orphaned image, absent uploader, no information provided to substantiate the free use provided license
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:30, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, the license added by uploader states that the image must remain unaltered which would prohibit derivatives; therefore non-free.
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:42, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orpahned image, recently absent uploader, the text added by the uploader limits commercial use and also prohibits alterations; the license added by a subsequent editor is in direct conflict with the information supplied at the time of upload.
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orpahned image, absent uploader, the requirements of the license state that the copyright holder is asked permission for any alterations -- to me this limits the free use as by having to ask, there is a chance of denial therefore non-free.
Jordan 1972 (
talk) 01:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Confused - the image at Commons is not the same image. The Commons version is a landscape image named "RTB landscape.jpg" and is the same as another image at Commons named "RTB.jpg" The one I did this IfD on was, as it says, "Orphaned. Promo photo from a non-existent article" The article
Rtb (band) was CSD'd in January. As the image that was nominated was not deleted what happened to it? Just curious in a case such as this.
Soundvisions1 (
talk) 03:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned photo of a guitar player
Soundvisions1 (
talk) 02:13, 29 October 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, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 02:55, 29 October 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, Copyright violation
Nv8200ptalk 02:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I think the nomination for deletion is 100% right. A little over than a year ago; when I first joined, I did not really understand the Licensing policy at Wikipedia. Now that I know it I think the deletion of the cover is supposed to be executed without delay.--
Mnbitar (
talk) 06:38, 30 October 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.
Fair use image being used incorrectly to depict a living person, in the article about the person. Could be used instead, in the article about the character, but not a
WP:BLP. Cirt (
talk) 05:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Fair use image being used incorrectly to depict a person, in the article about the person. Could be used instead, in the article about the character, but not the biographical article about the actor. Cirt (
talk) 05:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Fair use image being used incorrectly to depict a person, in the article about the person. Could be used instead, in the article about the character, but not the biographical article about the actor. It is most likely possible to obtain a free-use image of the individual. Cirt (
talk) 05:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Fair use image being used incorrectly to depict a person, in the article about the person. Could be used instead, in the article about the character, but not the biographical article about the actor. It is most likely possible to obtain a free-use image of the individual. Cirt (
talk) 05:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Fair use image being used incorrectly to depict a person, in the article about the person. Could be used instead, in the article about the character, but not the biographical article about the actor. It is most likely possible to obtain a free-use image of the individual. Cirt (
talk) 05:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Doesn't come close to meeting
WP:NFCC#8. I doubt most readers have ever seen the image, much less need the image to help identify it.
PiracyFundsTerrorism (
talk) 07:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Promotional cover. Doesn't come close to meeting
WP:NFCC#8. I doubt most readers have ever seen the image, much less need the image to help identify it.
PiracyFundsTerrorism (
talk) 07:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Promotional cover. Doesn't come close to meeting
WP:NFCC#8. I doubt most readers have ever seen the image, much less need the image to help identify it.
PiracyFundsTerrorism (
talk) 07:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Promotional cover. Doesn't come close to meeting
WP:NFCC#8. I doubt most readers have ever seen the image, much less need the image to help identify it.
PiracyFundsTerrorism (
talk) 07:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Promotional cover. Doesn't come close to meeting
WP:NFCC#8. I doubt most readers have ever seen the image, much less need the image to help identify it.
PiracyFundsTerrorism (
talk) 07:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Promotional cover. Doesn't come close to meeting
WP:NFCC#8. I doubt most readers have ever seen the image, much less need the image to help identify it.
PiracyFundsTerrorism (
talk) 07:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Promotional cover. Doesn't come close to meeting
WP:NFCC#8. I doubt most readers have ever seen the image, much less need the image to help identify it.
PiracyFundsTerrorism (
talk) 07:32, 29 October 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.
sourced to copyrighted website where there is no indication of gfdl licensing
Calliopejen1 (
talk) 12:52, 29 October 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, Copyright violation
Nv8200ptalk 16:22, 29 October 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: Speedy deleted at the uploader's request. —
Coren(talk) 21:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Not at all. We are at a crossroads in the understanding of how fair use images may be used. Consensus has changed; it's acceptable to use
Image:Companions EP vinyl cover.jpg at
Companion (Doctor Who), according to a simply majority of administrators in the discussion you cited. It should therefore be equally acceptable to use this image as it has been used. --
Hammersoft (
talk) 16:44, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
A "simple majority of administrators" is not, nor has it ever been, a determining factor for changing a guideline. To change an existing guideline would require a consensus to change it. Also, the arguments are quite different: the arguments for using a montage of faces center around the concept that people might only recognize and know the face, and giving them an image to click on will greatly speed their navigation. Giving them a highly decorative image that says "Fuego" on it doesn't greatly aid them in finding a single named "Fuego". Two different cases, and this one is far, far, weaker.—
Kww(
talk) 16:54, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Rather the opposite. People can and do remember albums by their cover art. They might not remember the exact title, but the cover art may very well trigger the memory to the associated album. This is certainly far more the case then a tightly cropped photo of an actor in a role such that you can not see the actor's costume. The case for album cover navigational montages is actually stronger. If we were to create the equivalent for album covers, we'd have to crop it down to one segment of the album cover, which would hardly be useful. I'll cite
WP:CCC again, and note that it says "More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact." I believe consensus has changed. The evidence is clear. --
Hammersoft (
talk) 17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete; I don't see the image being used in an article where the covers themselves are discussed (nor, indeed reliable independent sources discussing the number, quality or visual representation of those covers). —
Coren(talk) 18:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
But they are useful, are they not? --
Hammersoft (
talk) 19:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Since the din of the witch hunt has become so loud, and any attempt at intellectually honest discussion has therefore become impossible, I've requested speedy deletion of the image and removed it from the article. --
Hammersoft (
talk) 20:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I'm sure you understand the concept of "necessary but not sufficient"; the fact that an image is useful is not, by itself, sufficient to justify inclusion. I don't think anyone made that argument, certainly not those whom you misquote as supporting this image. —
Coren(talk) 21:48, 29 October 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, Image size, name in summary and lack of metadata seem to indicate the uploader is not the copyright holder as claimed.
Nv8200ptalk 16:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
One could perhaps make a claim for fair use in
Pacific Northwest tree octopus — but anyone minded to do that could just as well reupload from the source. So, delete. —
Ilmari Karonen (
talk) 01:10, 30 October 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: - Delete - licence is obviously incorrect and, without a source, fair-use cannot be claimed. Greek copyright in general gives protection for seventy years after the death of the author -
Peripitus(Talk) 10:28, 5 November 2008 (UTC)reply
publish in 1940, self-mode? is PD?
Shizhao (
talk) 16:50, 29 October 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, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 18:04, 29 October 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, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 18:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I went ahead and deleted this. I originally created it for an icon to be used in a user box, but it was not. I don't see it having any encyclopedic value that
Image:Old farmer woman.JPG cannot meet.
Okiefromoklaquestions? 22:58, 29 October 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, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 19:18, 29 October 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, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 19:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Author tagged for speedy deletion. No need for discussion...although I am confused as to what led you to determine it as unencyclopedic... --
Onorem♠Dil 19:45, 29 October 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: - Keep - were used in a relevant discussion only a month ago and the author seems to hint at future use -
Peripitus(Talk) 10:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)reply
NB: I've bundled what was independent/cloned noms by Nv8200p for these two inter-related images.
DMacks (
talk) 19:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic
Nv8200ptalk 19:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Demonstration of rendering/page layout issue that still affects numerous articles. It actually is not orphaned (it's linked rather than embedded though, to avoid cluttering the discussion of this specific image).
DMacks (
talk) 19:24, 29 October 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.