Orphaned, possibly unfree
Kellyhi! 00:43, 16 April 2008 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. The copyrighted image fails
WP:NFCC policy #8. The image is decorative and not integral to both articles the image is used in. There is no cited commentary on the image in the articles. The text from the Newsweek article should be used as reference material for the article not an image of the cover. -
Nv8200ptalk 15:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Image was restored and discussion moved to April 28 to give an editor time to address the problem. -
Nv8200ptalk 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I do not want this image to be deleted, but I do want it to go through proper channels rather than underhanded as was being done. This image was put up for deletion today as "no rationale." Since the original uploader hasn't edited for two years, I put the rationale in myself, being a good sport. Within an hour the same deletionist again tagged this for deletion, under "non-free use rationale is disputed." I don't know what his agenda is, but this is a useful illustration and I think it should be saved. Can anyone help?
Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (
talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep as the rationale is valid and the two articles in which it is used are perfectly legitimate uses of the image as they discuss topic of the cover story of the issue featured in the image. ···
日本穣? ·
Talk to Nihonjoe 03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
But they don't discuss the issue or the story itself. That's what would be required for this image to be within policy. —
Angr 05:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as neither of the articles where this image is used discusses the magazine in general or this issue of the magazine in particular, except in the caption of the image itself. Thus the image violates
WP:NFCC#8 and its own licensing tag, and its rationale is invalid. Incidentally, the description of tagging an image "disputed fair use" as being "underhanded" is ridiculous, and the description of me as a
"rabid deletionist" is an uncivil, and untrue, personal attack. —
Angr 05:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep.
Model minority is about certain minorities being recognized as successful, and having a cover story in a major magazine about that minority's success — the precise topic of the article — is certainly significant. Contrary to your assertion, I don't see where
WP:NFCC#8 (or any other WP policy for that matter) requires that use of a magazine cover has to be only for illustrating the magazine itself. Are you disputing something else in the fair-use rationale, or is this your only bone of contention?
Jpatokal (
talk) 06:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
If the articles
Model minority and
Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States actually discussed the Newsweek article, or the cover of Newsweek magazine, then NFCC#8 might be met. But they don't: neitzher article never discusses this issue of Newsweek, and the image's own tag says it can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". That is not being done in this case. —
Angr 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The template does not assert that the image must be used to illustrate the magazine itself. The template asserts that the image must be used to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question. In
Model minority, the image is captioned "April 1984 cover of Newsweek featuring an article on the success of Asian American students" — it's thus used to illustrate the publication of the issue, and the condition is met.
Jpatokal (
talk) 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
But the articles do not discuss the publication of the issue except in the caption to the image itself. Removing the image will not reduce understanding of the article, because there's nothing in the article referring to this issue of Newsweek. —
Angr 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
See above: the image can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question", and neither article where the image is used discusses this issue of Newsweek. —
Angr 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
See above: the image can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question", and neither article where the image is used discusses this issue of Newsweek. —
Angr 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Relunctantly, delete per Angr's justification. I don't see why this cover is particularly significant or necessary in either of the two articles in which it is used. And he's right in that the usage violates the instructions in {{non-free magazine cover}}.
Kellyhi! 14:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This appears to be a fan-made image from
this website that the uploader tried to pass off as the real cover art. As a fan-made image, it has no encyclopedic value. EnviroboyTalkCs 02:12, 16 April 2008 (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 result of the debate was Kept, ineligible for copyright.
Orphaned, probably unfree (Canadian govt work is generally noncommercial license).
Kellyhi! 02:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Looks like PD-inelligible would apply as it is simply a small square box with the word CANADA on it.
ValentinianT /
C 12:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned; can't confirm PD status, otherwise would move to Commons.
Kellyhi! 02:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
It is an uncropped version of
image:SABernard.jpg which is a PD image. The author died in 1930 and the actual image dates from 1868.
ValentinianT /
C 12:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Image moved to Commons -
Nv8200ptalk 15:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - potentially useful. Absent unique circumstances, we generally presume PD claims to be valid. —
xDanielxT/C\R 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
We normally presume {{PD-self}} claims to be valid. This has no explanation or evidence why it is supposedly in the public domain. Since it's orphaned and potential copyvio, it's better to delete.
Kellyhi! 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
This image is of an article in a defunct, pro-Nazi periodical published in France during the Occupation. I believe that no copyrights apply.
Adam Holland (
talk) 18:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
If the
French copyright law article is correct, copyright expires on this type of work 70 years after publication, which would mean it's still under copyright. I'll change the license tag to {{non-free newspaper image}}.
Kellyhi! 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
No, you can't create an article by uploading an Excel spreadsheet. It didn't stop these users from trying, though. All orphaned.
Zetawoof(
ζ) 10:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Quite creative, but... doesn't seem to be any legitimate use for these. —
xDanielxT/C\R 20:49, 20 April 2008 (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 result of the discussion was: delete two, keep one. One image is enough to identify long absent user. Wikipedia
is not a web space provider. -
Nv8200ptalk 15:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Absent uploader, user uploaded this 1 of 3 images for their userpage which is their sole contribution in 2005, no encyclopdeic value
MECU≈
talk 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Uncyclopedic, seems to be more of a personal picture than a picture that could be used on this site.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - Many editors upload self-made images for personal use in user-space; there's nothing wrote with that. Inactivity is no reason to tear down the guy's user pages. —
xDanielxT/C\R 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Absent uploader, user uploaded this 1 of 3 images for their userpage which is their sole contribution in 2005, no encyclopdeic value
MECU≈
talk 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete seems to be more of a personal picture than an encyclopaedic picture.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - Many editors upload self-made images for personal use in user-space; there's nothing wrote with that. Inactivity is no reason to tear down the guy's user pages. —
xDanielxT/C\R 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Absent uploader, user uploaded this 1 of 3 images for their userpage which is their sole contribution in 2005, no encyclopdeic value
MECU≈
talk 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - Many editors upload self-made images for personal use in user-space; there's nothing wrote with that. Inactivity is no reason to tear down the guy's user pages. —
xDanielxT/C\R 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 13:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
This is encyclopedic, it's just that I would have expected something like this to be on someone's userpage. Otherwise, *Delete per nomination.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Someone has decided to use the image so it is being kept -
Nv8200ptalk 02:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I would have to agree with you here. I definitely think that this is an orphaned picture and I also agree that the user is currently absent from this Wikipedia. Although I'm not sure if that meets the requirements for deletion, I think it does, so I think I can safely say Delete.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 14:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I think it looks almost nearly like the symbol for Adobe Acrobat Reader, which means that this is breaking copyright. Otherwise, delete per nomination.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
That's a default thumbnail for PDF documents. Click through on the text below it to view the actual file, which is a "HISTORY OF THE PHILIPPINE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY By FEDERICO A. OQUINDO and Rafael R. Oquindo".
Zetawoof(
ζ) 08:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Copyright violation
Nv8200ptalk 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete, I would have to agree that this is a copyright violation.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I created this image solely to use on my user page, but since I stopped from doing so, please go ahead and delete it. As a side note, Am I allowed to create whatever image I wish (free image non-porn etc) and put it on my user page right? Please reply on my talk page thanks.
JTBX (
talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Low quality (blurry, underexposed) and uploader state it's released for "educational (non-commercial use)" (
CSD I3) despite the GFDL tag on it. howcheng {
chat} 18:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned logo, possible Copyright violation
BigrTex 23:46, 16 April 2008 (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 result of the discussion was: } delete. The other images were either duplicates or very close to duplicates of the image being used. -
Nv8200ptalk 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Uploader donated four versions of this picture, I feel we only need the one that is being used (
Image:Verbridge1.jpg), although I appreciate the enthusiasm.
BigrTex 00:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep and move to Commons.
Kellyhi! 16:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned, possibly unfree
Kellyhi! 00:43, 16 April 2008 (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 result of the discussion was: delete. The copyrighted image fails
WP:NFCC policy #8. The image is decorative and not integral to both articles the image is used in. There is no cited commentary on the image in the articles. The text from the Newsweek article should be used as reference material for the article not an image of the cover. -
Nv8200ptalk 15:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Image was restored and discussion moved to April 28 to give an editor time to address the problem. -
Nv8200ptalk 14:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I do not want this image to be deleted, but I do want it to go through proper channels rather than underhanded as was being done. This image was put up for deletion today as "no rationale." Since the original uploader hasn't edited for two years, I put the rationale in myself, being a good sport. Within an hour the same deletionist again tagged this for deletion, under "non-free use rationale is disputed." I don't know what his agenda is, but this is a useful illustration and I think it should be saved. Can anyone help?
Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (
talk) 00:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep as the rationale is valid and the two articles in which it is used are perfectly legitimate uses of the image as they discuss topic of the cover story of the issue featured in the image. ···
日本穣? ·
Talk to Nihonjoe 03:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
But they don't discuss the issue or the story itself. That's what would be required for this image to be within policy. —
Angr 05:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as neither of the articles where this image is used discusses the magazine in general or this issue of the magazine in particular, except in the caption of the image itself. Thus the image violates
WP:NFCC#8 and its own licensing tag, and its rationale is invalid. Incidentally, the description of tagging an image "disputed fair use" as being "underhanded" is ridiculous, and the description of me as a
"rabid deletionist" is an uncivil, and untrue, personal attack. —
Angr 05:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep.
Model minority is about certain minorities being recognized as successful, and having a cover story in a major magazine about that minority's success — the precise topic of the article — is certainly significant. Contrary to your assertion, I don't see where
WP:NFCC#8 (or any other WP policy for that matter) requires that use of a magazine cover has to be only for illustrating the magazine itself. Are you disputing something else in the fair-use rationale, or is this your only bone of contention?
Jpatokal (
talk) 06:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
If the articles
Model minority and
Stereotypes of East and Southeast Asians in the United States actually discussed the Newsweek article, or the cover of Newsweek magazine, then NFCC#8 might be met. But they don't: neitzher article never discusses this issue of Newsweek, and the image's own tag says it can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question". That is not being done in this case. —
Angr 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The template does not assert that the image must be used to illustrate the magazine itself. The template asserts that the image must be used to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question. In
Model minority, the image is captioned "April 1984 cover of Newsweek featuring an article on the success of Asian American students" — it's thus used to illustrate the publication of the issue, and the condition is met.
Jpatokal (
talk) 14:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
But the articles do not discuss the publication of the issue except in the caption to the image itself. Removing the image will not reduce understanding of the article, because there's nothing in the article referring to this issue of Newsweek. —
Angr 23:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
See above: the image can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question", and neither article where the image is used discusses this issue of Newsweek. —
Angr 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
See above: the image can only be used "to illustrate the publication of the issue of the magazine in question", and neither article where the image is used discusses this issue of Newsweek. —
Angr 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Relunctantly, delete per Angr's justification. I don't see why this cover is particularly significant or necessary in either of the two articles in which it is used. And he's right in that the usage violates the instructions in {{non-free magazine cover}}.
Kellyhi! 14:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
This appears to be a fan-made image from
this website that the uploader tried to pass off as the real cover art. As a fan-made image, it has no encyclopedic value. EnviroboyTalkCs 02:12, 16 April 2008 (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 result of the debate was Kept, ineligible for copyright.
Orphaned, probably unfree (Canadian govt work is generally noncommercial license).
Kellyhi! 02:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Looks like PD-inelligible would apply as it is simply a small square box with the word CANADA on it.
ValentinianT /
C 12:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned; can't confirm PD status, otherwise would move to Commons.
Kellyhi! 02:55, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
It is an uncropped version of
image:SABernard.jpg which is a PD image. The author died in 1930 and the actual image dates from 1868.
ValentinianT /
C 12:54, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Image moved to Commons -
Nv8200ptalk 15:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - potentially useful. Absent unique circumstances, we generally presume PD claims to be valid. —
xDanielxT/C\R 03:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
We normally presume {{PD-self}} claims to be valid. This has no explanation or evidence why it is supposedly in the public domain. Since it's orphaned and potential copyvio, it's better to delete.
Kellyhi! 22:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
This image is of an article in a defunct, pro-Nazi periodical published in France during the Occupation. I believe that no copyrights apply.
Adam Holland (
talk) 18:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
If the
French copyright law article is correct, copyright expires on this type of work 70 years after publication, which would mean it's still under copyright. I'll change the license tag to {{non-free newspaper image}}.
Kellyhi! 19:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
No, you can't create an article by uploading an Excel spreadsheet. It didn't stop these users from trying, though. All orphaned.
Zetawoof(
ζ) 10:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Quite creative, but... doesn't seem to be any legitimate use for these. —
xDanielxT/C\R 20:49, 20 April 2008 (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 result of the discussion was: delete two, keep one. One image is enough to identify long absent user. Wikipedia
is not a web space provider. -
Nv8200ptalk 15:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Absent uploader, user uploaded this 1 of 3 images for their userpage which is their sole contribution in 2005, no encyclopdeic value
MECU≈
talk 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete Uncyclopedic, seems to be more of a personal picture than a picture that could be used on this site.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - Many editors upload self-made images for personal use in user-space; there's nothing wrote with that. Inactivity is no reason to tear down the guy's user pages. —
xDanielxT/C\R 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Absent uploader, user uploaded this 1 of 3 images for their userpage which is their sole contribution in 2005, no encyclopdeic value
MECU≈
talk 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete seems to be more of a personal picture than an encyclopaedic picture.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - Many editors upload self-made images for personal use in user-space; there's nothing wrote with that. Inactivity is no reason to tear down the guy's user pages. —
xDanielxT/C\R 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Absent uploader, user uploaded this 1 of 3 images for their userpage which is their sole contribution in 2005, no encyclopdeic value
MECU≈
talk 12:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - Many editors upload self-made images for personal use in user-space; there's nothing wrote with that. Inactivity is no reason to tear down the guy's user pages. —
xDanielxT/C\R 20:53, 20 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 13:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
This is encyclopedic, it's just that I would have expected something like this to be on someone's userpage. Otherwise, *Delete per nomination.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Someone has decided to use the image so it is being kept -
Nv8200ptalk 02:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 14:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I would have to agree with you here. I definitely think that this is an orphaned picture and I also agree that the user is currently absent from this Wikipedia. Although I'm not sure if that meets the requirements for deletion, I think it does, so I think I can safely say Delete.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader
Nv8200ptalk 14:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I think it looks almost nearly like the symbol for Adobe Acrobat Reader, which means that this is breaking copyright. Otherwise, delete per nomination.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
That's a default thumbnail for PDF documents. Click through on the text below it to view the actual file, which is a "HISTORY OF THE PHILIPPINE TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY By FEDERICO A. OQUINDO and Rafael R. Oquindo".
Zetawoof(
ζ) 08:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Copyright violation
Nv8200ptalk 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete, I would have to agree that this is a copyright violation.
Razorflame (
talk) 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
I created this image solely to use on my user page, but since I stopped from doing so, please go ahead and delete it. As a side note, Am I allowed to create whatever image I wish (free image non-porn etc) and put it on my user page right? Please reply on my talk page thanks.
JTBX (
talk) 16:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Low quality (blurry, underexposed) and uploader state it's released for "educational (non-commercial use)" (
CSD I3) despite the GFDL tag on it. howcheng {
chat} 18:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned logo, possible Copyright violation
BigrTex 23:46, 16 April 2008 (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 result of the discussion was: } delete. The other images were either duplicates or very close to duplicates of the image being used. -
Nv8200ptalk 15:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Uploader donated four versions of this picture, I feel we only need the one that is being used (
Image:Verbridge1.jpg), although I appreciate the enthusiasm.
BigrTex 00:08, 17 April 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep and move to Commons.
Kellyhi! 16:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.