Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 May 24

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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gigapixel small.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Aarchiba (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Fails WP:NFCC #8: does not contribute significantly to the reader's understanding of the topic. The other examples do not use fair-use images; instead, they describe the subject using text and link to the original image on the original website. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:35, 24 May 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.

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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copy of face.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Ikk1984 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:56, 24 May 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.

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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corkum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Yavno (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:56, 24 May 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.

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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Corky.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Heywoodrocks (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:56, 24 May 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.

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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Cory Sr 64.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Czheck (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:56, 24 May 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.

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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Crazed Boman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Libertyguy (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:57, 24 May 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.

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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DSC000822.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Erik0578 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:57, 24 May 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.

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⚡ 02:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DalePic 0001.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Bjrick (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:57, 24 May 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.

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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dan Geisler 1999.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Geislert (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:57, 24 May 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.

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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Copy of DSC00096.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Brigidakelly (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Low Quality, Unencyclopedic, no foreseeable use. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:57, 24 May 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.

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 Tim Song (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dr. Sadrieh Black Shirt.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Sadrieh (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Orphaned, Low Quality, no foreseeable use, possible copyvio. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:57, 24 May 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.

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⚡ 02:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Silvershiner.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Tlmclain (notify | contribs | uploads).

• orphaned, superseded by .jpg image Skier Dude (talk) 17:44, 18 March 2009 (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 05:26, 24 May 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 05:26, 24 May 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.

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⚡ 02:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Serhel.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Serbohellas (notify | contribs | uploads).

• orphaned, superseded by .png image Skier Dude (talk) 17:45, 18 March 2009 (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 05:28, 24 May 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 05:28, 24 May 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.

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; nominator is advised to nominate files in smaller batches or individually. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1870 census Turpin.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (notify | contribs | uploads).

This editor appears to be using Wikipedia as a web-host for their family history project. This is far from the first time they've been called to account about it, there being a mass deletion on Commons in 2007, and another one being discussed right now. Currently, a slew of their userspace pages are also nominated for deletion.

This nomination is along much the same lines as the other ones: the vast amount of content listed goes entirely against the letter and the spirit of WP:WEBHOST, which clearly identifies that one's "user page is not a personal homepage, nor is it a blog."

If you can't face trawling through the stuff I've collected together, perhaps the best examples are this image and this image, though they are almost identical to countless others (cf. this, this, this and this).

Most of the images are also improperly tagged as CC-BY etc. despite having been taken in decades ago and likely not released by their creators, certainly with no evidence of permission, though admittedly some are tagged {{OTRS-pending}}. All sorts of problems like that like that. (The uploader's other images mainly had exactly the same problems, and he took to relabelling them as fair-use images after being challenged on the CC-BY point.)

I have spent hours marking all this material, and think I've identified precisely that which should be deleted. As you'll see from the volume of material, it's been a huge job, so do feel free to check and point out any omissions or accidental inclusions, though I'm fairly sure there aren't any. Certainly, no image listed here is used in any namespace except User: if not entirely orphaned: I checked it carefully using AWB. (I'm also fairly sure that the uploader will say that I am harassing him and pursuing a vendetta; this is not true, but is anyway irrelevant to this discussion, where I urge people to look at the issue on its merits alone. Please see my statements on the matter here and here). ╟─TreasuryTag►Tellers' wands─╢ 08:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be worthwhile to run through the images to see if any are properly licensed and would have a possible use on Commons. I'll try to do that later on. Stifle (talk) 14:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Again this a punitive audit by TreasuryTag for opposing him at an AFD on bilateral relations, he is nominating almost every image I have uploaded where a newer tag has replaced whatever tag was used when I loaded the images years ago. He even has nominated my user page image of my face that I took in Sweden last year. He has made no effort to add a "friendly notice" to my user page saying that he is nominating any of them for deletion. The stealth aspect is more evidence of the punitive nature of the audit. All can be easily corrected by adding a newer tag. All license tags at Wikipedia one point will be replaced by a newer tag for every image at Wikipedia over time. Are we making Wikipedia better or are we allowing punitive audits without friendly notices to punish people that have an opposing opinion at an AFD. Getting a random audit by the IRS in one thing, but Richard Nixon targeted people for IRS audits that were on his enemies list. Should we allow a punitive audit at Wikipedia? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  He has made no effort to add a "friendly notice" to my user page saying that he is nominating any of them for deletion – a claim in no way true. I stopped reading there. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 16:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see any notices for any of the above, can you show me the link? Why are we nominating everything tagged with {{PD-USGov-DOC-Census}}a ll in the public domaina nd properly tagged and used in the reference section for the articles involved, all are eligible to moved to wikicommons? Why is there no individual explanation for any of the nominations for the deletions? All the nominations are in stealth mode, again punitive for opposing TT at an AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Here are the links; the bold one refers to this particular nomination: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] – Note that it is not "punitive for opposing at an AFD" and I'd actually rather you stopped suggesting that it is. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 16:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those are about 10 notifications for about 250 nominations, the only way I know what you are deleting or challenging is by following your edits. Denying this is punitive is just silly semantics. Our only encounter was at an AFD a few days ago. You are either challenging or nominating for deletion almost everything I have added to Wikipedia including my user page images. If that isn't a punitive audit and harassment, I don't know how else to define harassment. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. I'm just not engaging with your false claims of harassment any more. ╟─TreasuryTag►person of reasonable firmness─╢ 20:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• All Wikipedia tags will become deprecated over time as new ones become available or as Wikipedia policy changes. [15] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs)

  This is nothing to do with tags, why didn't you read the statement I wrote at the top of this section? ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 16:38, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• File:RANjr012.jpg is a picture of RAN from 2007 used on his userpage. Why is this one listed now? Glad to know you spent hours saving wikipedia from horrible images like this.--Milowent (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As you cannot fail to see, it is part of a wide trend of using Wikipedia to host his private family snapshots. In what way is this photograph of ol' Granny Norton appropriate to have on Wikipedia? ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 20:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't give a crap about Granny Norton. I commented on RANjr012.jpg and asked "WHY IS THIS ONE LISTED NOW"?--Milowent (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, I'm sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were making a general comment about the ethos of the nomination. I obviously misconstrued your use of the phrase, Glad to know you spent hours saving wikipedia from horrible images like this. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 21:27, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my comment was ambiguous on that ground.--Milowent (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The public domain census images are used as references in the articles, even though the image doesn't display in the article, they are used in the references section or in the timeline sections to support a date used in the article, the same goes for the draft registration images, all are eligible to be moved to creative commons, all tags are correct. The draft images were also used to supply a missing middle name for biographies or to reference what a person's occupation was during WWI or WWII. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a single one of the census images listed is used or linked to in an article (at least at the time I nominated them). See Special:WhatLinksHere/File:1900_census_Brookins.gif for instance – no uses of image noted, no links from articles noted. ╟─TreasuryTag►presiding officer─╢ 21:14, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Links only show when they are displayed in an article, not if an article refers to them and adds a colon in front of them in the reference section. See Walter Richard Brookins, you have take the time to understand how the linkage system works in Wikipedia, the link page only shows what articles display an image. It doesn't show any article that that refers to that image. Big difference. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you click here, you'll see a list of pages which link to that image file. You'll notice that this page is included on the list, even though it links but does not use. Can you see that? ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 07:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment File:91EApcSX2l0k3OpAHLHHPVnQ01Y-medium.jpg listed above (now at File:Stuart Thayer.png) is a fair-use image with a perfectly good rationale for being at Stuart Thayer. A few other images may be seem similarly fine. I don't think this mass tagging is productive at this stage. My suggestion would be withdraw the nomination, wait on the MFD, and then go back through the images in batches. If there are images there now worth discussing (for example, File:1880 census Adams.jpg and File:1900 census Adams.jpg were not for inappropriate userpages but for Albert J. Adams listed as references but are now unused), relisting is appropriate (or movement to Commons). In general, the focus should be in batches based upon the articles they were intended for. Images of Richard himself are not the same as old references for articles and are nowhere near images for userpages that may or may not be appropriate here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They never displayed in the article, they appear as links in the reference section to support things like his date of birth and his parent's names. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "If you can't face trawling through the stuff I've collected together" - that's not the best approach to take here. Suggest taking a slower look through these and nominating in smaller batches, for the sake of those reading through the nominations in any case. There is no urgency here. We can take a few weeks instead of one week. Carcharoth (talk) 06:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The idea that an FfD will be closed after a week is a novel one anyway ;) Seriously, though, I do agree in principle, but do you have any specific examples or comments? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 08:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Suggest splitting up into smaller groups of similar images (e.g. census records, portraits, newspaper reports, others) and also try and work out (with Richard Arthur Norton) a way of finding out which article these images are used as links in the references (you know, work together on something without upsetting each other). The fact no-one has actually come to a conclusion yet on these suggests to me that you have caused a bit of image deletion indigestion here. Carcharoth (talk) 05:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that refs don't show up as links when they are used in citation templates: {cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title=Poe's Chemical Works. Outgrowth of Many Experiments. |url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Poe_Trenton_Times%2C_The_(Trenton%2C_New_Jersey)_1883_August_17_(cropped).gif --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Daft question (and we have had this situation before) why do we need to use copies of images on wikipedia as references when you can just point the citation at the original source? MilborneOne (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is better, pointing someone to a public domain newspaper name and date that they can not easily refind to fact check the article, or hosting the public domain image of the newspaper article for future fact checking. Why make someone pay to look up the newspaper again, and again and again over the next 100 years. Isn't that withing the scope of Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons? If the text was available we could upload the text to Wikisource and there would be no questions asked. If it falls in the public domain there is no reason why we should not be hosting references for articles. Lets make it easier for the future historian, not harder. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Commons, being an image depository, would be a better place for the public domain images. Then we can includes references with url links being to the Commons pages. That would remove them from here (and the possibility of later deletion for being orphaned here), leave them available at our image depository and allow their possible use across other languages. Richard, if that's agreeable to you, tag the appropriate images with template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons (possibly with more detailed file names) and it can join the 20,000 image backlog at Category:Copy to Wikimedia Commons. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all census images — they'd surely be useful at Commons. No opinion on the others. Nyttend (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all images used as reference, no need to to make copies of images just to use as a reference otherwise we would have to scan every source used in wikipedia just because it is easier to look up. No requirement on wikipedia that sources have to be available in wikipedia just that they be reliable, also no requirement to be online. MilborneOne (talk) 09:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. pending a further and detailed investigation into this whole affair. It is looking like harrassment and bullying of a single editor. I find it unpleasant and distasteful, I am sure others do also. I strongly recomend an admin with some decency steps in now and closes what is a very nasty episode in Wikipedia's history.  Giacomo  13:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ADHOM – no relevant reason to keep images. ╟─TreasuryTag►estoppel─╢ 14:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: The mass nomination seems fatally flawed. Minor technicalities of often unidentified nature are magnified from molehills into mountains, and I am not sure that any of the nominations is appropriate as a result. I am also cognizant of GiacomoReturned's comment, which is further troubling. Extremely troubling--Milowent (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: The files are of such different usage that a mass nomination is not appropriate. I agree with TT's reference to WP:ADHOM, specifically where the nominator used it in their second sentence. I'd suggest that once this is closed, someone else could take a look at the files (if they shared the nom's concerns), and consider whether any might be candidates for deletion on an individual basis. --RexxS (talk) 22:36, 1 June 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.

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lollabrigida Life.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs | uploads).

• Life (Time Inc.): issues renewed from Nov. 23, 1936. See http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html Pinkadelian (talk) 22:52, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Photo copyrighted by its photographer, Philippe Halsman, (stated in file summary) and the photo has no renewal filed per a search. Note also that Life discontinued publication as a weekly in 1972, which could explain why it recorded copyrights during earlier periods, but stopped registering any magazine copyrights or renewals during the time frame for this photo's renewal period (assuming it owned rights to it.) A detailed search should be a reasonable standard for allowing a PD notice. If warranted, simply keep it off the Commons. It's also low resolution. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum. I noticed that the links above "timed out" - I didn't know they had a time limit. The first one showed a full page during 1964, as an example, that had a list of 50 Life magazine copyrights registered or renewed. The next link for the period in question had only Life magazine-related books and other literature by Time-Life. There were no Life magazine renewals during 1979 shown. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with them moved to Wikimedia Commons, but the point appears moot, since TT has nominated for deletion every image I have added to the commons after our encounter at the bilateral relations AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:34, 28 May 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.