The work is listed as being public domain and "made entirely by Supahstar", however, on
this upload of the image and
this addition of the image to the article, the uploader claims it is made by "Coach Brad Haynes". Supahstar's user page seems to suggest that he is not Coach Brad Haynes and is, instead, a student at the school. This appears to be a case of false license. Even if this is changed to a fair use, there is absolutely no way this would pass as a low-quality version.
Metros (
talk)
01:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, unlikely to be the uploader's copyright to release to public domain - both images in history appear to be non-free
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
01:27, 14 October 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.
templated license is not consistent with "summary" - "Privately owned. With permission from Dieter Dierks": proof of "permission" via OTRS or other means not present
SkierRMH (
talk)
05:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Since the picture is of Dieter Dierks, I read the statement as saying that Mr. Dierks doesn't object to a picture of him being used (relating to his right of publicity), not that he is asserting copyright in the picture. Did you try contacting the uploader to find out what the story is?
Crypticfirefly (
talk)
05:10, 17 October 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.
templated license is not consistent with "summary" - "Privately owned. With permission from Dieter Dierks": proof of "permission" via OTRS or other means not present
SkierRMH (
talk)
05:39, 14 October 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.
Appears to be for an article about a residence hall at the University of Western Ontario. The article about the residence hall was probably deleted. --
Eastmain (
talk)
16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Appears to be for an article about a residence hall at the University of Western Ontario. The article about the residence hall was probably deleted. --
Eastmain (
talk)
16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)reply
"Adding the GFDL logo" doesn't make the image more free. Permission was actually for "informational purposes" only. OTRS must be documented.
Damiens.rf15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The use of the image is not warranted. The book is mentioned in passing, and there is no reason that the back cover adds in any way to the article.
J Milburn (
talk)
17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Disagree, the image was put there by me because another editor complained he couldn't find any evidence of the ISBN anywhere on the web. As stated in the text beside it the book is notable because of the publisher and because it was funded by the National Lottery. I have permission from the author to use it.
Thunderer (
talk)
00:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Permission for Wikipedia to use the image is not enough- it still needs to meet our non-free content criteria, which this one does not seem to. If there are concerns about verifying the ISBN, references to it can be seen
here and
here. If needed, I can also check on a few registration only searches come the weekend, as I work in a bookshop. I do not doubt that the book is worth mentioning in the article, but that does not mean that an image is warranted.
J Milburn (
talk)
21:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned CD cover, Also non fair use license, instead licensed under "GNU Free Documentation License" with summery saying: I only edited this pivture because its official.Soundvisions1 (
talk)
18:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
CV. This image looks supiciously like certain ones available on the internet in relation to
this news story. Unless kliu says that he is a journalist working in Taiwan, I'm not sure that he would have been allowed so close to the vessel. I think he probably uploaded it and not knowing the source, thought it would be ok to label it as his own.
John Smith's (
talk)
18:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
CV. This is an image clearly produced for a journal, magazine or newspaper. I think that that kliu uploaded it and not knowing the source, thought it would be ok to label it as his own.
John Smith's (
talk)
18:48, 14 October 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 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.
Comment: Image is now being used, however there is no fair use rational used. The caption "An EP Cover from the official MySpace" appears on the main article.
Soundvisions1 (
talk)
00:58, 20 October 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 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 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.
Did you try searching skyscrapercity.com for the image? Apparently various users post their own pictures there, it is possible that this particular image was posted by someone releasing under a GFDL license.
Crypticfirefly (
talk)
05:31, 17 October 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 work is listed as being public domain and "made entirely by Supahstar", however, on
this upload of the image and
this addition of the image to the article, the uploader claims it is made by "Coach Brad Haynes". Supahstar's user page seems to suggest that he is not Coach Brad Haynes and is, instead, a student at the school. This appears to be a case of false license. Even if this is changed to a fair use, there is absolutely no way this would pass as a low-quality version.
Metros (
talk)
01:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
orphaned image, absent uploader, unlikely to be the uploader's copyright to release to public domain - both images in history appear to be non-free
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
01:27, 14 October 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.
templated license is not consistent with "summary" - "Privately owned. With permission from Dieter Dierks": proof of "permission" via OTRS or other means not present
SkierRMH (
talk)
05:36, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Since the picture is of Dieter Dierks, I read the statement as saying that Mr. Dierks doesn't object to a picture of him being used (relating to his right of publicity), not that he is asserting copyright in the picture. Did you try contacting the uploader to find out what the story is?
Crypticfirefly (
talk)
05:10, 17 October 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.
templated license is not consistent with "summary" - "Privately owned. With permission from Dieter Dierks": proof of "permission" via OTRS or other means not present
SkierRMH (
talk)
05:39, 14 October 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.
Appears to be for an article about a residence hall at the University of Western Ontario. The article about the residence hall was probably deleted. --
Eastmain (
talk)
16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Appears to be for an article about a residence hall at the University of Western Ontario. The article about the residence hall was probably deleted. --
Eastmain (
talk)
16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)reply
"Adding the GFDL logo" doesn't make the image more free. Permission was actually for "informational purposes" only. OTRS must be documented.
Damiens.rf15:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The use of the image is not warranted. The book is mentioned in passing, and there is no reason that the back cover adds in any way to the article.
J Milburn (
talk)
17:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Disagree, the image was put there by me because another editor complained he couldn't find any evidence of the ISBN anywhere on the web. As stated in the text beside it the book is notable because of the publisher and because it was funded by the National Lottery. I have permission from the author to use it.
Thunderer (
talk)
00:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Permission for Wikipedia to use the image is not enough- it still needs to meet our non-free content criteria, which this one does not seem to. If there are concerns about verifying the ISBN, references to it can be seen
here and
here. If needed, I can also check on a few registration only searches come the weekend, as I work in a bookshop. I do not doubt that the book is worth mentioning in the article, but that does not mean that an image is warranted.
J Milburn (
talk)
21:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Orphaned CD cover, Also non fair use license, instead licensed under "GNU Free Documentation License" with summery saying: I only edited this pivture because its official.Soundvisions1 (
talk)
18:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
CV. This image looks supiciously like certain ones available on the internet in relation to
this news story. Unless kliu says that he is a journalist working in Taiwan, I'm not sure that he would have been allowed so close to the vessel. I think he probably uploaded it and not knowing the source, thought it would be ok to label it as his own.
John Smith's (
talk)
18:48, 14 October 2008 (UTC)reply
CV. This is an image clearly produced for a journal, magazine or newspaper. I think that that kliu uploaded it and not knowing the source, thought it would be ok to label it as his own.
John Smith's (
talk)
18:48, 14 October 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 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.
Comment: Image is now being used, however there is no fair use rational used. The caption "An EP Cover from the official MySpace" appears on the main article.
Soundvisions1 (
talk)
00:58, 20 October 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 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 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.
Did you try searching skyscrapercity.com for the image? Apparently various users post their own pictures there, it is possible that this particular image was posted by someone releasing under a GFDL license.
Crypticfirefly (
talk)
05:31, 17 October 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.