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.
Non-commercial use only
Nv8200ptalk 01:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. It appears that the person who loaded this,
User:Ojlopena is the photographer and also posted this at flickr. In posting here, he released the photo under an appropriate CC license. The fact that the license listed at flickr is more restrictive is irrelevant in this case. --
DS1953talk 23:37, 5 July 2007 (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.
orphaned image, absent uploader, unsure if this is a true software box thus mistagged and should be non-free or if it is a self created graphic and as such is unencyclopedic
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Copyright violation, No evidence this copyrighted web page granted permission to be released under the GFDL
Nv8200ptalk 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan. Description says this is the flag of "the
micronation of Reunion"; it does not appear to be the flag of
Réunion, so it is probably unencyclopedic. —
Bkell (
talk) 03:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Well at the time I downloaded, sloan3d.com had a link explicitly marked for download of the file, which is what I used. Presume that publishing act entails permission from Barlowe to Sloan.
Lycurgus 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Picture was "orphaned" because Bleh999 himself removed it from its article, without mentioning it in the edit summary:
[1]. |
TheBLPGuy 16:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
that was a while ago, I think it is too low quality and low resolution (480 × 393 pixel and 24kb suffering from compression artifacts), there is a better image from commons I replaced it with.
Bleh999 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This image lacks information about the copyright holder, but I strongly suspect it is from getty images (where most of the other photographs of him that USA Today uses came from) or AP. As such, it likely fails criterion 2.
Kotepho 12:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, unencyclopedic personal photo, text uploaded is users work history, sole contribtuion of user
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
[edit]Ascendat_ad_te.png
Hi, although this image seems temporarily orphaned by the last edit, it is the subject of discussion on the talk page where the debate was over which article it will finally belong with. Sparafucil 23:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
orphaned image, insufficent informationt o be certain, but likley a non-free album cover for a non-notable band
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 20:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use, I question the license -- likley non-free tv screenshot
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 20:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, low quality due to image rotation, licensed as PD-self but text uploaded states "Copyright, National Western Stock Show"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. It is an orphaned image, but I would not call it an "unencyclopedic personal photo". It seems to be a very good shot of a cruise ship and I see nothing personal about it. --
DS1953talk 23:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, unsure if it is a self created image and as such has no encyclopedic use or is a non-free logo mistagged as PD-self
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 20:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, based on the source provided, it appears to be a non-free image mistagged as PD-self
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 20:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan, bad filename, low-quality JPEG diagram of forces on a slope, obsoleted by images such as
Image:Incline.svg. —
Bkell (
talk) 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan with really vague source information ("From source of film"), which seems to indicate that the uploader is not the creator, and thus makes the {{
cc-by-sa-2.5}} claim dubious. —
Bkell (
talk) 22:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan with vague source information ("Found from promotional website for film") that indicates the uploader is not the creator and thus makes the {{
cc-by-sa-2.5}} claim very dubious. —
Bkell (
talk) 22:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Go ahead and delete. I used that image for a few months and then replaced it with an animation. I appreciate Wikipedia's image-deletion policy where notice is provided. Thanks.
Greg L (my talk) 22:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan, tagged with PD-self but description says "Only Wikipedia can use it :) hehe". Perhaps this restriction is meant in jest, but I won't make that assumption. Wikipedia-only images are not allowed here, because they are not free. —
Bkell (
talk) 23:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
When Vanda19 originally uploaded the image, he/she stated "This picture was taken by Suzanne Caterino, and rights have been granted to allow for the use of this picture on Wikipedia." Of course, that would still make it a non-free image, and the image is replaceable. It was deleted as rfu. Vanda19 reuploaded the image, tagging it as public domain. I left a message on the user's talk page, asking if he/she was Suzanne Caterino, and if Caterino herself had released the image into the public domain, but I got no response.- –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 00:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
According to the license, Vanda19 is Sen. Glenn Anderson. ??
Anrie 07:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
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.
Non-commercial use only
Nv8200ptalk 01:42, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. It appears that the person who loaded this,
User:Ojlopena is the photographer and also posted this at flickr. In posting here, he released the photo under an appropriate CC license. The fact that the license listed at flickr is more restrictive is irrelevant in this case. --
DS1953talk 23:37, 5 July 2007 (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.
orphaned image, absent uploader, unsure if this is a true software box thus mistagged and should be non-free or if it is a self created graphic and as such is unencyclopedic
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:52, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Copyright violation, No evidence this copyrighted web page granted permission to be released under the GFDL
Nv8200ptalk 02:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan. Description says this is the flag of "the
micronation of Reunion"; it does not appear to be the flag of
Réunion, so it is probably unencyclopedic. —
Bkell (
talk) 03:13, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Well at the time I downloaded, sloan3d.com had a link explicitly marked for download of the file, which is what I used. Presume that publishing act entails permission from Barlowe to Sloan.
Lycurgus 02:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Picture was "orphaned" because Bleh999 himself removed it from its article, without mentioning it in the edit summary:
[1]. |
TheBLPGuy 16:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
that was a while ago, I think it is too low quality and low resolution (480 × 393 pixel and 24kb suffering from compression artifacts), there is a better image from commons I replaced it with.
Bleh999 20:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
This image lacks information about the copyright holder, but I strongly suspect it is from getty images (where most of the other photographs of him that USA Today uses came from) or AP. As such, it likely fails criterion 2.
Kotepho 12:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, unencyclopedic personal photo, text uploaded is users work history, sole contribtuion of user
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 13:26, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
[edit]Ascendat_ad_te.png
Hi, although this image seems temporarily orphaned by the last edit, it is the subject of discussion on the talk page where the debate was over which article it will finally belong with. Sparafucil 23:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
orphaned image, insufficent informationt o be certain, but likley a non-free album cover for a non-notable band
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 20:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use, I question the license -- likley non-free tv screenshot
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 20:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, low quality due to image rotation, licensed as PD-self but text uploaded states "Copyright, National Western Stock Show"
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 20:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. It is an orphaned image, but I would not call it an "unencyclopedic personal photo". It seems to be a very good shot of a cruise ship and I see nothing personal about it. --
DS1953talk 23:42, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, unsure if it is a self created image and as such has no encyclopedic use or is a non-free logo mistagged as PD-self
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 20:48, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, based on the source provided, it appears to be a non-free image mistagged as PD-self
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 20:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan, bad filename, low-quality JPEG diagram of forces on a slope, obsoleted by images such as
Image:Incline.svg. —
Bkell (
talk) 22:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan with really vague source information ("From source of film"), which seems to indicate that the uploader is not the creator, and thus makes the {{
cc-by-sa-2.5}} claim dubious. —
Bkell (
talk) 22:50, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan with vague source information ("Found from promotional website for film") that indicates the uploader is not the creator and thus makes the {{
cc-by-sa-2.5}} claim very dubious. —
Bkell (
talk) 22:54, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Go ahead and delete. I used that image for a few months and then replaced it with an animation. I appreciate Wikipedia's image-deletion policy where notice is provided. Thanks.
Greg L (my talk) 22:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan, tagged with PD-self but description says "Only Wikipedia can use it :) hehe". Perhaps this restriction is meant in jest, but I won't make that assumption. Wikipedia-only images are not allowed here, because they are not free. —
Bkell (
talk) 23:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)reply
When Vanda19 originally uploaded the image, he/she stated "This picture was taken by Suzanne Caterino, and rights have been granted to allow for the use of this picture on Wikipedia." Of course, that would still make it a non-free image, and the image is replaceable. It was deleted as rfu. Vanda19 reuploaded the image, tagging it as public domain. I left a message on the user's talk page, asking if he/she was Suzanne Caterino, and if Caterino herself had released the image into the public domain, but I got no response.- –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 00:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)reply
According to the license, Vanda19 is Sen. Glenn Anderson. ??
Anrie 07:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply