Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 6

< September 5	September 7 >

September 6

File:LL in 85.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. Still looking for that critical commentary I'm afraid. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:54, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable photo from album liner note, not discussed in article and not the album cover, fails WP:NFCC#8 Mosmof (talk) 00:54, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An image used for the purposes of criticism and comment in the article Radio (LL Cool J album) ([1]). Adds to and comments on album's historical context and artist's background. Also related to the article's discussion of the hip hop culture and emerging "ghettoblaster" scene the album had impact on. Dan56 (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-free image of LL Cool J holding up a boombox is not necessary to understand the album's context. There are several free alternatives that could be used. — ξ ^xplicit 03:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As long as this photo is from this album's liner: unsure on that. I do think placing an image from his album liner is relevant, even if the wording on the article can and should be updated. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do think placing an image from his album liner is relevant... That would require the image itself to be relevant, and that would require sourced critical commentary on this specific image. There is none, which makes it fail the strict WP:NFCC policy. — ξ ^xplicit 21:07, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point was that the critical commentary should be expanded. If this album was a key factor in the ghettoblaster movement (whatever that is), and this photo from this album was a key part of it, then I certainly think it qualifies as fair use. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree that his use of the ghettoblaster as a prop in general was iconic, but I'm not seeing how this particular image is significant. Mosmof (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the image reflects the ghetto-blaster nature specifically of this album and its significance within the culture. Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A ghettoblaster is a boombox, if I'm not mistaken (at least, that's where ghettoblaster redirects to). What can this non-free image provided that a free image can't? — ξ ^xplicit 00:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because we are discussing on this album's page how this specific image from this album was important in the bringing about of the ghettoblaster culture. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image isn't being discussed, which is why it's nominated to begin with. Over a week has lapsed since its nomination and it's still lacking critical commentary, something should be provided by those interested in having the image kept. I fail to see how this doesn't violate WP:NFCC#8. — ξ ^xplicit 04:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed to deletion without prejudice to recreation provided it has better critical commentary. I would provide myself, except I know nothing about the subject. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:34, 15 September 2010 (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:CosmicRetribution.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book cover used on artist's article without critical commentary & FuR (2005 image) Skier Dude (talk 03:24, 6 September 2010 (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:SunkistFlavors.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 - derivative photo, unused. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:35, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:12, 6 September 2010 (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:Sunkist.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 - derivative photo, unused. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:34, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 07:13, 6 September 2010 (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:Valet.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 (withdrawn) and license information updated. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused file, no way to verify copyright status as source site is down. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to this edit, it's a nineteenth-century image, so it's likely PD in the US. The signature in the bottom left corner makes me guess that this image was published by the photographer; if so, it would almost certainly by PD-1923. No proof, however; thus the "Comment" rather than "Keep". Nyttend (talk) 14:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep site is back up, claims photographer died in 1882. So now public ___domain. Hobit (talk)

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:P aman.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 - withdrawn per Nyttend. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:49, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source is down, unused image, unclear title: completely unable to determine proper copyright status aside from a tag which indicates nothing about PD status in the US (where Wikimedia servers are housed). Magog the Ogre (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a photograph that was taken before 1892; this edit shows that it's a picture of Theodor Aman. I'd guess this to be PD in the USA, although I can't remember the criteria well enough to be sure. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (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:Haugsetting.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. While the keep arguments are rather weak, I also glanced at Commons:COM:FOP#Norway before closing this. The net result is that this mechanical reproduction of the image could easily be in the public ___domain even when the underlying image is not. That'll do for me. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Close revised by closer.

On reflection, the original close was clearly in error and the correct outcome was delete. FOP is not relevant. I will happily undelete this if anyone believes they can write a compliant non-free content rationale, although personally I do not see how this can be done. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image without enough information to establish if it's public ___domain in the US or not. Magog the Ogre (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has an attribution-only license even if it isn't in the PD (which it probably is). I _think_ it works for us. Hobit (talk) 13:24, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image belongs to the estate of an author that died 62 years ago. Unless the uploader is in direct contact with that estate, the attribution only license was placed in error. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was unclear. See the comment in the licensing section. I don't read German, but assuming the note is correct, this is a form of attribution-only licensing from the source. Not sure if it's compatible with our licensing rules, but at first blush it seems likely. Hobit (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I fail to see the problem here. This is an old public ___domain Norwegian educational poster that a university has made available for anyone to use on condition that it is attributed to them, see [2]. It is already properly tagged for that purpose.--Berig (talk) 17:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That site does indeed state that the image is public ___domain, but per Commons:COM:L#Norway, it's wrong: the author passed away 62 years ago, not 70. Regardless, it is not public ___domain in the United States unless the work was published before 1923, and it needs to be PD there for legal purposes. Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2010 (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:Dwctlogo.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

organization's logo used on founder's page with no critical commentary (other than he was the founder); no FuR (2005 image) Skier Dude (talk 22:30, 6 September 2010 (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:GDMemorial.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

video cover used on subject's page with no critical commentary; no FuR (2005 image) Skier Dude (talk 22:31, 6 September 2010 (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:Wildlifetrustlogo.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

organization's logo used on founder's page with no critical commentary (other than he was the founder); no FuR (2005 image) Skier Dude (talk 22:31, 6 September 2010 (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:Durgakhote biography 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: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

book cover used on author's article without any critical commentary; no FuR (2006 image) Skier Dude (talk 22:43, 6 September 2010 (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:G rilla.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned file, target article deleted via prod. — ξ ^xplicit 23:50, 6 September 2010 (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.