Copy vio See
[1] Trainweb policy says if it doesn't say Copyright Trainweb it is not free use and is not covered under the Trainweb photo policy, see here
[2]. --
Samuell (
talk) 18:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)reply
OK to delete, this was just a simple PNG to SVG conversion I made once to try out the technique. It has since been removed from the
21st century article (which could use some graphics, though). --
Pekaje 06:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Speedy delete per G11. Associated text proves only use was promotional spam. --
Xoloz (
talk) 17:20, 16 November 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
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.
Speedy delete per G11. Associated text proves only use was promotional spam. --
Xoloz (
talk) 17:21, 16 November 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This fails NFCC #8. "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. Non-free media files are not used if they can be replaced by text that serves a similar function." I cannot see anything in the image that provides more information than a text description would. Also, it was uploaded by a permanently banned user. Since this is about the Arab/Israeli political propaganda thing, many pro-Israel partisans will probably want it deleted, and many anti-Israel partisans will probably want it deleted. Whatever. What is important is that it fails NFCC #8.- --
129.137.236.98 (
talk) 18:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep Whether the image fails NFCC #8 is a matter of opinion. It's not a copyright law issue, since the image is a short section of text (clearly fair use) plus the Wikipedia logo (which Wikipedia owns). NFCC is meant to keep Wikipedia out of legal trouble, and that's not the issue here. Wikipedia has many screenshots of web sites which show a site doing something of interest. This one demonstrates a organized attempt to push a point of view into Wikipedia, so it's significant on that basis. ----
John Nagle (
talk) 19:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)reply
What does the picture show that text could not convey? --
129.137.236.98 (
talk) 20:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Images should not be used as a lock on content. Intent of the organization is not expressed in pictures but in text.
Pavel Vozenilek (
talk) 19:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Fair use rationale is appropriate, plus it's backed by company release as stated on description page.
MarsInSVG (
talk) 05:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The rationale is completely inappropriate, as it's clear that a free image could be created. And if you look it up, the company also asks that we "let [them] review/approve any business type applications." That's pretty restrictive, and thus irrelevant to this discussion. --
RG2 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Fair use rationale is appropriate, plus it's backed by company release as stated on description page.
MarsInSVG (
talk) 05:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The rationale is completely inappropriate, as it's clear that a free image could be created. And if you look it up, the company also asks that we "let [them] review/approve any business type applications." That's pretty restrictive, and thus irrelevant to this discussion. --
RG2 21:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Fair use rationale is appropriate, plus it's backed by company release as stated on description page.
MarsInSVG (
talk) 05:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The rationale is completely inappropriate, as it's clear that a free image could be created. And if you look it up, the company also asks that we "let [them] review/approve any business type applications." That's pretty restrictive, and thus irrelevant to this discussion. --
RG2 21:35, 17 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. The image can be replaced.
Rettetast 23:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Uploader states: "will replace when I have access to this vehicle." Clearly a replaceable nonfree image. --
RG2 21:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)reply
Copyright violation. Uploader states: "When I get the opportunity I will be getting my own photos." Clearly a replaceable nonfree image. --
RG2 21:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)reply
CV, UE, LQ, etc - Picture violates virtually every rule we have for uploading images, it's unencyclopedic, comes from a questionable source and does not substantially contribute to the article it's used in. Carries a license from Uncyclopedia that I would call "less than ideal." --
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 22:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)reply
The image is not orphaned. It appears in the article for
Richmond, Victoria. This building is of particular historical importantce to the area. --
Biatch (
talk) 00:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)reply