orphaned image, absent uploader, source is provided as "freeware from the internet", unable to confirm GFDL license
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orpahned image, absent uploader, no source provided - should be easy to find cleanly sourced and licensed images of this person
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't believe it's PD. It appears promotional, from an uploader with frequent copyright problems. — –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan, low quality shot and hence unencyclopedic.-
Punkmorten 08:41, 21 June 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.
Unencyclopedic, spam. Image is not objective nor appropriate on the topic for the following reasons: (1) Anti-Bush images are considered opinions on the President's performance, not on any real issue, and (2) the url in the caption is spam due to the content of the website of anti-Bush images and no other images showing other protest issues. Clearly, this is a person or group's hatred of one particular person. —
Phobic 09:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Image is not being used in an article about Bush. It's being used in an article about
protests, which are, by their nature, full of opinions. This image documents an opinion, just like the many other free images we have that show people having opinions. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 11:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Image is freely licensed and besides, I don't like to make editorial decisions here at IFD. howcheng {
chat} 20:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep on technical grounds. It is freely licensed. Now whether this is worth keeping in the
protest article is a whole different story, and this is neither the time nor place. If it gets deleted for being orphaned, well...
SchuminWeb (
Talk) 03:57, 23 June 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.
No fair use rationale, and already free images in the article about
Josip Broz Tito. —
Ilse@ 11:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment, yes, it needs a rationale. . . but this photo shows something very different than the free one. I'm not sure whether this passes NFCC#8 or not. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Source's licensing information is quite vague. "Pictures in this library are free for non-commercial use, but an acknowledgement to CAE would be appreciated if you make use of them. The photographs are from a variety of sources and we have endeavoured to ensure that none are copyrighted. If you see an image you believe to be subject to copyright please mail us (cae@cae.canterbury.ac.nz) and we will remove it immediately" Should we apply ACP here, or say that there's no real source?- –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 11:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. No real source and we don't trust the site to be copyright experts. Besides, being "free for non-commercial use" can automatically qualify it for {{db-noncom}} status. howcheng {
chat} 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
There are free alternative images of
Steve Jobs and of the
iMac, fails
WP:NFCC #1 "No free equivalent". High resolution (3745 × 2533px) image, fails
WP:NFCC #3(b) "Resolution". Only vague purpose of use description specified for no article in particular, fails
WP:NFCC #10 "Image description page". —
Ilse@ 11:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Already two other screenshots of Safari. High resolution (1294 × 932px) image, fails
WP:NFCC #3(b) "Resolution". No proper purpose of use description, fails
WP:NFCC #10 "Image description page". —
Ilse@ 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, source website does not mention anything about this logo being in the public domain, it has a copyright notice on the site
MECU≈
talk 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
author unknown yet they died more than 70 years ago, how do we know?
MECU≈
talk 13:29, 21 June 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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Absent uploader, who is the author that died? being on many websites isn't important
MECU≈
talk 13:40, 21 June 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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Absent uploader, who is the author?
MECU≈
talk 13:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
As uplander indeed absent, the photo has historical value. If during the process author would be not identified, license should be changed to fairuse.
M.K. 14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
No, we can't do that. A fair use claim cannot be made if the copyright holder is unknown. howcheng {
chat} 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, free, but not useful
MECU≈
talk 14:05, 21 June 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.
Fails "Fair use". Free images of Maria Callas are available at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Maria_Callas. The Fair Use Rationale also claims that the picture "adds significantly to the article". However, the article does not give critival commentary on the play (La Traviata), nor does the picture depict anything significant besides the subject's face and the shoulder-part of her costume. —
Anrie 16:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC).reply
Comment. There are exactly three images of Maria Callas at the Commons. One shows her as an infant. Thus, there are exactly two images of the adult Maria Callas at the Commons. One shows her from a distance and in heavy makeup; in the other, her face is turned most of the way away from the camera. Thus, there are exactly no free images of Maria Callas at the Commons that show well the details of her face.
Robert K S 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Response: If you're defense is that the picture is necessary for identifaction, the image
Image:Callas knowing look.jpg is already used for that purpose.
Anrie 06:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Response: The picture shows Callas in her prime in one of the roles most closely identified with her, namely Violetta. I believe the image should stay, since the article does contain information about Callas' weight loss and consequent transformation from a heavy woman to a beautiful one. I think the previously deleted image of a heavy Callas in rehearsal for her La Scala debut should be reinstated and followed with this image. The combination of the two will graphically demonstrate the physical transformation. Furthermore, even on its own, the image shows Callas in the role and the production which Maestro Giulini refers to in the "The Artist" section. If not paired with a heavy image, this image should be moved into that section of the article.
159.251.88.4 13:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Response:' My original reason for nominating was that the picture did not qualify for fair use, as given by the fair use rationale stated on the image page. If someone would like to add the above information (and not just mention in passing something like "she was fat, then thin (see picture)", so that the image does significantly add to the text surrounding it, I have no qualms about it staying. Until then, I don't see it as being of any significance to the article, other than esthetical. (Hey, I might be wrong, but this is my opinion.)
Anrie 16:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree with the nominator that the article should make more explicit the picture's function in the article, but for the purposes of the count, let the record show that there are thus far two keeps to one delete.
Robert K S 15:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Non-free images should only be used when absolutely necessary. This photo as it's being used is a clear violation of
WP:NFCC #8. It's a nice-to-have for the article, but if it were missing, it wouldn't impair the reader's understanding one bit. howcheng {
chat} 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. Can you elaborate? As discussed above, the image contributes to the article in a way that words alone cannot--illustrating Callas's slimming--and does not fall under the categories of lists, galleries, or navigational and user-interface elements.
Robert K S 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Image is judged not to comply with NFCC #8, in that other free images would fulfill the necessary encyclopedic role of the image just as well. They may not be as pretty, and may not reveal every aspect that the non-free image reveals, but they are suitable, and thus the non-free image is replaceable. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 18:33, 26 June 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.
This is a reproduction of an advertisement, not a logo as claimed by use of {{Non-free logo}}. Another image depicting the airline's logo from that era is already on the article
Air California. —
Hawaiian717 17:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Tagged as cc-by, but description implies "used with permission". Abu badali(
talk) 22:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Their website gives a different licensing arrangement (NONCOM) - I read it as "requested and received cc-by" by an inexperienced user. Is the uploader absent?
WilyD 15:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary, non-notalbe unfree image showing soldiers crossing the Suez, doesn't seem add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali(
talk) 23:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image showing an sculptor looking to a living model while producing a sculpture, used to illustrate the information that this sculptor used this living model to produce this sculpture. It doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali(
talk) 23:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, source is provided as "freeware from the internet", unable to confirm GFDL license
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
orpahned image, absent uploader, no source provided - should be easy to find cleanly sourced and licensed images of this person
User:Gay Cdn(talk)(Contr) 01:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I don't believe it's PD. It appears promotional, from an uploader with frequent copyright problems. — –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 03:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphan, low quality shot and hence unencyclopedic.-
Punkmorten 08:41, 21 June 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.
Unencyclopedic, spam. Image is not objective nor appropriate on the topic for the following reasons: (1) Anti-Bush images are considered opinions on the President's performance, not on any real issue, and (2) the url in the caption is spam due to the content of the website of anti-Bush images and no other images showing other protest issues. Clearly, this is a person or group's hatred of one particular person. —
Phobic 09:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Image is not being used in an article about Bush. It's being used in an article about
protests, which are, by their nature, full of opinions. This image documents an opinion, just like the many other free images we have that show people having opinions. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 11:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep. Image is freely licensed and besides, I don't like to make editorial decisions here at IFD. howcheng {
chat} 20:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep on technical grounds. It is freely licensed. Now whether this is worth keeping in the
protest article is a whole different story, and this is neither the time nor place. If it gets deleted for being orphaned, well...
SchuminWeb (
Talk) 03:57, 23 June 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.
No fair use rationale, and already free images in the article about
Josip Broz Tito. —
Ilse@ 11:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment, yes, it needs a rationale. . . but this photo shows something very different than the free one. I'm not sure whether this passes NFCC#8 or not. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Source's licensing information is quite vague. "Pictures in this library are free for non-commercial use, but an acknowledgement to CAE would be appreciated if you make use of them. The photographs are from a variety of sources and we have endeavoured to ensure that none are copyrighted. If you see an image you believe to be subject to copyright please mail us (cae@cae.canterbury.ac.nz) and we will remove it immediately" Should we apply ACP here, or say that there's no real source?- –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 11:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. No real source and we don't trust the site to be copyright experts. Besides, being "free for non-commercial use" can automatically qualify it for {{db-noncom}} status. howcheng {
chat} 20:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
There are free alternative images of
Steve Jobs and of the
iMac, fails
WP:NFCC #1 "No free equivalent". High resolution (3745 × 2533px) image, fails
WP:NFCC #3(b) "Resolution". Only vague purpose of use description specified for no article in particular, fails
WP:NFCC #10 "Image description page". —
Ilse@ 11:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Already two other screenshots of Safari. High resolution (1294 × 932px) image, fails
WP:NFCC #3(b) "Resolution". No proper purpose of use description, fails
WP:NFCC #10 "Image description page". —
Ilse@ 12:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, source website does not mention anything about this logo being in the public domain, it has a copyright notice on the site
MECU≈
talk 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
author unknown yet they died more than 70 years ago, how do we know?
MECU≈
talk 13:29, 21 June 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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Absent uploader, who is the author that died? being on many websites isn't important
MECU≈
talk 13:40, 21 June 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 media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Absent uploader, who is the author?
MECU≈
talk 13:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
As uplander indeed absent, the photo has historical value. If during the process author would be not identified, license should be changed to fairuse.
M.K. 14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
No, we can't do that. A fair use claim cannot be made if the copyright holder is unknown. howcheng {
chat} 20:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, free, but not useful
MECU≈
talk 14:05, 21 June 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.
Fails "Fair use". Free images of Maria Callas are available at
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Maria_Callas. The Fair Use Rationale also claims that the picture "adds significantly to the article". However, the article does not give critival commentary on the play (La Traviata), nor does the picture depict anything significant besides the subject's face and the shoulder-part of her costume. —
Anrie 16:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC).reply
Comment. There are exactly three images of Maria Callas at the Commons. One shows her as an infant. Thus, there are exactly two images of the adult Maria Callas at the Commons. One shows her from a distance and in heavy makeup; in the other, her face is turned most of the way away from the camera. Thus, there are exactly no free images of Maria Callas at the Commons that show well the details of her face.
Robert K S 20:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Response: If you're defense is that the picture is necessary for identifaction, the image
Image:Callas knowing look.jpg is already used for that purpose.
Anrie 06:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Response: The picture shows Callas in her prime in one of the roles most closely identified with her, namely Violetta. I believe the image should stay, since the article does contain information about Callas' weight loss and consequent transformation from a heavy woman to a beautiful one. I think the previously deleted image of a heavy Callas in rehearsal for her La Scala debut should be reinstated and followed with this image. The combination of the two will graphically demonstrate the physical transformation. Furthermore, even on its own, the image shows Callas in the role and the production which Maestro Giulini refers to in the "The Artist" section. If not paired with a heavy image, this image should be moved into that section of the article.
159.251.88.4 13:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Response:' My original reason for nominating was that the picture did not qualify for fair use, as given by the fair use rationale stated on the image page. If someone would like to add the above information (and not just mention in passing something like "she was fat, then thin (see picture)", so that the image does significantly add to the text surrounding it, I have no qualms about it staying. Until then, I don't see it as being of any significance to the article, other than esthetical. (Hey, I might be wrong, but this is my opinion.)
Anrie 16:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)reply
I agree with the nominator that the article should make more explicit the picture's function in the article, but for the purposes of the count, let the record show that there are thus far two keeps to one delete.
Robert K S 15:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete. Non-free images should only be used when absolutely necessary. This photo as it's being used is a clear violation of
WP:NFCC #8. It's a nice-to-have for the article, but if it were missing, it wouldn't impair the reader's understanding one bit. howcheng {
chat} 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment. Can you elaborate? As discussed above, the image contributes to the article in a way that words alone cannot--illustrating Callas's slimming--and does not fall under the categories of lists, galleries, or navigational and user-interface elements.
Robert K S 17:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Image is judged not to comply with NFCC #8, in that other free images would fulfill the necessary encyclopedic role of the image just as well. They may not be as pretty, and may not reveal every aspect that the non-free image reveals, but they are suitable, and thus the non-free image is replaceable. –
Quadell(
talk) (
random) 18:33, 26 June 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.
This is a reproduction of an advertisement, not a logo as claimed by use of {{Non-free logo}}. Another image depicting the airline's logo from that era is already on the article
Air California. —
Hawaiian717 17:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Tagged as cc-by, but description implies "used with permission". Abu badali(
talk) 22:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Their website gives a different licensing arrangement (NONCOM) - I read it as "requested and received cc-by" by an inexperienced user. Is the uploader absent?
WilyD 15:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary, non-notalbe unfree image showing soldiers crossing the Suez, doesn't seem add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali(
talk) 23:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply
Unnecessary, non-notable unfree image showing an sculptor looking to a living model while producing a sculpture, used to illustrate the information that this sculptor used this living model to produce this sculpture. It doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali(
talk) 23:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)reply