orphaned pdf file, the text is a one page unsourced entry on SMS Comet - is original research without any sources
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 00:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned pdf file, file is a 1 page biography, it is unsourced and includes contact information
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use, sole contribution of user
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 00:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
No longer an orphan, so not deleted. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 00:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Isn't the policy on images like this to move them over to Commons? I'm not very familiar with image policies, so could someone clarify?
Xiong Chiamiov:: contact :: 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, likley non-free not PD-self - summary indicates that express permission was given
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 00:41, 3 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.
Unlawful derivative image of a copyrighted work. This svg version was not produced by CBS. Fails
WP:NFCC#3. This is not low resolution, in fact, it's infinite resolution — -
N 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC).reply
Keep per above.
Nate 10:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - SVG conversion from EPS is a slavish transform, under
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. It has no originality, and so is therefore not a derived work.
Vector graphics by definition do not have a resolution, so
WP:NFCC#3 does not apply. Furthermore, if this image were to be deleted for these reasons, all of the images using {{SVG-Logo}} and {{Brands of the World SVG}} would meet those criteria also. Those templates have already undergone TFD requests and results were
keep and
keep. --
ChrisRuvolo (
t) 11:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. File format conversion, not a derivative work. Please avoid copyright paranoia.
Firsfron of Ronchester 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep as fair use logo. I agree with those above who assert that the format is not relevant. —
The Storm Surfer 05:58, 6 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, either an unencyclopedic personal logo or a non-free logo
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:09, 3 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.
Unlawful derivative image of a copyrighted work. This svg version was not produced by NBC. Fails
WP:NFCC#3. This is not low resolution, in fact, it's infinite resolution — -
N 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - SVG conversion from EPS is a slavish transform, under
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. It has no originality, and so is therefore not a derived work.
Vector graphics by definition do not have a resolution, so
WP:NFCC#3 does not apply. Furthermore, if this image were to be deleted for these reasons, all of the images using {{SVG-Logo}} and {{Brands of the World SVG}} would meet those criteria also. Those templates have already undergone TFD requests and results were
keep and
keep. --
ChrisRuvolo (
t) 11:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep per ChrisRuvolo; This is not a derived work, only a transfer to a different file format.
Firsfron of Ronchester 19:10, 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.
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.
Unlawful derivative of copyrighted logo. This svg version was not produced by ABC. Fails NFCC#3. Is not low resolution, in fact it's infinite resolution. — -
N 01:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - SVG conversion from EPS is a slavish transform, under
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. It has no originality, and so is therefore not a derived work.
Vector graphics by definition do not have a resolution, so
WP:NFCC#3 does not apply. Furthermore, if this image were to be deleted for these reasons, all of the images using {{SVG-Logo}} and {{Brands of the World SVG}} would meet those criteria also. Those templates have already undergone TFD requests and results were
keep and
keep. --
ChrisRuvolo (
t) 11:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep, per ChrisRuvolo and similar NBC logo deletion discussion.
Firsfron of Ronchester 19:12, 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.
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.
Unlawful derivative of copyrighted item. This svg was not produced by MTV. Fails NFCC#3, is not low resolution. In fact, it's infinite resolution — -
N 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - SVG conversion from EPS is a slavish transform, under
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. It has no originality, and so is therefore not a derived work.
Vector graphics by definition do not have a resolution, so
WP:NFCC#3 does not apply. Furthermore, if this image were to be deleted for these reasons, all of the images using {{SVG-Logo}} and {{Brands of the World SVG}} would meet those criteria also. Those templates have already undergone TFD requests and results were
keep and
keep. --
ChrisRuvolo (
t) 11:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - I've uploaded many (if not most) of the {{Brands of the World SVG}} images, and this has come up a few times. The decision has ALWAYS been to keep, with the conclusion that Wikipedia needs to get over copyright hysteria on logos. --
Keeleysam 00:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep copyright paranoia. File conversion is not the same as creating a derivitive work.
Firsfron of Ronchester 19:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep for same reasons as CBCeye.svg —
The Storm Surfer 06:04, 6 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.
Appears to have been uploaded solely for posting on the Introduction sandbox (
permalink). Highly unencyclopaedic and has no copyright information. Angus Lepper(
T,
C,
D) 10:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unencyclopedic, unsourced and unused —
Gudeldar 13:47, 3 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.
Kept. OTRS ticket supplied. howcheng {
chat} 18:45, 11 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.
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.
very funny, but unencyclopaedic, it is not going to be used SalaSkan 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
"not going to be used in the encyclopedia" is not a deletion reason for free images that are used on Wikipedia administration pages. (Disrespectful to Jimbo
probably would be, but since he's active basically every day and has been informed on his talk page, let's see whether he's offended.) --
AnonEMouse(squeak) 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
WP:NOT#storage clearly states "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted." SalaSkan 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm sure it could be useful to an essay somewhere. --
tjstrftalk 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep unless Jimbo complains. --
tjstrftalk 19:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unless and until Jimbo objects, Keep. The section it's in is looking at being enshrined in the
Wikipedia namespace. -Jeske(
v^_^v) 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
DeleteFirst of all it's a copyright violation, the Photo of Jimbo that was used is licensed under a Creative Commons ShareAlike license so the image is not properly attributed or licensed (granted this is fixable). Secondly it's of no Ensyclopedic value and we should not be scrambeling to find somewhere to use it just because some find it funny. This would only encourage more people to create silly photoshops, most of wich also tend to be copyvios. Besides Wikipedia
is not a image collection. If Jimbo wants to keep it for his private use he has the power to view and recover deleted images if need be. --
Sherool(talk) 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Then ask the uploader to relicense the damn thing ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I've notified ChrisO. --
tjstrftalk 22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe the copyright tagging has now been fixed. --
tjstrftalk 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Ok, fair enough. I struck the copyvio part. I stand by the rest though. Images like this are deleted all the time, if it had been any other face pasted on there no one would have even raised an eyebrow over this nomination. What usefull purpose would this have exactly? --
Sherool(talk) 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Surely, you jest that image has added much more to Wikipedia than this deletion discussion ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - It just bothers me, you hear?
JDG 23:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
In what policy exactly does it say that we keep everyting as long as someone invoke BJAODN? A few "profile images" for a user page is permited, or even images intended for a humoruos essay within reason, but I don't think photoshopped pictures of other people uploaded aparently for the sole reason of getting it enshrined as a "bad joke or other nonsense" is something we should be keeping, regardles of who they are or wheter or not anyone was offended. --
Sherool(talk) 06:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep No compelling reason to delete. This is being used in Wikipedia space just as we use Wikipedtan and many other images that have no use in the encyclopedia proper. This nomination sounds
WP:POINTish to me.
nadav (
talk) 00:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep unless Jimbo complains. Humor has a valuable place in this project. With respect for those who find the joke unfunny,
WP:NOT applies here - you're free to surf away and create other humor more to your taste.
DurovaCharge! 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete It may be amusing, but that's not the point. Wikipedia is not a storage facility for images. It doesn't have any real use. There shouldn't be one rule for ordinary people and another rule for the higher-ups or things linked to them, otherwise Wikipedia's credibility is damaged. Whether the subject complains or not is irrelevant.
John Smith's 21:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
A certain degree of lenience is typically observed. Note, for example, the
Wikipedia:Facebook, hundreds of images, very few of which will be useful in the main encyclopedia space. --
AnonEMouse(squeak) 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Well yeah, people want to put theyr photo on the facebook or theyr userpage, fine. Photoshopping images of other people for silly joke pages, not so much. I think we should draw a line there. Yeah people keep saying keep unless he actualy complains, but I doubht he'll do that. Keep in mind the "world" is watching his every move, he's still got people taking shots at him for editing his own bio a couple of years back, so he's probably not too keen on going anywhere near a debate about a religions image with his face inserted into it. The anti Wikipedia croud would interpret it either as "Oh, Wales have no sense of humor and deletes images of himself he doesn't like" or "Oh, Wales like people making religiously themed images of him, he thinks he's God", basicaly he's probably better of just ignoring the whole thing for PR reasons. --
Sherool(talk) 23:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - Sacrilegious but without serving the encyclopedia part of the encyclopedia.
The Behnam 03:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep unless Jimbo complains. Many people have accused me of having no sense of humor (and of obsessively targeting "harmless" jokes for removal), but I recognize this image's potential value to the project (albeit not to the encyclopedia proper). If, however, it makes Jimbo uncomfortable, it should be deleted (a courtesy that I hope we would extend to any Wikipedian). —
David Levy 11:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
He has to my knowledge yet to comment on this either way (see my argument above), and he's made only one edit to the gallery you point to, back in november 2004 (a more "innocent" time if you will), and "NOT censored" deals with relevant ensyclopedic content in articles, not stuff like this.
WP:NOT#WEBSPACE seems the more relevant part of that page. Anyway I've done more than my fair share of commenting on this silly thing, so moving on now... --
Sherool(talk) 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Jimbo is known to have a sense of humor. The subpage exists in his userspace, it's unlikely he dosn't know what's going on there. As for webspace, is the uploader using Wikipedia solely for blogging, POV-pushing, vandalism, vanispamcruftising, etc, etc? Nope, the uploader's an admin and he's definitely not using the Wiki as a webspace. Incidentally, you'd think
this image doesn't have purpose either, but it's used by a number of Jimbo cults. The humor value's what matters here, and if there's no policy that says "BJAODN doesn't follow the rules for lesser entities", there's always
consensus and
IAR. Heck, if some Admin with no respect for others' sense of humor comes by and deletes this, I'll just go right ahead and upload it to commons with due disrespect for the rules. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice(PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete since it's at Commons (I don't see why Commons wouldn't keep it, it's unquestionably a free image since it's composited from free images), but really, if Jimbo took offense to that image, I think he does have a delete button and knows how to push it. (I myself imagine that he got a good chuckle out of it, though that's just right out of my own deranged mind.) We can't joke around all the time, of course, but an occasional lightening up of the mood doesn't hurt, and I think is actually beneficial.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me 18:04, 6 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.
Keep Just because the submarine is still in commission does not mean that the image is replaceable. If no free image can be found to replace the image, it should be kept.
John Smith's 12:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Keeping a non-free image actually discourages the creation of a free image because people don't realize that we need one. howcheng {
chat} 01:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep the template wording suggests older images are grandfathered into the image policy. If not the template needs changing. -
N 02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. The fact that it was uploaded a while ago just protects us from speedying it. The deletion nomination here, though, is clearly valid. — Rebelguys2talk 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, apparently fan-art which would be either Unencyclopedic or Copyright violation
BigrTex 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Not fanart, just mislicensed official art from
Bleach. We already have enough pictures of both
Kaien Shiba and his doppelganger though, so delete. --
tjstrftalk 18:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Thumbnail version of a photo copied from deWiki, the full image is now on Commons as
Image:SynagogeDelsberg.jpg so I swaped this for that instead. This is redundant now.
Sherool(talk) 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
unused, random screenshot of someone's Second Life avatar, originally created for use in a CSD A7 page about the person's character.
Action Jackson IV 22:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unsourced unfree image showing the back of a soldier, claimed to be historical, doesn't seem to help the readers understanding of hte article in a way that words alone can not. Abu badali(
talk) 22:50, 3 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.
Unfree image showing three soldiers in Jerusalem's Western Wall, is being used as a general illustration for an article. Doesn't seem to help the readers understanding of the article in a way that words alone can not. Abu badali(
talk) 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep unless you want to go back in a time machine and take a picture of that war. -
N 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I'll be visiting peaceful places the day I put my hands on a time machine. But I don't know how my time-travelings preferences interfere with our
policy on non-free content usage. --Abu badali(
talk) 23:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep This is one of the the most famous photographs in the history of the State of Israel. Last month it appeared on the cover of the Economist and in the Times on the 40 year memorial of the Six Day War. At least one song has been written about it. I daresay it may almost be called the Israeli version of the Iwo Jima flag raising photo. If you believe its use is not conforming with the NFCC, you should say so on the relevant article's talk page and on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, and it will promptly be fixed by someone. Nominating this for deletion is insulting.
nadav (
talk) 00:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Proof that it's iconic:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
nadav (
talk) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Note also that
WP:NONFREE allows iconic images to be used merely to illustrate topics they depict, e.g. Picasso's Guernica in article on Spanish Civil War.
nadav (
talk) 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Picasso's Guernica is ok because it's notable enough to deserve being commented. Just having a song written after it is enough for am image to be considered notable. Please, incorporate all that information to some article, remove this image from the infobox at
Six-Day War and I'l be glad to withdraw this nomination and write a valid fair use rationale myself. But we can't keep using this image the way it's used today. Our use must be transformative. --Abu badali(
talk) 01:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I was not commenting on its use. You are of course correct that it is improper for it to be in the infobox. Still, I was shocked to see you nominate this for deletion after I specifically stated on the other ifd that this is the most famous photo in the history of the State of Israel.
[7]nadav (
talk) 02:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep definitely passes the "decorative vs substantive understanding increase" test. Cheers,
WilyD 19:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I discussed the issue of using historical photographs to illustrate articles about the events those photos depict with
User:Mindspillage, who drafted the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy the other day. I think that this is a complicated issue and the instructions for editors are not crystal clear, but she seemed to agree that even a stricter fair-use policy than the current one would allow such images to be used. In the interest of avoiding strife and ensuring that we're all on the same page, may I request that the nominator withdraw his deletion request while we ask the Foundation to clarify exactly what the policy is?
GabrielF 22:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Only laziness can make this image be deleted now. Just remove the image from the infobox and add it to some section mentioning the image's relevance. Use the wonderful sources nadav provided (I specially like International Herald Tribune's "Three paratroopers captured in iconic image reflect on 1967 war". It doesn't have to be a huge section in the article. A stub-section with all those sources is enough. As a said, count on me for writing a valid fair use rationale. --Abu badali(
talk) 23:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The question is whether an iconic image can be used without discussing the artistic merit of the image itself. I posted the question at
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content for anyone interested.
GabrielF 00:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Remove from Yom Kippur war article: If the photograph is as notable as you claim, it deserves its own article and would certainly be valid fair use there. Note that the
Battle of Iwo Jima does not contain the
iconic photoBorisblue 05:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per nadav and I also think GabrielF's suggestion is a good one. Let's get a definitive answer on this overall issue from those who are ultimately responsible for the consequences of their answer, rather than having thousands of random people guessing. (The Foundation's answer would still be no better than an educated guess, but it would be better to have one educated guess than the current multitude of mostly uneducated and semi-educated guesses.) Until then I think the images in question should remain.
6SJ7 00:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It's impossible for the Foundation to draw a line in the sand that says these uses are OK and these are not, because fair use is decided on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, the Foundation is only going to set guidelines, which they
already have, because they need to consider the needs of all Wikimedia projects, not just us here at en-WP. howcheng {
chat} 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
There are guidelines, but I think they are being misinterpreted in many cases -- though apparently not in this one, where the consensus seems to be to keep, which is the right answer.
6SJ7 04:38, 6 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.
Reduced size duplicate of
Image:E9d USAF CMSAF.png already on Commons. This one and thweleve nominations directly below just barely avoid meeting the criteria for a speedy deletion because they fall between the vracks of two differet speedy delete criteria. CaerwineCaer’s whines 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploader appears to be abscent. Image purports to be of the Nanking Massacre, yet no real evidence has been supplied either by users or on source links as to this fact. There is still no information to verify copyright status. Picture is of low quality and it is difficult to ascertain whether this was part of the events at Nanking, or took place somewhere else. Just because a source may claim it is from Nanking is hardly conclusive, as websites tend to copy each other without researching any facts themselves. —
John Smith's 23:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Yah think an amateur photo from 1937 might be a little grainy? -
N 23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
CommentKeep per reasons given in
previous applicable discussion. To me this really seems more like a complaint motivated by the image content than anything based in policy. --
tjstrftalk 23:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Well you would think wrong. It has nothing to do with the content. The problem is verifiability.
John Smith's 09:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
First of all, an admin backed me up on every other picture I posted so it's not as if I am alone in my nominations. The reasons were no different in those other photographs. Equally the two users in question who have objected also objected to
Image:NanjingMassacre.jpg, until it was pointed out by said admin that the image had nothing to do with Nanjing at all. Their reasons for wanting to keep that were the same as for the others, so I cannot regard them as being much more credible.
You have also given no reason for why you accuse me of merely objecting to the content, which is extremely pernicious, so I can only assume you are not acting out of good-faith.
John Smith's 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Some of the comments in support of keeping said pictures are also that "they're of the sort of thing that happened at Nanjing, so they're illustrative". That is completely the wrong reason to use photographs in a historical context (especially if they are labelled as being at Nanjing), and if you associate yourself with those comments then I cannot regard any credibility in your position.
John Smith's 21:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Image cannot be verified against a reliable source. When dealing with controversial subjects, it's of the utmost importance to make sure that the article and images therein actually depict what they purport to. howcheng {
chat} 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
delete Unless a source is supplied
Borisblue 05:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete This is actually a photograph of a chinese soldier holding the head of a japanese soldier. -
Occur Curve 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned pdf file, the text is a one page unsourced entry on SMS Comet - is original research without any sources
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 00:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned pdf file, file is a 1 page biography, it is unsourced and includes contact information
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 00:14, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use, sole contribution of user
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 00:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
No longer an orphan, so not deleted. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 00:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Isn't the policy on images like this to move them over to Commons? I'm not very familiar with image policies, so could someone clarify?
Xiong Chiamiov:: contact :: 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, likley non-free not PD-self - summary indicates that express permission was given
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 00:41, 3 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.
Unlawful derivative image of a copyrighted work. This svg version was not produced by CBS. Fails
WP:NFCC#3. This is not low resolution, in fact, it's infinite resolution — -
N 01:05, 3 July 2007 (UTC).reply
Keep per above.
Nate 10:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - SVG conversion from EPS is a slavish transform, under
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. It has no originality, and so is therefore not a derived work.
Vector graphics by definition do not have a resolution, so
WP:NFCC#3 does not apply. Furthermore, if this image were to be deleted for these reasons, all of the images using {{SVG-Logo}} and {{Brands of the World SVG}} would meet those criteria also. Those templates have already undergone TFD requests and results were
keep and
keep. --
ChrisRuvolo (
t) 11:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep. File format conversion, not a derivative work. Please avoid copyright paranoia.
Firsfron of Ronchester 19:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep as fair use logo. I agree with those above who assert that the format is not relevant. —
The Storm Surfer 05:58, 6 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, either an unencyclopedic personal logo or a non-free logo
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:09, 3 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.
Unlawful derivative image of a copyrighted work. This svg version was not produced by NBC. Fails
WP:NFCC#3. This is not low resolution, in fact, it's infinite resolution — -
N 01:26, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - SVG conversion from EPS is a slavish transform, under
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. It has no originality, and so is therefore not a derived work.
Vector graphics by definition do not have a resolution, so
WP:NFCC#3 does not apply. Furthermore, if this image were to be deleted for these reasons, all of the images using {{SVG-Logo}} and {{Brands of the World SVG}} would meet those criteria also. Those templates have already undergone TFD requests and results were
keep and
keep. --
ChrisRuvolo (
t) 11:53, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep per ChrisRuvolo; This is not a derived work, only a transfer to a different file format.
Firsfron of Ronchester 19:10, 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.
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.
Unlawful derivative of copyrighted logo. This svg version was not produced by ABC. Fails NFCC#3. Is not low resolution, in fact it's infinite resolution. — -
N 01:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - SVG conversion from EPS is a slavish transform, under
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. It has no originality, and so is therefore not a derived work.
Vector graphics by definition do not have a resolution, so
WP:NFCC#3 does not apply. Furthermore, if this image were to be deleted for these reasons, all of the images using {{SVG-Logo}} and {{Brands of the World SVG}} would meet those criteria also. Those templates have already undergone TFD requests and results were
keep and
keep. --
ChrisRuvolo (
t) 11:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep, per ChrisRuvolo and similar NBC logo deletion discussion.
Firsfron of Ronchester 19:12, 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.
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.
Unlawful derivative of copyrighted item. This svg was not produced by MTV. Fails NFCC#3, is not low resolution. In fact, it's infinite resolution — -
N 01:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - SVG conversion from EPS is a slavish transform, under
Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.. It has no originality, and so is therefore not a derived work.
Vector graphics by definition do not have a resolution, so
WP:NFCC#3 does not apply. Furthermore, if this image were to be deleted for these reasons, all of the images using {{SVG-Logo}} and {{Brands of the World SVG}} would meet those criteria also. Those templates have already undergone TFD requests and results were
keep and
keep. --
ChrisRuvolo (
t) 11:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy Keep - I've uploaded many (if not most) of the {{Brands of the World SVG}} images, and this has come up a few times. The decision has ALWAYS been to keep, with the conclusion that Wikipedia needs to get over copyright hysteria on logos. --
Keeleysam 00:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Speedy keep copyright paranoia. File conversion is not the same as creating a derivitive work.
Firsfron of Ronchester 19:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep for same reasons as CBCeye.svg —
The Storm Surfer 06:04, 6 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.
Appears to have been uploaded solely for posting on the Introduction sandbox (
permalink). Highly unencyclopaedic and has no copyright information. Angus Lepper(
T,
C,
D) 10:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unencyclopedic, unsourced and unused —
Gudeldar 13:47, 3 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.
Kept. OTRS ticket supplied. howcheng {
chat} 18:45, 11 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.
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.
very funny, but unencyclopaedic, it is not going to be used SalaSkan 16:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
"not going to be used in the encyclopedia" is not a deletion reason for free images that are used on Wikipedia administration pages. (Disrespectful to Jimbo
probably would be, but since he's active basically every day and has been informed on his talk page, let's see whether he's offended.) --
AnonEMouse(squeak) 17:10, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
WP:NOT#storage clearly states "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted." SalaSkan 19:23, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I'm sure it could be useful to an essay somewhere. --
tjstrftalk 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep unless Jimbo complains. --
tjstrftalk 19:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unless and until Jimbo objects, Keep. The section it's in is looking at being enshrined in the
Wikipedia namespace. -Jeske(
v^_^v) 19:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
DeleteFirst of all it's a copyright violation, the Photo of Jimbo that was used is licensed under a Creative Commons ShareAlike license so the image is not properly attributed or licensed (granted this is fixable). Secondly it's of no Ensyclopedic value and we should not be scrambeling to find somewhere to use it just because some find it funny. This would only encourage more people to create silly photoshops, most of wich also tend to be copyvios. Besides Wikipedia
is not a image collection. If Jimbo wants to keep it for his private use he has the power to view and recover deleted images if need be. --
Sherool(talk) 21:28, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Then ask the uploader to relicense the damn thing ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I've notified ChrisO. --
tjstrftalk 22:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I believe the copyright tagging has now been fixed. --
tjstrftalk 22:54, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Ok, fair enough. I struck the copyvio part. I stand by the rest though. Images like this are deleted all the time, if it had been any other face pasted on there no one would have even raised an eyebrow over this nomination. What usefull purpose would this have exactly? --
Sherool(talk) 22:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Surely, you jest that image has added much more to Wikipedia than this deletion discussion ˉˉanetode╦╩ 21:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - It just bothers me, you hear?
JDG 23:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
In what policy exactly does it say that we keep everyting as long as someone invoke BJAODN? A few "profile images" for a user page is permited, or even images intended for a humoruos essay within reason, but I don't think photoshopped pictures of other people uploaded aparently for the sole reason of getting it enshrined as a "bad joke or other nonsense" is something we should be keeping, regardles of who they are or wheter or not anyone was offended. --
Sherool(talk) 06:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep No compelling reason to delete. This is being used in Wikipedia space just as we use Wikipedtan and many other images that have no use in the encyclopedia proper. This nomination sounds
WP:POINTish to me.
nadav (
talk) 00:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep unless Jimbo complains. Humor has a valuable place in this project. With respect for those who find the joke unfunny,
WP:NOT applies here - you're free to surf away and create other humor more to your taste.
DurovaCharge! 15:53, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete It may be amusing, but that's not the point. Wikipedia is not a storage facility for images. It doesn't have any real use. There shouldn't be one rule for ordinary people and another rule for the higher-ups or things linked to them, otherwise Wikipedia's credibility is damaged. Whether the subject complains or not is irrelevant.
John Smith's 21:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
A certain degree of lenience is typically observed. Note, for example, the
Wikipedia:Facebook, hundreds of images, very few of which will be useful in the main encyclopedia space. --
AnonEMouse(squeak) 20:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Well yeah, people want to put theyr photo on the facebook or theyr userpage, fine. Photoshopping images of other people for silly joke pages, not so much. I think we should draw a line there. Yeah people keep saying keep unless he actualy complains, but I doubht he'll do that. Keep in mind the "world" is watching his every move, he's still got people taking shots at him for editing his own bio a couple of years back, so he's probably not too keen on going anywhere near a debate about a religions image with his face inserted into it. The anti Wikipedia croud would interpret it either as "Oh, Wales have no sense of humor and deletes images of himself he doesn't like" or "Oh, Wales like people making religiously themed images of him, he thinks he's God", basicaly he's probably better of just ignoring the whole thing for PR reasons. --
Sherool(talk) 23:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete - Sacrilegious but without serving the encyclopedia part of the encyclopedia.
The Behnam 03:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep unless Jimbo complains. Many people have accused me of having no sense of humor (and of obsessively targeting "harmless" jokes for removal), but I recognize this image's potential value to the project (albeit not to the encyclopedia proper). If, however, it makes Jimbo uncomfortable, it should be deleted (a courtesy that I hope we would extend to any Wikipedian). —
David Levy 11:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
He has to my knowledge yet to comment on this either way (see my argument above), and he's made only one edit to the gallery you point to, back in november 2004 (a more "innocent" time if you will), and "NOT censored" deals with relevant ensyclopedic content in articles, not stuff like this.
WP:NOT#WEBSPACE seems the more relevant part of that page. Anyway I've done more than my fair share of commenting on this silly thing, so moving on now... --
Sherool(talk) 05:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Jimbo is known to have a sense of humor. The subpage exists in his userspace, it's unlikely he dosn't know what's going on there. As for webspace, is the uploader using Wikipedia solely for blogging, POV-pushing, vandalism, vanispamcruftising, etc, etc? Nope, the uploader's an admin and he's definitely not using the Wiki as a webspace. Incidentally, you'd think
this image doesn't have purpose either, but it's used by a number of Jimbo cults. The humor value's what matters here, and if there's no policy that says "BJAODN doesn't follow the rules for lesser entities", there's always
consensus and
IAR. Heck, if some Admin with no respect for others' sense of humor comes by and deletes this, I'll just go right ahead and upload it to commons with due disrespect for the rules. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice(PokéNav|Trainer Card) 16:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete since it's at Commons (I don't see why Commons wouldn't keep it, it's unquestionably a free image since it's composited from free images), but really, if Jimbo took offense to that image, I think he does have a delete button and knows how to push it. (I myself imagine that he got a good chuckle out of it, though that's just right out of my own deranged mind.) We can't joke around all the time, of course, but an occasional lightening up of the mood doesn't hurt, and I think is actually beneficial.
SeraphimbladeTalk to me 18:04, 6 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.
Keep Just because the submarine is still in commission does not mean that the image is replaceable. If no free image can be found to replace the image, it should be kept.
John Smith's 12:53, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unfortunately, that's not how it works. Keeping a non-free image actually discourages the creation of a free image because people don't realize that we need one. howcheng {
chat} 01:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep the template wording suggests older images are grandfathered into the image policy. If not the template needs changing. -
N 02:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. The fact that it was uploaded a while ago just protects us from speedying it. The deletion nomination here, though, is clearly valid. — Rebelguys2talk 15:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, apparently fan-art which would be either Unencyclopedic or Copyright violation
BigrTex 19:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Not fanart, just mislicensed official art from
Bleach. We already have enough pictures of both
Kaien Shiba and his doppelganger though, so delete. --
tjstrftalk 18:09, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Thumbnail version of a photo copied from deWiki, the full image is now on Commons as
Image:SynagogeDelsberg.jpg so I swaped this for that instead. This is redundant now.
Sherool(talk) 21:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
unused, random screenshot of someone's Second Life avatar, originally created for use in a CSD A7 page about the person's character.
Action Jackson IV 22:42, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Unsourced unfree image showing the back of a soldier, claimed to be historical, doesn't seem to help the readers understanding of hte article in a way that words alone can not. Abu badali(
talk) 22:50, 3 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.
Unfree image showing three soldiers in Jerusalem's Western Wall, is being used as a general illustration for an article. Doesn't seem to help the readers understanding of the article in a way that words alone can not. Abu badali(
talk) 22:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep unless you want to go back in a time machine and take a picture of that war. -
N 23:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I'll be visiting peaceful places the day I put my hands on a time machine. But I don't know how my time-travelings preferences interfere with our
policy on non-free content usage. --Abu badali(
talk) 23:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep This is one of the the most famous photographs in the history of the State of Israel. Last month it appeared on the cover of the Economist and in the Times on the 40 year memorial of the Six Day War. At least one song has been written about it. I daresay it may almost be called the Israeli version of the Iwo Jima flag raising photo. If you believe its use is not conforming with the NFCC, you should say so on the relevant article's talk page and on
Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel, and it will promptly be fixed by someone. Nominating this for deletion is insulting.
nadav (
talk) 00:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC) Proof that it's iconic:
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4],
[5],
[6],
nadav (
talk) 01:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Note also that
WP:NONFREE allows iconic images to be used merely to illustrate topics they depict, e.g. Picasso's Guernica in article on Spanish Civil War.
nadav (
talk) 00:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Picasso's Guernica is ok because it's notable enough to deserve being commented. Just having a song written after it is enough for am image to be considered notable. Please, incorporate all that information to some article, remove this image from the infobox at
Six-Day War and I'l be glad to withdraw this nomination and write a valid fair use rationale myself. But we can't keep using this image the way it's used today. Our use must be transformative. --Abu badali(
talk) 01:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
I was not commenting on its use. You are of course correct that it is improper for it to be in the infobox. Still, I was shocked to see you nominate this for deletion after I specifically stated on the other ifd that this is the most famous photo in the history of the State of Israel.
[7]nadav (
talk) 02:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep definitely passes the "decorative vs substantive understanding increase" test. Cheers,
WilyD 19:50, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment I discussed the issue of using historical photographs to illustrate articles about the events those photos depict with
User:Mindspillage, who drafted the Wikimedia Foundation's licensing policy the other day. I think that this is a complicated issue and the instructions for editors are not crystal clear, but she seemed to agree that even a stricter fair-use policy than the current one would allow such images to be used. In the interest of avoiding strife and ensuring that we're all on the same page, may I request that the nominator withdraw his deletion request while we ask the Foundation to clarify exactly what the policy is?
GabrielF 22:27, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Only laziness can make this image be deleted now. Just remove the image from the infobox and add it to some section mentioning the image's relevance. Use the wonderful sources nadav provided (I specially like International Herald Tribune's "Three paratroopers captured in iconic image reflect on 1967 war". It doesn't have to be a huge section in the article. A stub-section with all those sources is enough. As a said, count on me for writing a valid fair use rationale. --Abu badali(
talk) 23:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The question is whether an iconic image can be used without discussing the artistic merit of the image itself. I posted the question at
Wikipedia talk:Non-free content for anyone interested.
GabrielF 00:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Remove from Yom Kippur war article: If the photograph is as notable as you claim, it deserves its own article and would certainly be valid fair use there. Note that the
Battle of Iwo Jima does not contain the
iconic photoBorisblue 05:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep per nadav and I also think GabrielF's suggestion is a good one. Let's get a definitive answer on this overall issue from those who are ultimately responsible for the consequences of their answer, rather than having thousands of random people guessing. (The Foundation's answer would still be no better than an educated guess, but it would be better to have one educated guess than the current multitude of mostly uneducated and semi-educated guesses.) Until then I think the images in question should remain.
6SJ7 00:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
It's impossible for the Foundation to draw a line in the sand that says these uses are OK and these are not, because fair use is decided on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, the Foundation is only going to set guidelines, which they
already have, because they need to consider the needs of all Wikimedia projects, not just us here at en-WP. howcheng {
chat} 02:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)reply
There are guidelines, but I think they are being misinterpreted in many cases -- though apparently not in this one, where the consensus seems to be to keep, which is the right answer.
6SJ7 04:38, 6 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.
Reduced size duplicate of
Image:E9d USAF CMSAF.png already on Commons. This one and thweleve nominations directly below just barely avoid meeting the criteria for a speedy deletion because they fall between the vracks of two differet speedy delete criteria. CaerwineCaer’s whines 23:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Uploader appears to be abscent. Image purports to be of the Nanking Massacre, yet no real evidence has been supplied either by users or on source links as to this fact. There is still no information to verify copyright status. Picture is of low quality and it is difficult to ascertain whether this was part of the events at Nanking, or took place somewhere else. Just because a source may claim it is from Nanking is hardly conclusive, as websites tend to copy each other without researching any facts themselves. —
John Smith's 23:13, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Yah think an amateur photo from 1937 might be a little grainy? -
N 23:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
CommentKeep per reasons given in
previous applicable discussion. To me this really seems more like a complaint motivated by the image content than anything based in policy. --
tjstrftalk 23:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Well you would think wrong. It has nothing to do with the content. The problem is verifiability.
John Smith's 09:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
First of all, an admin backed me up on every other picture I posted so it's not as if I am alone in my nominations. The reasons were no different in those other photographs. Equally the two users in question who have objected also objected to
Image:NanjingMassacre.jpg, until it was pointed out by said admin that the image had nothing to do with Nanjing at all. Their reasons for wanting to keep that were the same as for the others, so I cannot regard them as being much more credible.
You have also given no reason for why you accuse me of merely objecting to the content, which is extremely pernicious, so I can only assume you are not acting out of good-faith.
John Smith's 21:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Some of the comments in support of keeping said pictures are also that "they're of the sort of thing that happened at Nanjing, so they're illustrative". That is completely the wrong reason to use photographs in a historical context (especially if they are labelled as being at Nanjing), and if you associate yourself with those comments then I cannot regard any credibility in your position.
John Smith's 21:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Image cannot be verified against a reliable source. When dealing with controversial subjects, it's of the utmost importance to make sure that the article and images therein actually depict what they purport to. howcheng {
chat} 23:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)reply
delete Unless a source is supplied
Borisblue 05:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete This is actually a photograph of a chinese soldier holding the head of a japanese soldier. -
Occur Curve 22:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)reply