OR, the article of the subject of the photo was deleted for lack of notability.
BlueAzure (
talk) 02:05, 18 January 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.
I believe that this photo is not under GFDL, because it was taken before 1945.
Trixt (
talk) 03:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
maybe you're right.i might have chosen the wrong license,but then again,who the heck would claim copyright(IF it's copyrighted that is)to a photo of a dead nazi official??
Grandia01 (
talk) 06:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
update:changed license info.now please don't tell me that the photographer/robert ley lover is still alive and now he's going to claim "copyright" for this photo!!!
Grandia01
Delete. PD-ineligible because the person on the photo was a nazi?
Thuresson (
talk) 23:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)reply
reverted to license back to its former licensing as suggested by admin delldot
[1] and to the smart ass above who doubted that nazi-origin photos can't be copyrighted,what government would recognize nazi property as lawfully official properties these days smarty???
Grandia01 (
talk) 01:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)reply
You tagged the photo as GFDL so obviously you must have thought this nazi-origin photo was copyrighted.
Thuresson (
talk) 13:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Image kept. Tag has been change to "non-free fair use in" and summary and rationale updated. -
Nv8200ptalk 19:12, 29 January 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.
no articles link to it, the license is clearly invalid, and the summary is being used as a forum
VC 03:18, 18 January 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.
Image is replaceable fair use as the subject is alive and well, and so fails
WP:NFCC #1. Image lacks one of two necessary fair use rationales, and also lacks copyright information, so fails
WP:NFCC #10.
Logical Defense (
talk·contribs) persists in deleting the RFU tag, and when I complained to WP:AN, I was told that if he deletes the tags again, I should bring it here
[2].
Nobody of Consequence (
talk) 03:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - in
Varg Vikernes, the image is used in the infobox merely to show what the guy looks like. That's obviously unacceptable. In
Black metal, the caption at least asserts some significance to this image itself - that it was controversial. No opinion on whether that makes it acceptable to use there. --
B (
talk) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Image deleted. Fails
WP:NFCC #1. The image is not needed to inderstand that he smiled as his sentencing was read and I don't believe the image is iconic enough to qualify under that exemption. -
Nv8200ptalk 17:52, 29 January 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 image after page it was on
White leaf phenomenon was redirected to
Variegation, image is not good (scan of a grainy black and white photograph) and therefore do not think it should be moved to Commons
Firelement85 (
talk) 05:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
As claimed by the uploader, the image can indeed be found at
this myspace fan page, but there is not mention there that "according to the band is FREE for use anywhere on the web or in print". If such a permission exists, it must be documented in another way (cf.
Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission).
High on a tree (
talk) 05:24, 18 January 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.
LWatermarked by uploader, image is low quality (neon text highlights).
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 07:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. The original engraver died in 1906, & the copyright expires 100 years after the author's death. 1906+100=2006 (for the benefit of people like Cumulus Clouds who is apparently not familiar with the concept of elementary arithmetic). The image is of a bookplate engraving, not a copyrighted book. As for the image quality, it is high quality compared to the original, which is very small. I used neon coloring to distinguish these descriptive add-ons from the original black&white engraving.--
Funhistory (
talk) 04:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The addition of your watermark to this image makes it unencyclopedic and therefore unusable. If you remove all the text from this image, reupload it and provide all the information currently in the image in the summary box instead, I will withdraw this nomination.
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 10:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
I will do as you suggest, but would first like to know if there is a wiki page that states that text added as, what you describe as a "watermark", is "unencyclopedic". The reason I need to know this is because you'll see other images I uploaded where I've added text (
my stamps &
an artifact drawing), & I need to know if this is an actual rule, or just a recommendation. It seems to me like it lends credence to the fact that I made the image if it contains a personalized statement.--
Funhistory (
talk) 02:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)reply
I am researching the answer to this, in the meantime I withdraw this nomination and request a speedy close. I will let you know what I find out on your talk page. Thanks,
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Image kept. Just the first image with text and name was deleted. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:24, 25 January 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.
Forgot to list this for deletion ages ago. Added to
WKD Original Vodka as vanity/bit of a joke - and it's unlikely the people featured in the photo have given consent. Uploader has several image notices which they have not responded to. Also added a request for fair use rationale to
uploader's talk page some time ago. --
Sagaciousuk(
talk) 10:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The image has no encyclopedic value as it depicts an unknown person. It is not usable as a depiction of the ship or the museum. It is not usable as a depiction of a uniform as the person is not in proper uniform. The person in the picture is making an obsene gesture.
Inge (
talk) 14:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Image not used and the data are for England, not for the whole of Britain as the title suggests
Cordless Larry (
talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Image not used and the data are for England, not for the whole of Britain as the title suggests
Cordless Larry (
talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails OR exemption for images.
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 03:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - don't know why this is orphaned, but am fine with its deletion.
jk (
talk) 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The image description says this image is an outright forgery. I don't think forgeries like this should be kept.
Rosenzweig (
talk) 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Is there anything wrong with my reasoning? Everything I say is perfectly true, I follow all Wikipedia guidelines, you have no grounds for deletion.
Zizar3 (
talk) 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:OR A user interpretation of a "classic pose" based on what source?
WP:HOAX This leads a reader to think this is a real image. -
Nv8200ptalk 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Orphaned and unencyclopedic. This image can't be used in any article since it is the author's interpretation of an event that never took place.
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 22:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Same image as above, same uploader, only this time it's supposedly "Used with explicit permission from queenonline.com". There is no documentation whatsoever to support this claim and the GFDL license.
Rosenzweig (
talk) 17:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
User uploaded this image in November, but has never used it in an article, and it is indeed currently orphaned; also, the image page makes no mention of whom this person is supposed to be. Seems to be just taking up Wikipedia space. Lilac Soul(
talk •
contribs •
count) 22:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
OR, the article of the subject of the photo was deleted for lack of notability.
BlueAzure (
talk) 02:05, 18 January 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.
I believe that this photo is not under GFDL, because it was taken before 1945.
Trixt (
talk) 03:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
maybe you're right.i might have chosen the wrong license,but then again,who the heck would claim copyright(IF it's copyrighted that is)to a photo of a dead nazi official??
Grandia01 (
talk) 06:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
update:changed license info.now please don't tell me that the photographer/robert ley lover is still alive and now he's going to claim "copyright" for this photo!!!
Grandia01
Delete. PD-ineligible because the person on the photo was a nazi?
Thuresson (
talk) 23:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)reply
reverted to license back to its former licensing as suggested by admin delldot
[1] and to the smart ass above who doubted that nazi-origin photos can't be copyrighted,what government would recognize nazi property as lawfully official properties these days smarty???
Grandia01 (
talk) 01:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)reply
You tagged the photo as GFDL so obviously you must have thought this nazi-origin photo was copyrighted.
Thuresson (
talk) 13:08, 29 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Image kept. Tag has been change to "non-free fair use in" and summary and rationale updated. -
Nv8200ptalk 19:12, 29 January 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.
no articles link to it, the license is clearly invalid, and the summary is being used as a forum
VC 03:18, 18 January 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.
Image is replaceable fair use as the subject is alive and well, and so fails
WP:NFCC #1. Image lacks one of two necessary fair use rationales, and also lacks copyright information, so fails
WP:NFCC #10.
Logical Defense (
talk·contribs) persists in deleting the RFU tag, and when I complained to WP:AN, I was told that if he deletes the tags again, I should bring it here
[2].
Nobody of Consequence (
talk) 03:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - in
Varg Vikernes, the image is used in the infobox merely to show what the guy looks like. That's obviously unacceptable. In
Black metal, the caption at least asserts some significance to this image itself - that it was controversial. No opinion on whether that makes it acceptable to use there. --
B (
talk) 04:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Image deleted. Fails
WP:NFCC #1. The image is not needed to inderstand that he smiled as his sentencing was read and I don't believe the image is iconic enough to qualify under that exemption. -
Nv8200ptalk 17:52, 29 January 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 image after page it was on
White leaf phenomenon was redirected to
Variegation, image is not good (scan of a grainy black and white photograph) and therefore do not think it should be moved to Commons
Firelement85 (
talk) 05:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
As claimed by the uploader, the image can indeed be found at
this myspace fan page, but there is not mention there that "according to the band is FREE for use anywhere on the web or in print". If such a permission exists, it must be documented in another way (cf.
Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission).
High on a tree (
talk) 05:24, 18 January 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.
LWatermarked by uploader, image is low quality (neon text highlights).
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 07:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep. The original engraver died in 1906, & the copyright expires 100 years after the author's death. 1906+100=2006 (for the benefit of people like Cumulus Clouds who is apparently not familiar with the concept of elementary arithmetic). The image is of a bookplate engraving, not a copyrighted book. As for the image quality, it is high quality compared to the original, which is very small. I used neon coloring to distinguish these descriptive add-ons from the original black&white engraving.--
Funhistory (
talk) 04:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The addition of your watermark to this image makes it unencyclopedic and therefore unusable. If you remove all the text from this image, reupload it and provide all the information currently in the image in the summary box instead, I will withdraw this nomination.
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 10:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
I will do as you suggest, but would first like to know if there is a wiki page that states that text added as, what you describe as a "watermark", is "unencyclopedic". The reason I need to know this is because you'll see other images I uploaded where I've added text (
my stamps &
an artifact drawing), & I need to know if this is an actual rule, or just a recommendation. It seems to me like it lends credence to the fact that I made the image if it contains a personalized statement.--
Funhistory (
talk) 02:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)reply
I am researching the answer to this, in the meantime I withdraw this nomination and request a speedy close. I will let you know what I find out on your talk page. Thanks,
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Image kept. Just the first image with text and name was deleted. -
Nv8200ptalk 01:24, 25 January 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.
Forgot to list this for deletion ages ago. Added to
WKD Original Vodka as vanity/bit of a joke - and it's unlikely the people featured in the photo have given consent. Uploader has several image notices which they have not responded to. Also added a request for fair use rationale to
uploader's talk page some time ago. --
Sagaciousuk(
talk) 10:44, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The image has no encyclopedic value as it depicts an unknown person. It is not usable as a depiction of the ship or the museum. It is not usable as a depiction of a uniform as the person is not in proper uniform. The person in the picture is making an obsene gesture.
Inge (
talk) 14:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Image not used and the data are for England, not for the whole of Britain as the title suggests
Cordless Larry (
talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Image not used and the data are for England, not for the whole of Britain as the title suggests
Cordless Larry (
talk) 16:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Fails OR exemption for images.
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 03:55, 19 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - don't know why this is orphaned, but am fine with its deletion.
jk (
talk) 22:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)reply
The image description says this image is an outright forgery. I don't think forgeries like this should be kept.
Rosenzweig (
talk) 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Is there anything wrong with my reasoning? Everything I say is perfectly true, I follow all Wikipedia guidelines, you have no grounds for deletion.
Zizar3 (
talk) 06:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
DeleteWP:OR A user interpretation of a "classic pose" based on what source?
WP:HOAX This leads a reader to think this is a real image. -
Nv8200ptalk 15:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - Orphaned and unencyclopedic. This image can't be used in any article since it is the author's interpretation of an event that never took place.
Cumulus Clouds (
talk) 22:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)reply
Same image as above, same uploader, only this time it's supposedly "Used with explicit permission from queenonline.com". There is no documentation whatsoever to support this claim and the GFDL license.
Rosenzweig (
talk) 17:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
User uploaded this image in November, but has never used it in an article, and it is indeed currently orphaned; also, the image page makes no mention of whom this person is supposed to be. Seems to be just taking up Wikipedia space. Lilac Soul(
talk •
contribs •
count) 22:31, 18 January 2008 (UTC)reply
