Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 00:38, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Orphaned, certainly a use could be found it the subject were encyclopedic...no evidence of this though. Uploader's status is irrelevant.
— BQZip01 —talk 20:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, obsoleted by Arashi-22-02-onelove-le.jpg, single cover under fair use
Luckyman88 (
talk) 00:44, 5 July 2008 (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.
The result of the debate was
deleted. No OTRS confirmation of identity. Can be easily undeleted later. howcheng {
chat} 19:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Apparently is a freely licensed, self-publication of a UK politician's (
John Denham (UK politician)) promotional photograph (note the word "office" in the editor's name). I have added the image to the article, but OTRS should contact the politicians office to be sure. --
Dragon695 (
talk) 10:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete OTRS is required to keep this image. The name of the wikipedian is meaningless unless OTRS-confirmed. Can someone show specifically where the copyvio is?
— BQZip01 —talk 20:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Well, ask OTRS to confirm the account, like we do for all notable names. --
Dragon695 (
talk) 16:37, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep while OTRS confirmation is pending; I don't see why we'd have to assume bad faith and delete just on the off-chance the uploader was lying about their identity. In a case like this where the uploader's behaviour is plausible and consistent, I don't see a problem with applying AGF.
Fut.Perf.☼ 08:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The problem is not specifically the identity of the uploader, but the fact that
He claims to be a U.K. politician of pretty high significance or a worker in the guy's office
He claims that he has the right to release a professional photo of said politician.
The photo has no source information, which is usually indicative of a copyvio when a professional image is involved, though not always.
If this person is who he claims to be, then I see no reason to delete the photo whatsoever. If he is not, he needs to provide source information and a fair use criteria for the image.
— BQZip01 —talk 12:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Cropped versions of this photo are already in use across the internet prior to its uploading:
[1][2][3]. I have NO problem undeleting this image later if it is found to be legit, but I'd prefer to err on the side of copyright laws for now.
— BQZip01 —talk 12:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
FPaS, does this mean OTRS is now involved? Just checking to make sure. BQZip01, I do not see what the big deal is. Of course it will appear in various other news sources. That's what a publicity shot is for, to give to the press and others when they want to run a story about you. This is SOP in the political world. You would do well to ratchet back your copyright paranoia and be a little more
mellow. There is no rush and no emergency here. Let this be a lesson, take time to double check these nominations to be sure. I get the feeling that many just blindly trust the nominator's belief. Given the dubiousness of some of the noms, I pledge to spend more time here to make sure we don't loose important gems to laziness and copyright paranoia. --
Dragon695 (
talk) 21:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Re your question, no, sorry, didn't mean to imply that, at least I didn't get them involved, I just saw that somebody else mentioned OTRS. In fact, anybody, not just OTRS, could just e-mail the guy's office and simply ask if it was authorized.
Fut.Perf.☼ 22:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)reply
A publicity shot is certainly valid, but as you stated they give it to the press for publicity purposes. We also desire free images or those under a relatively unrestrictive license. In any case, they still own the copyright. I'm not paranoid and this entire discussion shouldn't be rushed. Let's give them time to respond and just see what happens. I take time to review each nomination and stand by my original assertion (thought I could have been more clear on my rationale).
— BQZip01 —talk 01:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was
Deleted. Orphaned, none objecting.
WilyD 13:38, 16 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned, Absent uploader (only two contributions, both images), not enough context to determine encyclopedic value
BigrTex 01:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Absent uploader (only two contributions, both images), not enough context to determine encyclopedic value
BigrTex 01:03, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, but loader's status is irrelevant.
— BQZip01 —talk 20:52, 6 July 2008 (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.
Delete Decent quality image for the subject at hand; can be kept with OTRS verification.
— BQZip01 —talk 06:21, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Question - could the image be trimmed to remove the text?
PhilKnight (
talk) 13:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. I've uploaded a version with watermark removed and image lightened: it looks a lot better. It's released as GFDL-self, so no problem with permission. Absence is not a reason for deletion, unless there are grounds to suspect improper licensing. I see none here. If there are, then please provide evidence. An uploader doesn't have to be present on wiki for ever more. It is the only photo on
Bader Field, so there is no reason not to keep it. Ty 00:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment There is no reason that another photo of Bader Field could not be taken, so the image is replaceable and fails several
WP:NFCC criteria. Removing the copyright notice does not suddenly make this image GDFL. This image is copyrighted and the uploader needs to be confirmed as the photographer/copyright holder (through OTRS or other means) before we opt to keep it. I agree it is likely that this photographer is one and the same with the uploader, but we need to err on the side of copyright status here. Should the image ever be proven to be correctly uploaded by the photographer, the action can always be undone. Also, where did this image come from? I can't find it on the given link, so its origin is a bit of a mystery.
— BQZip01 —talk 04:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)reply
This is not a
WP:NFCC issue: you are making the wrong argument. It is not a non-free image. It is uploaded as a free image, so the point "the image is replaceable" is not applicable. The only reason for deletion then is in the case of a copyvio, and there is nothing to suggest it is one. You say yourself, "I agree it is likely that this photographer is one and the same with the uploader". There are numerous images uploaded as GFDL-self and accepted as such in good faith. If we are to start deleting everything which hasn't got a confirmation via OTRS or similar, that case needs to be made at policy level, not just in this particular instance. Ty 22:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution), Unencyclopedic (apparently uploaded for
Stone Ballad - speedied as NN Band)
BigrTex 16:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, likely Unencyclopedic (uploaded for
Team Visionaries - all other images appear to have already been deleted)
BigrTex 22:58, 5 July 2008 (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.
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.
Orphaned, Absent uploader (only 2 contributions remaining), no history of use, no context to determine encyclopedic value
BigrTex 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Valid GFDL contribution which could be encyclopedic, Move to commons. --
Dragon695 (
talk) 09:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep Image now in use as a demonstration of a small post office vs larger ones. Concur with move to commons.
— BQZip01 —talk 06:52, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Absent uploader (only 2 contributions remaining), no history of use, no context to determine encyclopedic value
BigrTex 23:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Valid GFDL contribution which could be encyclopedic, Move to commons. --
Dragon695 (
talk) 09:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep per dragon. elements of this image are clearly usable. Move to commons.
— BQZip01 —talk 06:54, 7 July 2008 (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.
Orphaned, Absent uploader, subject of the image is not clear
BigrTex 23:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Valid PD contribution which could be encyclopedic, Move to commons. --
Dragon695 (
talk) 11:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Uh...maybe parts of this could be salvaged, but there is no context of which tool is the cockscomb. If someone can find which one it is, keep it. Otherwise delete.
— BQZip01 —talk 06:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete I have attempted to find information on what this device is, but have found none. Suggest uploader send it to Commons with a better description, if he reads this in the future. --
Dragon695 (
talk) 18:11, 7 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep You will now find a description with links on the image page, as well as alternative names, a current supplier, and even a link to a mediaeval version. I have uploaded a detail as
Image:Cockscomb-detail.jpg which is used on
Stonemasonry: the presence of other tools is useful to give a scale. The cockscomb is the wooden tool with serrated blades. Ty 03:52, 25 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was
deleted. Minimal use in this case is zero as there is another non-free image used in the main article on this cartoon character with which this was replaced.
Angus McLellan(Talk) 13:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Obviously not a logo, so the image has an incorrect license. Use in article doesn't meaningfully add to the reader's understanding.
PhilKnight (
talk) 23:17, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's not a logo, and not supposed to be. It's an illustration that does in fact add to the reader's understanding. ----
DanTD (
talk) 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep and fix license. Image is used with to describe a main character. --
Dragon695 (
talk) 09:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was
deleted. Minimal use in this case is zero as there is another non-free image used in the main article on this cartoon character ... but you've read this already somewhere surely.
Angus McLellan(Talk) 13:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Obviously not a logo, so the image has an incorrect license. Use in article doesn't meaningfully add to the reader's understanding.
PhilKnight (
talk) 23:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. It's not supposed to be a logo, and does add to the reader's understanding. ----
DanTD (
talk) 23:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Uh...it is a copyrighted image...
— BQZip01 —talk 06:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
I could have been more specific. It is a copyrighted image without a FUR. Either add a rationale or delete it. This goes for all images on this/related pages.
— BQZip01 —talk 21:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep and fix license. Image is used with to describe a main character. --
Dragon695 (
talk) 09:47, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Yes, but other images are already in use. This is superfluous use of a copyrighted image.
— BQZip01 —talk 18:15, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Doesn't meaningfully help the reader understand the article.
PhilKnight (
talk) 23:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Actually, it enhances the reader's understanding of the article. ----
DanTD (
talk) 23:26, 5 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. Image meets all criteria for
WP:NFCC and judging by its use, does add understanding to the article. --
Dragon695 (
talk) 09:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Reply What the heck is "FUR?" ----
DanTD (
talk) 21:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Wow, sorry for my delay, but it is a Fair Use Rationale.
— BQZip01 —talk 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: I should've known. You know, I gave FUR for a lot of these, and they were dumped anyway. I've even added it to images I didn't upload, because I thought they were god for the articles. ----
DanTD (
talk) 11:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep per Dragon695. The image page already has a FUR (fair use rationale). Ty 02:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.