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 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I crossed this image earlier today, and I think it is not suitable for Wikipedia for the following reasons:
first of all this type of content should be written as a text
secondly, the uploader most probably used
this webpage as a source, which might infringe
copyright laws. I don't G12 it because I'm not 100% sure it is blatant.
Likely copyvio. Description of image says "Widely available pic on the internet" yet uploader claims rights. —
Durin13:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. The copyright release presumably only refers to the (non-existant) copyright to changes made by the uploader. Cannot get us round copyright in the original image. The only thing that can be acceptable here is a verifiably completely free image.
Jheald13:50, 20 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.
Sad. Image is from
here. One suspects the (amateur) photographer might well have given it to us, be he died two years ago. Worth contacting next of kin? Their email is at the bottom of
this page. Wait pending that contact?
Jheald14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
UPDATE: Tom Hovore (photographer's heir) has agreed to license under a free license. At this point, it is still yet to be decided which license to use. Stay tuned. howcheng {
chat}22:49, 30 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.
Descriptions says this is a modified version of a PD image, but the PD image is not specified. We need to know the what the original image was (and it's copyright status) to validate this image's licesing. Abu badali(
talk)16:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn: Good work. I couldn't do that. Now, the image description page points to the original image. Nomination withdrawn.
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.
I disagree - The Image demonstrates the overall change in technology that the band relied on during that time period - Synthesizers and electronic percussion in lieu of organic instruments
Wisdom8904:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I see what you are trying to accomplish, but is there some reason that this idea can't be expressed in words alone and requires a picture to truly understand? howcheng {
chat}17:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Responding to the Wisdom89: According to the reason you've given to keep the picture, wouldn't free images of synthesisers and electronic percussion be even more suitable?
Anrie15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Perhaps, but I feel that in conjunction wiht the image in the progressive rock section, it provides readers with a better understanding regarding the transitional period
Wisdom8916:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Kept. This image is now only used in one article, where I think it passes NFCC #8. The section it is in described the band during this period, which the image shows, and which cannot be replaced with a free image. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)02:19, 31 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.
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.
Illustrating the text: "He is last seen atop a building, overlooking New York and testing his new ability. He then gives an eerie grin as he looks out on the city, and utters one word: "Boom"." Fails
WP:NFCC#8. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
16:54, 19 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-free music video screenshot used to depict the studio in which the video is being filmed. No commentary on the frame is offered. howcheng {
chat}16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Non-free image used in six articles, none of which require the image for understanding the text, thus violating
WP:NFCC #8. Additionally, the copyright holder is not known, and as {{non-free promotional}} indicates, lack of copyright holder information (and evidence thereof) is grounds for deletion. howcheng {
chat}17:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Most of these are tagged as GFDL, but the permission given appears to be for Wikipedia use only. My attempts to contact the City of Fruita about this issue have been unsucessful. —
Remember the dot(
talk)17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Surely this is a classic case of fair use with permission? I mean it's not like they're replaceable without gruesome experimentation, and they are encyclopedic in the article about the chicken, I mean, words alone CANNOT express this. -
N00:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Tagged incorrectly, blatantly non-neutral, and unverifiable. The only information present comes from a record label, which is not reliable. There is a random shot of Reagan in the photo, suggesting it's just propaganda or artwork. —
Wafulz22:16, 19 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.
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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
I crossed this image earlier today, and I think it is not suitable for Wikipedia for the following reasons:
first of all this type of content should be written as a text
secondly, the uploader most probably used
this webpage as a source, which might infringe
copyright laws. I don't G12 it because I'm not 100% sure it is blatant.
Likely copyvio. Description of image says "Widely available pic on the internet" yet uploader claims rights. —
Durin13:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. The copyright release presumably only refers to the (non-existant) copyright to changes made by the uploader. Cannot get us round copyright in the original image. The only thing that can be acceptable here is a verifiably completely free image.
Jheald13:50, 20 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.
Sad. Image is from
here. One suspects the (amateur) photographer might well have given it to us, be he died two years ago. Worth contacting next of kin? Their email is at the bottom of
this page. Wait pending that contact?
Jheald14:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
UPDATE: Tom Hovore (photographer's heir) has agreed to license under a free license. At this point, it is still yet to be decided which license to use. Stay tuned. howcheng {
chat}22:49, 30 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.
Descriptions says this is a modified version of a PD image, but the PD image is not specified. We need to know the what the original image was (and it's copyright status) to validate this image's licesing. Abu badali(
talk)16:06, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Withdrawn: Good work. I couldn't do that. Now, the image description page points to the original image. Nomination withdrawn.
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.
I disagree - The Image demonstrates the overall change in technology that the band relied on during that time period - Synthesizers and electronic percussion in lieu of organic instruments
Wisdom8904:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I see what you are trying to accomplish, but is there some reason that this idea can't be expressed in words alone and requires a picture to truly understand? howcheng {
chat}17:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Responding to the Wisdom89: According to the reason you've given to keep the picture, wouldn't free images of synthesisers and electronic percussion be even more suitable?
Anrie15:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Perhaps, but I feel that in conjunction wiht the image in the progressive rock section, it provides readers with a better understanding regarding the transitional period
Wisdom8916:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Kept. This image is now only used in one article, where I think it passes NFCC #8. The section it is in described the band during this period, which the image shows, and which cannot be replaced with a free image. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random)02:19, 31 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.
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.
Illustrating the text: "He is last seen atop a building, overlooking New York and testing his new ability. He then gives an eerie grin as he looks out on the city, and utters one word: "Boom"." Fails
WP:NFCC#8. — pd_THOR|=/\= |
16:54, 19 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 article's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-free music video screenshot used to depict the studio in which the video is being filmed. No commentary on the frame is offered. howcheng {
chat}16:55, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Non-free image used in six articles, none of which require the image for understanding the text, thus violating
WP:NFCC #8. Additionally, the copyright holder is not known, and as {{non-free promotional}} indicates, lack of copyright holder information (and evidence thereof) is grounds for deletion. howcheng {
chat}17:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Most of these are tagged as GFDL, but the permission given appears to be for Wikipedia use only. My attempts to contact the City of Fruita about this issue have been unsucessful. —
Remember the dot(
talk)17:29, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Surely this is a classic case of fair use with permission? I mean it's not like they're replaceable without gruesome experimentation, and they are encyclopedic in the article about the chicken, I mean, words alone CANNOT express this. -
N00:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Tagged incorrectly, blatantly non-neutral, and unverifiable. The only information present comes from a record label, which is not reliable. There is a random shot of Reagan in the photo, suggesting it's just propaganda or artwork. —
Wafulz22:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply