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. Stifle ( talk) 15:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Country First logo.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justmeherenow ( notify | contribs).

• I'd normally use this excuse for non-free images, but I think this can be better expressed using text ViperSnake151 01:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • It's not non-free. It's {{ pd-textlogo}}, ineligible for copyright. Dragons flight ( talk) 02:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I just think using this as an image is undue weight on the subject. ViperSnake151 19:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Have you read undue weight? It's about balancing POVs. I don't see how there is even a POV disagreement to consider. Besides which that's not a reason for deletion, and even if it were, it wouldn't be a reason to delete McCain's slogan and ignore Obama's. Dragons flight ( talk) 20:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I can't think of any logical reason to delete this image. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 22:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Nor can I, especially considering that the Obama article uses his Change slogan in the same format. Happyme22 ( talk) 07:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The Obama article only uses the image; McCain's uses the image and text. A bit difference (and hard to actually tell, given the ugly "this image is about to be deleted" text. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Keep "Keep" because the deletion rationale is flawed. "Speedy" because it's marring a very visible article (usually I wouldn't care, but with sheer volume of "tempest in a teacup" situations regarding the election coverage on Wikipedia, I'd be willing to make an exception). EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:59, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• But then again, WP:LOGO says that logos without slogans are preferred. But then again, this "logo" IS a slogan. ViperSnake151 21:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• KEEP, since there has been no licensing problem alleged concerning this image. (That is, if it's not registerable as a trademark -- due its lack of distinct design characteristics -- it remains free and in the public domain; and if is IS legally acceptable as a logo, it still is free and in the public domain for the purpose of illustrating the organization that designed and uses it.) Yet, should the nominator believe it improper to use the image due to something other than licensing (such as editorial or stylistic concerns), s/he could initiate a discussion of this issue on the John McCain campaign article's talkpage.  ${\displaystyle \sim }$ Justmeherenow (  ) 04:19, 27 September 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. Stifle ( talk) 15:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:JB_Neon_Sign_Nite_2002.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Astroluxe ( notify | contribs).

• possible copyvio - watermarked, uploader did not indicate it is his/her photo and did not respond to talk page query Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • On the other hand, I notice that the watermark ("courtesy of Adriene Biondo") includes the name of a person who was-- according to the article-- in charge of a campaign to save Johnie's Broiler. A google search for the name reveals that there are a lot of pictures of various buildings of that era credited to her on various preservation websites. So it isn't implausible that she uploaded it here. I also notice that the uploader hasn't contributed anything since 2007, so it's unlikely he/she will respond. I'm going to email the photographer (I was able to find her email address on a website about Johnnie's Broiler), perhaps she can make this right so that the page doesn't have to be broken with a deleted image. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 22:57, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Update-- If you try a Google search of "Adriene Biondo" and "Astroluxe" (the uploader) you will get results that suggest that it is not unlikely that the uploader in fact did have the right to upload the image for use in Wikipedia. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 02:41, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • Another update-- I got an email back from Ms. Biondo, this image is legit. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 23:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. Could you forward it to permissions-en@wikimedia.org? Calliopejen1 ( talk) 16:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
        • Already been done, but shouldn't have been needed. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 19:01, 27 September 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. Stifle ( talk) 15:32, 8 October 2008 (UTC) Delete as a replaceable non-free image. If there was some commentary or reason why a painting has to be used when a free photograph would suffice then I would be happy to keep. Stifle ( talk) 22:10, 11 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

• appears to be a derivative work and not the work of the uploader Calliopejen1 ( talk) 04:40, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • If you can hold off for a few days, I can get a fair use rationale for this image.-- HoboJones ( talk) 02:50, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Fair use rationale for this derivative work has been created.-- HoboJones ( talk) 15:56, 29 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, the fair use rationale is insufficient. As a matter of practice, images are not considered irreplaceable just because they show a person in some sort of uniform or ceremonial clothing. He is still alive, and someone could take a photo of him. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 03:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Probably not in his regalia as Chancellor of the University of Pittsburgh, however, because he no longer holds that post. This is particularly relevant in the rationale for including this picture in the article on the University of Pittsburgh. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply

It is not a photo of a living person, but rather of a painting, which makes this a legitimate use for fair use. (note: I have changed the rationale to accurately reflect this). -- HoboJones ( talk) 00:33, 3 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. Stifle ( talk) 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:JPMcCannWiki.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scooge ( notify | contribs).

• Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 ( talk) 14:26, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Oops, nevermind. I figured out who it is. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 14:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Okay. So we're cool?--it's not up for deletion any more? I took the photo, and I released it for publication under Creative Commons or whatever. Please let me know if there's anything else you need to know about it, okay? Scooge ( talk) 15:25, 29 September 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. Stifle ( talk) 15:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:JPRESS_1962.gif ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mw362797 ( notify | contribs).

Nonfree image (according to the article it's a scan from the 1962 catalog), fails WP:NFCC8 Calliopejen1 ( talk) 14:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Image was originally uploaded as a CC, was then retagged by nominator as protected by copyright based on publication date (and presumably the belief that no one who holds the copyright to an image from a 1962 catalog would upload it here) -- not a fair conclusion for a U.S. catalog page of that era. I believe it is premature to assume that this image is "nonfree." Crypticfirefly ( talk) 23:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • There is no evidence he owns the copyright and did not claim as much when he uploaded it. He also has uploaded numerous recent images, so it seems doubtful that he is the copyright holder for both those and shots taken in 1962. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 16:14, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
    • The uploader used a template that states that he owned the copyright. That aside, for reasons I mentioned on your talk page, it is by no means certain that this image is protected by copyright in the first place. Furthermore, the uploader states on his user page that he a partner at a marketing firm that has J. Press as a client. I think it is more likely that either this image is acutally PD and he's claiming copyright in whatever image massaging his firm engaged in, or that he's otherwise authorized by J. Press to upload this image here. You can find his email address here, two clicks away from his user page: http://www.paulandwilliams.com/contact.html rather than wasting time trying to contact him through his user page when he's been absent for months. As for his more recent images that haven't been deleted yet, you will notice that they are similar in style to images on his blog, so I have no particular reason to doubt that he had the right to post them here even though they are very slick and professional given that he has the resources of his firm assisting him. (Incidentally, in the US there is no copyright for clothing designs as embodied in a garment, so to the extent that a photo shows a garment, the copyright would be in the photo only.) As a final general observation, there's no sensible reason to think that a person who took a picture in 1962 wouldn't still be taking pictures today and uploading them to Wikipedia. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 19:29, 27 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I uploaded this and all of the other images on the J. Press page as the marketing / PR director for the company. I may have listed them incorrectly, but each image has been used with authorization from J. Press Inc. who owns the rights. ( Mw362797 ( talk) 22:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)) reply
• Keep. The person who uploaded this image clearly had the right to do so. Slapping a deletion proposal strikes me as premature; discussion with the uploader should have taken place first. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:29, 2 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: Delete as clearly non-free. Stifle ( talk) 15:34, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:JUI-JessicaThumb.gif ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jessica_Ingmann ( notify | contribs).

• appears to be non-free, though user has tagged it CC, she writes that it is for use on her user page only Calliopejen1 ( talk) 14:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • As I read the description, there is a very clear release under cc license so long at is is only included in Wikipedia on her user page. And that's how this tiny 2KB image-- which she clearly has the right to use on her user page-- is being used. Wikipedia is not a free clip art library, so this doesn't disturb me. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 03:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. This nomination should be withdrawn. No valid rationale for deletion provided. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete - the uploader and copyright holder has clearly limited its use to her userpage only but has included the GFDL and/or CC license which states I can copy and distribute this as I want; those two things are incompatable. This image is not freely licensed and as such is non-free and as such is not usuable without a FUR and also non-free images are not allowable outside article space.-- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 13:24, 8 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 discussion was: keep. Since the sign is permanently located in a public place, it should be free to use under freedom of panorama, which is allowed in Australia. - Nv8200p talk 15:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

• derivative work - photo of non-free sign Calliopejen1 ( talk) 14:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep. This is ridiculous. Photos of signs aren't derivative works. Furthermore, it's a photo of a sign in a public zoo, visited by countless people who take photos there every day. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete, sign is copyrighted. Stifle ( talk) 15:35, 8 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 discussion was: delete. Since there is no evidence otherwise, I have to assume the statue is copyrighted. As there is no freedom of panorama in the United States, the image is a derivative of a copyrighted work. There are free images of Jack Daniel and an image of the statue is not significant to understanding Jack Daniel's Whiskey the way the article is currently written. - Nv8200p talk 15:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC) reply

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

• no indication of when this statue was made (probably still copyrighted?). no freedom of panorama in the united states Calliopejen1 ( talk) 14:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Clear fair use rationale added. Crypticfirefly ( talk) 00:45, 2 October 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep. After looking over a number of other proposals here, I am beginning to suspect that the nominator is groping for reasons to tag articles for deletion, edging into WP:POINT violation territory. Since when does a statue on public display confer copyright restrictions on a photograph of it? ~ Amatulić ( talk) 22:37, 2 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: - Delete - "illustrates" and "adds significantly to understanding" are far apart and the second is required for NFCC#8 - Peripitus (Talk) 12:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC) reply

Image:Dpad1980.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cholmes75 ( notify | contribs).

• Fails WP:NFCC#8. Image is decorating a list of ad slogans. No commentary on the significance of this image. Nv8200p talk 16:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply
  • And yet, I think the way the slogan is presented in the ad, with the italic "ahhh" above the cold bottle of soda being drunk illustrates a varient on the familiar "be a Pepper" slogan. I've changed the image caption to direct the reader to the relevant aspects of the image. Perhaps in this form it will be considered acceptable. 03:31, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

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. Both versions of the image are factually correct, properly licensed and of equal encyclopedic value. Which of the two naming schemes to prefer is a matter for editorial consensus to resolve. No inherent problem with having both versions around to choose from; no consensus against this one apparent either here or at the article. 
Fut.Perf. 
☼ 
08:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
reply 

Image:Trentino-Alto Adige Provinces.png ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Supparluca ( notify| contribs).

• User Supparluca has uploaded a copy of an image that already exists on Commons (in essence, image is OB). He simply renamed the image in order to push a POV agenda regarding the usage of Italian language only (instead of including the other necessary and more commonly used names). Rarelibra ( talk) 18:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete. In that case use the Commons image that already existed. Gryffindor 08:21, 26 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Keep. This image includes the same names used as the titles of the respective articles in the English wikipedia, so it's useful for the English wikipedia and it's different from the other image mentioned.-- Suppar luca 10:08, 28 September 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.