.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Armenian+Andranik+Pasha+and+Cihangir+Axa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gurgin (notify | contribs).

This file is claimed to be an original photograph, "provided by a man who traveled through the Kurdish communities of Soviet Armenia during the 1980's". However this is clearly a made up picture, created by photoshop or painted, and the painter was not a skilled artist. The copyright status of this image is not clear, as the the consent of the person who created the image has not been demonstrated, and the encyclopedic value of the image is also questionable, as it is not a historic photograph, but a recent creation. I asked the uploader twice on his talk page [1] about this picture, but never received any response. Grandmaster 08:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A wannabe photo from obscure source, being actually drawn. The summary states that the file is provided by a certain man, but the tag is confusing at least, attributing the copyright to the uploader. brand спойт 10:30, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the image is not a recent creation, but is in the public domain and is an example of photomontage from the 1920s. The caption is badly worded, but it is not actually claimed to be an original photograph, but an original scan (i.e. the uploader believed the image had not been previously scanned by anyone) and the "provided by a man who traveled through the Kurdish communities of Soviet Armenia" comment refers to the person the uploader got the image from. However, the copyright tag is wrong, the uploader must incorrectly believe that he has some copyright over the image just because he scanned it, but of course he doesn't because he has not changed the original image! Meowy 15:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The tag is clearly incorrect. Delete unless the copyright status is established and a proper tag added. Stifle (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As well as Grandmaster, I've also asked the uploader to either change the copyright or clarify his words so that someone else could do it. If he/she can't be bothered, then maybe it should be erased. But I think we should wait a little longer before actually deleting it - give the editor a bit more time to provide the required details. As I said earlier, I'm pretty certain the image will be pd because it is probably from from the 1920s. I've seen several stylistically near-identical images (photomontage-like combinations of a heavily-retouched photograph with drawn elements) of General Andranik from that same period. Meowy 20:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

AutiTTMTS.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: Wrong forum. The image is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The image watermark makes it unusable for wikipedia. Silverxxx (talk) 09:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Indian Eag Eater reported by Dr.Piyush.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian Eag Eater reported by Dr.Piyush.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dr.piyush.lashkari (notify | contribs).

This image's watermark clearly makes it unusable for wikipedia Silverxxx (talk) 09:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Seperation Beagle2.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seperation Beagle2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ColdCase (notify | contribs).

Image is of such low quality that it adds nothing to readers' understanding of the article, failing WP:NFCC#8 Stifle (talk) 10:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

York-Trout Creek Bridge on the Missouri River in Helena National Forrest-300px.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 Mav (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:York-Trout Creek Bridge on the Missouri River in Helena National Forrest-300px.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mav (notify | contribs).

Deprecated: Low res crop of File:York-Trout Creek Bridge on the Missouri River in Helena National Forrest-750px.JPG Papa November (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hall Mills 012.jpg

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

The result of the discussion was: delete - consensus is the image passes WP:NFCC#1, but fails WP:NFCC#10a as the copyright holder is not attributed. PhilKnight (talk) 01:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Hall Mills 012.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (notify | contribs).

Despite repeated requests, the uploader of this image has declined to provide a full and complete rationale covering all the requirements at WP:NFCC, in particular how this image is not replaceable by a free image or by text. Furthermore, the copyright holder is not attributed, as required by WP:NFCC#10a. Stifle (talk) 10:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person in the photo is dead, and the source of the photo is listed. Would a picture of a rotted corpse dug out of the ground be the free equivalent if I took it myself? Franklin Township library has the prosecutor's material deposited there from the case. The rational is provided and is clearly written, and all the points for fair use are covered. If there is a problem based on new provisions in fair use, or some newer template, shouldn't there be an attempt to fix it instead of deleting it? What is going to happen when I am no longer around to answer questions, if the deleter is looking for some keyword they feel is missing from the rational, they should add it in good faith before considering deletion, fix before deletion. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But could it be replaced by text? Also, who is the copyright holder? The questions won't go away. Stifle (talk) 10:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the copyright holder is not attributed. (neither the library nor the prosecutor is the copyright holder.) also, her appearance is not important to the article. she was a murder suspect, not a fashion model. Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:03, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it is an unsolved murder, all the suspects are important.

But that doesn't mean what she looks like is important. Calliopejen1 (talk) 05:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As important as any other photo of a dead person used under "fair use". No person can be better described in words than any other person.
Keep The subject is dead, making it rather challenging to obtain an alternative free image. The picture is relevant to the article where it is used, which provides images of all of the suspects in a rather notable case. Alansohn (talk) 17:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That covers WP:NFCC#1, how about #10a (attributing the copyright holder) and #10c (full and proper rationale)? Stifle (talk) 10:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Glasseelu.mov

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Glasseelu.mov (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kils (notify | contribs).

Unsupported file format. Theora version available at Commons Papa November (talk) 11:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

State doctrines.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. PhilKnight (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:State doctrines.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Til Eulenspiegel (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic: China has no 'state doctrine'. See People's_Republic_of_China#Religion. Ben (talk) 11:50, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The data is taken from New State of the World Atlas which similarly shows "Maoism" as the official "State doctrine" of China. The wikipedia section on "Religion of China" Ben linked might not mention this, but sufficient other sources do state that China has an official state doctrine. Furthermore, I colored in this map and uploaded strictly for personal use, on my personal user page, and could have given it any title I want, other than "State_doctrines.jpg". It was not intended for use in any article, and indeed it is not used anywhere but on my personal user page. Please do not delete it for someone's political reasons. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a reliable source on China, indeed, [a]s with past editions, the atlas makes no attempt to hide its basic ideological bias--that nation-states often act contrary to the best interests of their populace. [2] It's a propaganda piece. Even if it was a reliable source, the map tries to indicate two things, but not consistently. It indicates state religions except in the case of China, and something called a state doctrine in the case of China, but for no-one else. This exception makes it useless for any encyclopaedic purpose, hence unencyclopaedic, and is likely to confuse others that come across it. Finally, WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Ben (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben, it's incredible that you would seek to delete my userbox picture claiming that China has no official state ideology. Do you think we cannot read, or are just stupid? Scientific Development Concept should help you out. My map is merely a combination of "State_religions.jpg" and "Communist States.svg", and resembles dozens of similar maps in lots of atlases. It should not be deleted from my personal user page just to appease your site-wide atheist POV, political and anti-religion crusade, which a growing number of editors are finding purely disruptive. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:17, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Til, stop carrying on, I couldn't care less about your user page and I didn't claim China has no official state ideology. I said it had no state doctrine, and I was associating the word doctrine with religion. After all, you made the image to use for a 'religion' user box, and you only noted the "State_religions.jpg" file in your file description, so you can understand why I made that association and why I was confused when I saw states like China coloured in. I feel many others will be confused too when they see the image, but now that I understand you've just combined two maps (File:State Religions.svg and File:Communist States.svg are the correct titles for anyone reading this), I recommend you update the file description to explain this. That said and done, I still don't see how a map illustrating states that endorse any religion or endorse a particular political ideology is encyclopaedic. It seems to me they should be kept separate, in which case they are obviously encyclopaedic. Or is there some relationship that I'm unaware of? If so, perhaps you can point me in the direction of an article discussing the relationship where it's possible this image may be used. Ben (talk) 15:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have to justify every image I upload for use on my private user home page according to your never-satisfied demands. Stop harassing me. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Baku15.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Baku15.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doluca (notify | contribs).

watermarked, likely copyvio Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:21, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

OldBeyoglu.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OldBeyoglu.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doluca (notify | contribs).

doubt the uploader took this historical photo. may be PD but there's no source Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

OldBosphorus.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OldBosphorus.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doluca (notify | contribs).

doubt the uploader took this historical photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

OldGalataBridge.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OldGalataBridge.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doluca (notify | contribs).

doubt the uploader took this historical photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

OldGalatasaray1.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OldGalatasaray1.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doluca (notify | contribs).

doubt the uploader took this historical photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

KuklaTheather.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:KuklaTheather.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doluca (notify | contribs).

uploader sometimes uploads files that obviously aren't his. seems like this is one of the cases. is this a drawing/mock-up? doesn't really look like a photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

RukhiyetPalace.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RukhiyetPalace.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doluca (notify | contribs).

suspicious low-res photo, uploader often uploads things that aren't his (see above) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

TheatherAshgabat.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TheatherAshgabat.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Doluca (notify | contribs).

suspicious low-res photo, uploader isn't the most reliable re copyright Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nilkanth_Varni.JPG

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nilkanth_Varni.JPG (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AroundTheGlobe (notify | contribs).

appears to be a photo of artwork, not an original work. if this is a photo of artwork, where is it located and when was it created? Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belongs to www [dot] swaminarayan [dot] org [dot] in and I took their permission before uploading it here. There was an issue with another pic from the same website, some time back: Mumbai Swaminarayan Temple.jpg and I forwarded an email giving me blanket permission to use all their information and pictures here under GDFL from their website to permissions-en [at] wikimedia.org on 14 October 2008. This covers the above stated pic - I c no problem with this now. Around The Globe^{सत्यमेव जयते} 15:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless what AroundTheGlobe says can be verified. PhilKnight (talk) 01:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

NZI_pavlova.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NZI_pavlova.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hamedog (notify | contribs).

photo of non-free ad Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Frangieh.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frangieh.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Davidcannon (notify | contribs).

not PD just bc it comes from a govt website. might be justified under WP:NFCC but that requires a search first to see if a free image is available (which it might be, for a president) Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Frontiers_Aug_1_2006_cover.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 in the magazine article only. removed from the biography - Peripitus (Talk) 04:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Frontiers_Aug_1_2006_cover.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Benjiboi (notify | contribs).

a free photo of jeffree star at a public appearance would adequately convey his appearance. yes i realize this is his first cover but what does it convey that words (plus a free image) could not? Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:38, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This genderfuck internet celebrity, amongst the first ever to explode onto MySpace, developed his own modeling/branding techniques and skills and has dozens of simply stunning images which we are likely never going to see here. These images are how he built up thousands of fans online without ever making a public appearance. He was, at the time, an underaged teen boy modeling as a high-fashion pin-up woman and it fooled everyone. And they loved him for it. A free public appearance photo would in no way convey the immense artistry that goes into a major photoshoot. This is the closest we are likely to get of him as an edgy model. Every free photo has been and likely for the forseeable future will remain candid but lower-quality images. These are fine for people who are not known for being edgy fashion models bending gender boundaries but this is part and parcel to who Star is. This is not only his first magazine cover but likely the only one we're going to see and be able to use here. It's one thing to describe how he looks like a hot edgy young woman so sexy that strait guys don't care, but it's another thing to see an image that comes close to demonstrating that. -- Banjeboi 14:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you contacted him to see if he would be willing to release a publicity photo under a free license? And note (for other editors) that we already have the free photo File:JStarcrop.jpg. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure where in policy we are required to solicit under Fair-use. Also File:JStarcrop.jpg is a perfect example of a low quality image that completely does not represent Star as a fashion model but just as a celeb-at-some-event-in-passing shot which doesn't illustrate much besides his general appearance at social events. Even a red-carpet or catwalk posed shot would not illustrate his modeling high-fashion photo shoots which are often high-concept. -- Banjeboi 01:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:NFCC1 - if you can get a free photo by asking, this one is replaceable. We don't generally allow nonfree images even for fashion models, btw. Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that says nothing about editors should contact artists to encourage them to waive rights on copyright material so we can have free content and I'm uncomfortable presuming we should and indeed even asking. You'll notice the very next statement regards diminishing their commercial ability. This would be doing exactly that, asking an artist to essentially give up one of their works because we are unwilling to use the acceptable fair use content we have. -- Banjeboi 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominator seems to be the uploader of the only other photo on Star available. There's room for both in the article but I found this information interesting to this discussion. -- Banjeboi 01:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't care less whether my photo is in the article. I don't care about Jeffree Star at all. I have uploaded thousands of images. This magazine cover was on my watchlist as a questionable image, and I am cleaning out my watchlist (see above and below). Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just thought it was relative to this discussion, both images, the only two we have for this subject, are now in the article. -- Banjeboi 18:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-free image of living person. Not only is a free image able to be created, one already exists and appears on commons. Clear cut failure of WP:NFCC#1. Jay32183 (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You may want to read the whole discussion. This is beyond simply a free image discussion because actually, a free image that illustrates this person as a high-fashion model does not exist. The free image we have is a poor quality event photo which does not and could not illustrate what this one is illustrating. -- Banjeboi 23:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - None of that is relevant. It's a non-free image to show what a living person looks like. Adding the text that the person is a fashion model gives the reader a complete understanding of the topic. There's nothing to discuss. The idea on Wikipedia is to avoid non-free content. The image you're asking for could be created under a free license, it's not relevant that one hasn't yet. This image outright fails WP:NFCC#1, it needs to be deleted. Jay32183 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Again you are mistaken. This person's career started from him producing and modeling high-concept fashion shoots as a woman. This is remarkable since he's a man and that visual art form is not best expressed in simply talking about it when an image of his artwork is available, which it is. And no, we don't avoid non-free media, we work towards providing free content which is different. -- Banjeboi 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I am not mistaken on any point. We avoid non-free content, non-free content is bad for Wikipedia. This non-free image is being used to show what a living person looks like. There is also no rationale for the article on the magazine, nor is the particular issue or cover discussed, and therefore should be deleted. You just don't understand WP:NFCC. Unless you can prove that a non-free image is absolutely necessary, we do not use it. Jay32183 (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Image is now used on the magazine's article since there wasn't one there so this all may be moot. -- Banjeboi 01:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The picture can stay in the magazine's article, but should be taken off of the article for Jeffree Star in favor of a free image. AniMate^talk 07:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A free image for the person is definitly needed, but the fair use rationale for this is good, and informs the reader in ways text cannot, not only indentifying the person, but informing readerrs of what sort of modelling he does, and what is meant by gender-fuck in this case. This is more akin to a photo of a piece of art, and a non-proffesional image would not show thisYob Mod 11:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If this picture is kept it can only be used for the magazine. Please see Wikipedia:Non-free content, images #10. Under "unacceptable use", "A magazine or book cover, to illustrate the article on the person whose photograph is on the cover. However, if the cover itself is the subject of sourced discussion in the article, and if the cover (or book) does not have its own article, it may be appropriate." I think it's a great picture, but we have a free image. And I am sure that if someone with understanding of the person were to email Jeffree Star and ask him to release one image of himself for free use he'd go for it. It doesn't do anyone any good to violate both his and the magazine's copyright like this. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 12:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for use in the magazine's article only, but remove from Jeffree Star. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for use in the magazine article only per Stifle. PhilKnight (talk) 01:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

LePontd'Avignon.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:LePontd'Avignon.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hamedog (notify | contribs).

the image is dominated by a non-free photo; no freedom of panorama in france Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Meclogo.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Meclogo.png (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Iothiania (notify | contribs).

Obsoleted by fair-use SVG File:MEC Logo.svg. +mt 17:35, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Wheel25000sign.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wheel25000sign.jpg (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sottolacqua (notify | contribs).

Low quality, muddy image. Screenshot of a YouTube clip, not really encyclopedic. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Celebrity Brad Paisley.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Celebrity Brad Paisley.gif (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Holiday56 (notify | contribs).

Per precedent, sheet music covers can't be used to identify a song as the label doesn't own the sheet music. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 18:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Coens and Rudin.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 G7 by Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Coens and Rudin.JPG (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wildhartlivie (notify | contribs).

Press agency photos cannot be fair use. ViperSnake151 20:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This was uploaded in January, I believe but couldn't be used. I actually thought it had already been deleted. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G7 per above comment. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 03:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Chris.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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chris.png (for deletion/2009 March 10]] delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ihcoyc (notify | contribs).

Deprecated by higher-res, better quality version at Commons Papa November (talk) 20:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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