Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 October 7

< October 6	October 8 >

October 7

File:Luther g presley.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, image fails NFCC#1. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I declined this image as a speedy deletion because it's difficult to discern and could use discussion. I believe that a free alternative of Mr. Presley could be found: given that he was active from 1901 onwards, I find it likely there is material out there (somewhere) published with a picture of him before 1923 (PD-US) or afterwards without copyright notice. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As the editor who initially tagged this image for speedy, I agree. The uploader's stated purpose of use is strange, to say the least. Regardless, I find it difficult to believe that no free alternative exists or that permission for use of an image could not be obtained. Novaseminary (talk) 05:53, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep the individual has been deceased since 1974 and this image is being used on the bio page. We don't require herculean efforts to find a free alternative, if the subject is deceased.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree we don't require extra effort to obtain a free photograph; WP:NFCC#1 says Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent... could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. The very act of creating that photograph means extra effort. Although I do agree this is not a clear-cut case, And I'm a bit ambivalent myself barring further arguments, though I leans toward delete. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I agree the stated purpose is not as clear as it could be, but since he's dead we won't be able to create a free equivalent, and I'm reluctant to assume there is a free equivalent available until one is actually found. me_and 20:53, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wonder if anyone as looked at the special collection mentioned here for public domain photos of Presley. I suspect not. It is still available at the University of Arkansas library witha finding aid (and a listing for a photograph here). Note that WP:NFCC states: "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created". At the very least, this says to me that somebody !voting keep should at least cleanup the rationale. Novaseminary (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point about the cleanup, I've just done that.

Regarding the University of Arkansas archive, until we know whether the image(s) there are equivalent, I still think we should keep this image. I'll make it a priority to try and find someone to look at that collection (I think there's some process for requesting other editors investigate such things; I'll need to look it up). That said, I don't know when I'll have time to do this, so it could be a few months.

I propose keeping the image until it is determined whether the public domain image is suitable.

--me_and 22:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The file can always be re-downloaded and then re-uploaded here. Don't we default in favor of the copyright instead of the other way around? The fact that this person was active for years pre-copyright time (per Magog the Ogre) and there are archives containing material about him (the one I noted above and, per this source, one at Central Arkansas University) leads me to believe there is a very good chance that a PD or non-copyrighted image is available. If all reasonable possibilities are ruled out, then re-add the file. Novaseminary (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Revise my notavote to Delete then. me_and 09:29, 13 October 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:BSicon fSTRlf.svg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exists on Commons under same name, but created by 2 different users. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 00:18, 7 October 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:Mit brennender Sorge close view.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The writing is not indicative of the author, the source is ^{[dead link]}, and so no verification can be made about the copyright status of this image or the parchment/handwriting under which the image has been taken. Moreover, it is not used in any articles. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no active source informaiton. As the {{di-no source}} tag that had been placed on it and removed said Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:43, 7 October 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:MIT BRENNENDER SORGE 1.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MIT BRENNENDER SORGE 2.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:MIT BRENNENDER SORGE CLOSE VIEW.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:MIT BRENNENDER SORGE.JPG (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The writing is not indicative of the author, the sources are ^{[dead link]}, and so no verification can be made about the copyright status of these images or the parchment/handwriting under which the images have been taken. Moreover, they are not used in any articles. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:49, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As with File:Mit brennender Sorge close view.jpg there is no active source information. The {{di-no source}} tag had been on these images as well, but removed. The removed tag is clear: Source information must be provided so that the copyright status can be verified by others. Without it the files must go. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:59, 7 October 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:Ganti Prasada Rao Bay Films 2008.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darwish Recent Photo2009.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Darwish Al Gobaisi 2008.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
File:Gollapudi Maruthi Rao 2009.jpg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
No source or author information or other sufficient descriptions; I highly doubt that the author is also the person in the picture and would thus give consent; the image is not used anywhere in any articles; page view statistics are very low—all in all, does not seem encyclopedic. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 00:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that File:Ganti Prasada Rao-at the Bay Films 5 Dec. 2008.jpg, File:Gollapudi Maruthi Rao.jpg, and File:Gollapudi Maruthi Rao.jpg have been speedily deleted on similar grounds. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 01:02, 7 October 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:Fresco Kuchaman.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not used anywhere and does not appear to be of any encyclopedic value. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 11:04, 7 October 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:Bar62.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No indication of anything significant to be found in this picture; it is therefore not suitable for an encyclopedia. :| TelCo NaSp Ve :| 11:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is no listed source, it looks like it could be a scan because of the text included in the image. But if so from what? Without any original source it should be deleted as there is no way to confirm if the given license(s) ({{GFDL}} and {{cc-by-2.5}}) are valid. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:05, 7 October 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:780FZL.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image. Jpg version of File:780FZL.gif. Soundvisions1 (talk) 11:39, 7 October 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:793e700e-c060-11db-9975-000e0c3f4c79w.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused "pro" looking shot of a child. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:30, 7 October 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:7th Reign Live 2009.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 Magog the Ogre (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Most likely orphaned form the deletion of 7th Reign. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:38, 7 October 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:7yearolddiapers.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image of a child in diapers. From the caption it implies it is a 7 year old. Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:40, 7 October 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:Stephen-Perse.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, image fails NFCC#1. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This image may be a free image tagged nonfree by mistake - I am not familiar with the art and don't know when it was created. However, I think it's a bit silly to use a nonfree image to illustrate a person who died in 1615. Surely if he rose to the notability that we make busts for him, there is a work of art in the public domain which illustrates him as effectively. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No non-free images available of Perse that I can find. I thought the rules here were that a non-free image could be used only when a free image is not available. This is the case with Perse. Jack1956 (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No non-free image available for this gent who died in 1615. Image is properly tagged and should stand. Dreamspy (talk) 06:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obviously replaceable: photoshopping File:Gonville and Caius exterior framed sculpture.jpg, or a larger picture of that statue, would be a reasonable starting point. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:48, 10 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's obvious that a free image could be created by photographing the sculpture shown in the image that's up for deletion. Nyttend (talk) 22:17, 11 October 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.