Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 March 13

< March 12	March 14 >

March 13

File:Crayola-Shelf-Products.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) 11:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands, the caption on the image page, as well as Crayola, appears to be promoting a specific business, Lee's Art Shop. Either the references to the Shop should be eliminated, or the article should be deleted Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is absolutely ridiculous. I took this image myself and the caption just accurately describes where the image was taken, with no link or advertisement for the store. I am not affiliated with the store in any way shape or form. -- Dougie WII (talk) 03:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but edit the caption at the Crayola article so that it does not specifically name the shop. I don't see any other reason besides the caption to delete. I suppose the argument on the copyright of the box art and trademarks might apply but that would seem to fall under de-minimis, especially at the size shown for the article. PaleAqua (talk) 06:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, useful for illustrating products of Crayola. It's appropriate for the caption to say where the photo was taken, since we want to have detailed descriptions. Nyttend (talk) 13:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: has encyclopedic value for illustrating Crayola products. Can't see how it is promoting an individual business to be honest. -- Big Dom 18:03, 19 March 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:Balash I.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 coins are 3d objects per wikipedia's counsel[1], so {{PD-art}} doesn't apply. Deleting as a preventative measure - likely copyvios. Also, cannot be used as fair use because copyright holder not identified. File:Balash I.jpg

Also up for deletion:

All of these pictures were uploaded by a now indef blocked user, blocked for uploading copyright violations and claiming copyright as own work. There was conflicting metadata, and the user had a habit of listing a particular camera, despite conflicting metadata. They have since uploaded a large number of pictures licenced under the public domain, but searches with Tiny eye or google haven't helped much, so I ask that as a preventive measure, these pictures be deleted. Pictures of a user who has a history of copyright violations. It wouldn't be a stretch to assume the same as these. — Dæ dαlus^Contribs 03:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have reopened this because speedy delete does not equate to a debate by people here. The first file was confirmed as a copyright violation. But I feel that we should give enough opportunity for others to debate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the remaining pictures are images of ancient coins, marked as public domain because the coins are old. So the issue is whether an image of the coin has the same copyright as the original coin or not. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:39, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it does. Someone still has to take the picture, and that person still holds the copyright. You can't have someone take a picture of some ancient building and argue that it's in the PD because the building is ancient. I would say it still holds true for coins.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 19:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you can say that, at least for photographs of pictures or paintings. Given the minimal creativity in photographing a coin against a white background, I think that principle applies here (though IANAL). I think it is safe to keep these images. ÷seresin 06:04, 19 March 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:Tigua.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. It's very clear from past precedent that non-free art must be accompanied by commentary on the artwork itself. It cannot be used as an example of a style of art. howcheng {chat} 00:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nonfree image, artist not attributed Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per criterion 8 of the Non-free content criteria. In my opinion the picture adds educational value to the articles that it's used in and there is no free alternative available to use in its place. The source of the picture is given, which is enough to satisfy criterion 10, which says that the artist only needs to be attributed if that information is available. -- Big Dom 18:10, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks non-free use rationales. PhilKnight (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete lacks non-free use rationales --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The work is by an unknown indigenous artist and adds eductional value to the articles for critical commentary on the artistic genre or technique of the work of art and the school to which the artist belongs as stated in the lincensing tag.-TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The educational value of the work is exceptional and wikipedia would benefit if someone would be bold and help expand its rationale rather than simply deleting it. Thank you. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Added FUR for Culture_of_Ecuador but i don't believe it NFCC are met for its use in the(pls unlink from) Cotopaxi article.Will reduce to size to 0.25 Mpixels.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 06:11, 23 March 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:IMGP4328.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 ⚡ 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unused, lego men are under copyright IngerAlHaosului (talk) 14:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned picture with low encyclopedic value. -- Big Dom 18:14, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-encyclopedic, possible copyvio.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 07:17, 21 March 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:Chatmasalabox.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.

this was nominated for deletion before, but the deleiton discussion didn't make any sense. this is clearly copyrighted packaging and should be deleted Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:51, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire packaging (including the images of food) is copyright to the manufacturer of the product making it non-free, and its orphand.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forget that you tagged this to be moved to commons? [2]. Which is it? Do you know the laws in Thailand regarding pictures of products?--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep clearly in what way? Cite the relevant law and we'll talk about it.--Crossmr (talk) 00:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The box has a photo on it. Photos are copyrighted. There is no exception for photos that happen to be on the cover of boxes. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, maybe you misunderstood me. Could cite the relevant law in Thailand where this was taken?--Crossmr (talk) 04:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we shouldn't keep on the basis it could free, we should only keep if it's been proved to be free. PhilKnight (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree as far as copyright is concerned the safest thing to do is that everything with unknown or uncertain copyright should be considered non-free until proven otherwise.Because that is how copyright works, All rights reserved unless stated otherwise. --IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:10, 22 March 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:DNA Tower West Side Detail Damage to Wooden Base.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 ⚡ 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unencyclopaedic unused detail image of base of this non-free modern sculpture File:DNA Tower North Side Taken from Ground Level.jpg itself restricted by US freedom of panorama law. ww2censor (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete derivative work under US law does not extend to art making this non-free, and its orphaned.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:29, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No room for orphaned, non-free pictures on Wikipedia. -- Big Dom 18:15, 19 March 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:DNA Tower West Side Detail Damage to Base.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 ⚡ 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unencyclopaedic unused detail image of base of this non-free modern sculpture File:DNA Tower North Side Taken from Ground Level.jpg itself restricted by US freedom of panorama law. ww2censor (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete derivative work under US law does not extend to art making this non-free, and its orphaned.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per above rationales. -- Big Dom 18:17, 19 March 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:Mantis.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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not freely available per the archived source website (under the section "Copyright information"): "Many photographs in this database were taken by professional photographers who retain their copyright for non-government and for-profit use." The Evil IP address (talk) 19:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: orphaned and apparently unfree. -- Big Dom 18:17, 19 March 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:Brad Peterson.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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brad Peterson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bplabs (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal image. rootology (C)(T) 22:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete personal picture not used in any articles. -- Big Dom 17:57, 19 March 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:Brad-jacket.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 ⚡ 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brad-jacket.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bradbeckett (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal image. rootology (C)(T) 22:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, uploaded for the speedy-deleted autobiography Brad Beckett. Nyttend (talk) 13:46, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Nyttend -- Big Dom 17:55, 19 March 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:BradJohnson1.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 ⚡ 12:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BradJohnson1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Superioritycomplex (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal image. rootology (C)(T) 22:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, doesn't appear ever to have been used in an article or other page. Nyttend (talk) 13:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned picture with no encyclopedic value. -- Big Dom 18:20, 19 March 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:Bradburn Mike Stu.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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bradburn Mike Stu.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Richardhoggins (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 22:12, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, uploaded for Mike Bradburn, a (rightfully) speedy-deleted autobiography. Nyttend (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nyttend. -- Big Dom 18:21, 19 March 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:Brandon Blair.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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brandon Blair.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brandon W. Blair (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, uploaded for use at User:Brandon W. Blair, but userpage has since been blanked by user. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned photo with no use on Wikipedia. -- Big Dom 18:28, 19 March 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:Brandon and wify.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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brandon and wify.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Brandondkirhhofer (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, only uploaded for the rightfully speedily-deleted Brandon kirchhofer. Nyttend (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned picture only ever used on a speedied article. -- Big Dom 18:28, 19 March 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:Brandon saada.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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brandon saada.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Saadasoccer (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin comment: Due to what seems to be a bug in Twinkle, this listing had been removed from its proper place. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, useless. Nyttend (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: unencyclopedic orphaned picture. -- Big Dom 18:00, 19 March 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.