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.  OTRS ticket is legit, no reason presented to look a gift horse in the mouth. 
Wily
D 17:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:1648 0036.jpg

Image:1648 0036.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pwlodi ( notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. BJBot ( talk) 02:14, 4 June 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.

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.  In use, no apparent rationale for deletion. 
Wily
D 21:23, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:GunFox 0.JPG

Image:GunFox 0.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GunFox13 ( notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. BJBot ( talk) 02:14, 4 June 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.

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

Deleted.  Nobody seems to care. 
Wily
D 15:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Highlevels.jpg

Image:Highlevels.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by CO ( notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is orphaned. BJBot ( talk) 02:14, 4 June 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.

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 - linked, no rationale presented for deletion. 
Wily
D 15:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Hossam Fahr United Nations Chief Arabic Interpreter Rodsan18a.JPG

Image:Hossam Fahr United Nations Chief Arabic Interpreter Rodsan18a.JPG ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rodsan18 ( notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. BJBot ( talk) 02:14, 4 June 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.

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

No decision.  No rationale was presented.  Previously challenged as invalid fair use but kept, see image history.  My own opinion is that its not, but that's neither here not there.  No argument, no discussion, no decision.  Try again iffen you care. 
Wily
D 15:37, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:NetObjects Founders.jpg

Image:NetObjects Founders.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Peter Eisenburger ( notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. BJBot ( talk) 02:14, 4 June 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.

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.  Used, no rationale presented for deletion, no obvious reason to delete. 
Wily
D 15:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Wpdms nysgis thenarrows.jpg

Image:Wpdms nysgis thenarrows.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Decumanus ( notify | contribs).

• Auto listing incomplete IfD, image is not orphaned. BJBot ( talk) 02:14, 4 June 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.

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.  With replacement image, meets NFCC. 
Wily
D 15:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Quicktime 7 Leopard.png

Image:Quicktime 7 Leopard.png ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by OriginalGamer ( notify | contribs).

• While there is valid fair-use for a screenshot of the quicktime application running - there is no reason it should be depicted while playing a copyrighted movie. This image should be replaced by a fair-use screenshot of the quicktime application playing a copyright-free movie of some kind. SteveBaker ( talk) 15:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Keep As suggested, I've replaced the disputed image with one showing an image from NASA, which is public domain. -- agr ( talk) 13:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep - Thanks for uploading the new image - it completely fixes the problem with the original. This request should be considered closed.

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.

The result of the debate was

Deleted - probabl copyvio. 
Wily
D 21:27, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Juliebowen.jpg

Image:Juliebowen.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Vlady71 ( notify | contribs).

• No evidence uploader is the copyright holder. The user's other uploads have all been deleted. Kelly ^hi! 15:32, 4 June 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.

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

Deleted.  PD-Art does not, in fact, extend to the third dimension. 
Wily
D 15:55, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:Xiongnu belt buckle.jpg

Image:Xiongnu belt buckle.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yeu Ninje ( notify | contribs).

• copyvio, Not two-dimensional work Shizhao ( talk) 16:21, 4 June 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.

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.  Nomination withdrawn, PD-US, et al. 
Wily
D 15:59, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:BarackObama-Basketball.JPEG

Image:BarackObama-Basketball.JPEG ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sli723 ( notify | contribs).

• I am nominating this for deletion because it looks extremely fake. This is probably not a valid reason. But since fake images are unencyclopedic, I think it should be deleted. Also noted that the source (a DOD webpage) has already removed the image. — Chris! _{c t} 20:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Keep - The image is not fake. See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9GqdzQeCz0, as well the photo has not been deleted on the DoD server per details on the image discussion page. Kfishy ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Since the above editor was able to prove that the image is not fake and is still on the DoD server, I withdraw this nomination.— Chris! _{c t} 06:08, 5 June 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.

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.  With the offending section removed, Mr. Haseldine is free to release the copyright into the public domain if he so chooses.  I'll try and followup to confirm Mr. Haseldine is himself via OTRS. 
Wily
D 16:07, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
reply

Image:PatrickHaseldine3.jpg

Image:PatrickHaseldine3.jpg ( delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Phase1 ( notify | contribs).

• obviously from The Guardian of December 7 1988 (not apparently available online.) Fair use is claimed, but the rationale is faulty, as it's being used to support the content, rather than in an article about the publication. The uploader also claims copyright on the grounds that the majority of the page are his words, but the section at the top are someone else's words. Note Phase1 (uploader) = PJHaseldine (current user) = Patrick Haseldine, or the copyright-self claim would be void. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• The editor should be given a chance to fix the fair use rationale as the license was corrected only very recently. However if this is not done satisfactorily within a reasonable timeframe, then delete. Keep as the license is now in order and there's no other online source. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 00:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

  My bad. The uploader did add a modified PD-self rationale, and the {{ Non-free newspaper image}} should probably be disregarded as not being appropriate. Still, the PD-self claim doesn't ring true either. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Images_as_refs, this is being used as a ref, which is not a good idea and not the best way to ref a newspaper item. — Rlevse • Talk •

The letter is now separately referenced. Note that the letter is not available online, so the image does serve some function whether in or outwith policy. Checkeroffacts ( talk) 06:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

• Keep as explained here. To resolve the current impasse, I suggest we revert to the original PD-self licence here. Arthur Rubin has agreed to this reversion with the proviso that Richard Norton-Taylor's article is blanked from the image. This has now been done. PJHaseldine ( talk) 10:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I fail to see how Patrick can own the copyright to Richard Norton-Taylor's words. I could imagine that this image might be hostable on a web site external to Wikipedia, and we could link to it there as a convenience copy. But keeping images of newspaper articles on WP servers, unless they are to aid in writing about the newspaper itself, seems questionable, even if Patrick had a proper copyright release, which he does not. EdJohnston ( talk) 13:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I assume we agree that I have copyright for my letter? Richard Norton-Taylor (after checking with me by telephone on December 6, 1988 that I intended the full text of the letter should be published in The Guardian the following day) then proceeded to summarise the content of my letter in his front page article "FO official calls Thatcher stance 'self-righteous'". Mr Norton-Taylor's words are therefore my words. You could therefore argue that he and I share a joint copyright for the front page article, but I very much doubt that he would wish to pursue such a claim. PJHaseldine ( talk) 20:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, I suspect that the Guardian rather than Mr Norton-Taylor or Mr Haseldine own the copyright. Checkeroffacts ( talk) 21:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

This depends on British copyright law, but I doubt that you have any rights whatever to what Richard Norton-Taylor wrote. You answered his questions, but I doubt that you have copyright on what he chose to put in his article. (You did not have to answer his questions, but you chose to do so). Does Norton-Taylor write to you for permission to republish his own article elsewhere? Facts are not copyrightable, only particular modes of expression. EdJohnston ( talk) 21:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Following EdJohnston's faultless logic, it appears that I am able to copyright my letter because it expresses my "particular modes of expression". Richard Norton-Taylor cannot copyright his work because he is merely expressing "facts" viz the "fact" that I wrote to The Guardian on that day, reporting "factually" what I said. So, the answer to the question raised by this "Image for Deletion" exercise appears to be that we should revert to the original "PD-self" licensing here, which Arthur Rubin actually suggested at the top of this page (see my amended "keep" vote above). PJHaseldine ( talk) 22:35, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Provided that the article/letter at the top is blanked, leaving only the Guardian logo and your letter, yes. The present image is a clear copyright violation. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Today, I removed Richard Norton-Taylor's article, leaving just the logo and my letter that The Guardian published on December 7, 1988. I have also uploaded the typewritten letter as well as my second published letter entitled Finger of suspicion. PJHaseldine ( talk) 10:53, 10 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I have uploaded a more legible version of these three images. PJHaseldine ( talk) 13:52, 14 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Have replaced licence with more appropriate one, suggest a new fair use justification is now required. Checkeroffacts ( talk) 10:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Why does Checkeroffacts think this is a more appropriate licence? Please discuss. PJHaseldine ( talk) 22:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

I should have thought this was obvious. Because it's a scan of a newspaper page or article. Checkeroffacts ( talk) 22:47, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

What is obvious is that it is the image of the letter I sent for publication in The Guardian. PJHaseldine ( talk) 23:00, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Delete pending appropriate fair use rationale for newspaper cutting. Checkeroffacts ( talk) 23:07, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

A fair use rationale is not required for a PD-self licence. The change you made to the licence has not been justified here or on the image talk page. PJHaseldine ( talk) 23:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC) reply

The PD-self licence is appropriate for Image:PatrickHaseldine3A.jpg. This is a newspaper cutting and Template:Non-free newspaper image is therefore required here. Checkeroffacts ( talk) 17:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Simply by reasserting the obvious fact that this is a newspaper cutting neither justifies your licence change nor does it invalidate the PD-self licence. I concur with Arthur Rubin, who originally made the IfD nomination, and who has reverted your licence change. PJHaseldine ( talk) 18:41, 22 June 2008 (UTC) reply

Just for reference, Arthur Rubin did not delete the Template:Non-free newspaper image template. PJHaseldine did. Twice. I'm planning to leave this for the closing admin to resolve. Checkeroffacts ( talk) 21:03, 24 June 2008 (UTC) reply

This is how Arthur Rubin summarised his latest edit: (→Licensing: Restore PD-self tag. No copyright or Wikipedia fair use violation.) Since a fair use rationale is not required for a PD-self licence the Template:Non-free newspaper image was therefore removed. PJHaseldine ( talk) 11:02, 25 June 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.