September 16
edit
- 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; deleted by Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 04:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Unused image. While it may be from CDC, source URL is a dead link at the moment, so can't verify whether CDC source is legtimate. Optigan13 (talk) 00:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unused and frankly unencyclopedic. Just because the picture is black and white and he looks kinda sad doesn't mean this image would be a useful addition to any of the articles linked from Depression or even to Sadness. Angr 05:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the above, I don't see a reason for doubting the credit to the CDC. So shouldn't this simply be moved to Commons, regardless of whether it's currently in use in an article? Postdlf (talk) 06:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it should still be deleted. I didn't discuss whether it was unencyclopedic in the nom, since without the source but still, I don't really see this being used. -Optigan13 (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm indifferent to whether this file gets deleted or not. That being said, just because a file is free, doesn't mean it should be copied to Commons. If the file is thought to be unencyclopedic here, then the same might be thought at Commons. Files are deleted there for being unencyclopedic there as well.--Rockfang (talk) 08:56, 19 September 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No value. Image of non-notable person used in article that has been deleted by AFD and is about to be speedied. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. And self-promotion too. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 03:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete If the image's subject isn't even notable enough, then I doubt that the image will have any use, let alone meet the criteria for images. Cheers, I'mperator 20:46, 16 September 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:07, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Tommy Douglas 1961.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bwark (notify | contribs).
- No mention of CC license on website, says "Copyright: Copyright assigned to Library and Archives Canada by copyright owner Duncan Cameron" Hekerui (talk) 14:50, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence showing that there are no restrictions on the use of this photo has been e-mailed to permissions-en. Bwark (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- OTRS responded on 09/26/2009 saying a more specific permission release was needed. I'll change the OTRS tag to pending. If we don't get the proper information, the image will be deleted. -Andrew c [talk] 16:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Evidence showing that there are no restrictions on the use of this photo has been e-mailed to permissions-en. Bwark (talk) 18:58, 16 September 2009 (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 discussion was: keep Killiondude (talk) 07:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Derivative work of a copyrighted work. Hekerui (talk) 14:55, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- keep Clearly in the public domain as the author Joseph Howe died in 1873. The little else on the placard is too simple for copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a graphic design, not a black background. Hekerui (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I agree that the quotation is almost certainly in the public domain, although for different reasons than Graeme. The quote is something Howe said in his jury summation in his 1835 trial. It probably almost certainly not meet the standard for copyright under the 1831 Copyright Act then in effect (which required depositing a claim in federal district court). Even if it did, any such copyright would have expired at the end of the 28- or 42-year copyright term then in effect, i.e., in 1859 or 1873. Only under a very convoluted and dubious argument, with some pretty unlikely facts, could there possibly be a copyright (in which case it would expire in 2048). With respect to the billboard background, even if you assert that there's a copyright in the graphic design, I would assert that this is a "work lawfully reproduced in a useful article" (the billboard), and "copyright does not include any right to prevent the making, distribution, or display of pictures or photographs of such articles in connection with ... commentaries related to the distribution or display of such articles," (17 USC 113(c)) as it is used in Joseph Howe. TJRC (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 01:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Angus l provincial liberal book.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bwark (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned and a derivative work of a copyrighted work. Hekerui (talk) 15:00, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This photograph is orphaned and should be deleted. Bwark (talk) 19:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've formatted this so its easier for the closing admin to read.
- Delete per above. Orphaned image that wouldn't even present that much new information; the Angus Lewis Macdonald already has enough great images. Cheers, I'mperator 20:44, 16 September 2009 (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 discussion was: keep. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:The Saturday Press.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Postdlf (notify | contribs).
- It is not necessary for users to see a copy of this newspaper to understand the article about the court case described; therefore the image fails WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The nom admittedly has no familiarity with the article Near v. Minnesota in which this image is used, so I don't understand the basis for their comment or their motivation to delete the image. The newspaper depicted in the image is the reason why this case existed; illustration of that key aspect of the article is integral, and the visual information of the newspaper—particularly the prominently-placed, bold headline—helps illustrate why the newspaper was so controversial and antagonistic, and what the nature and character of the newspaper was. Postdlf (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep The position and prominence of the headline and newspaper article allows the reader to understand what the case that is the subject matter of the article is all about. As Postdlf points out above, the nominator states "I don't claim to be familiar with the Supreme Court case; the fact that the newspaper existed is not something that we need to use an image to show." The nominator misses the point. It's not to illustrate that the newspaper existed, it's to illustrate the coverage that the newspaper provided that is the very heart of the case itself. The non-free part is probably a red herring, as well. The headline is readable, but apart from that, there's very little text that's legible in this small excerpt. In addition, the likelihood is very high that this isn't non-free use in any event. As a work published in 1927, it would only be subject to copyright if it had been renewed in 1955, highly unlikely for a small-time independent newspaper. There's clearly no reason to delete this image. TJRC (talk) 05:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone can provide verification that the copyright was not renewed, I will of course withdraw this nomination forthwith. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not practically possible. It would require an in-person search of the Library of Congress records. Copyright aside, this is a clear fair use within the Wikipedia policies as described above. The nomination, being made without an understanding of the article and how the image relates to it, while made in good faith, is reckless. TJRC (talk) 15:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If someone can provide verification that the copyright was not renewed, I will of course withdraw this nomination forthwith. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: I trust Postdlf's judgment in this area. --MZMcBride (talk) 17:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep necessary to the article. The impact of seeing it adds needed context. DGG ( talk ) 22:09, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep User:Postdlf's point is correct. The newspaper's image is central to the article. It is the illustration that embodies to core issue of the case. The argument that this image could violate a copyright (an argument the nominator did not raise in the first place) is misplaced. Fair use of this image appears to be clearly established.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 02:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator raised the copyright issue by asserting a violation of "Non-free content criteria". TJRC (talk) 14:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above assertions that a picture of a non-relevant article in this paper is necessary to understand the SCOTUS case are, at best, baseless. It is just a picture of a headline and some allegations. We don't need a picture of an article to understand the content and tone of the newspaper. That is all replaceable with words. ÷seresin 21:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Non-relevant article"? Please explain, given that the specific edition of the newspaper pictured is one of those for which the criminal prosecution was brought, and Near v. Minnesota was about whether that prosecution was constitutional. The very heart of the Supreme Court's opinion, and therefore the Wikipedia article, is about whether the defendant had the constitutional right to publish that newspaper. Furthermore, notwithstanding the nom's comment and yours, WP:NFCC#8 does not require that the image be "necessary" to the reader's understanding, but rather that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (emphasis added) That standard is met here, as explained above. Postdlf (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. My emphasis added. You can choose to interpret that as not saying the picture must be necessary to understand the subject, but that's pretty much standard interpretation and I'm not sure what else you can suggest it means. As for your other point, that it is the specific edition of the newspaper ... for which the criminal prosecution was brought, you'll have to show me a source to say that, because our article says otherwise (viz. all nine issues published between September 24, 1927, and November 19, 1927 ... constituted a violation of this law.) But even if it were the specific article in question, the omission of the picture would not be detrimental to anyone's understand of the case. Text is fully sufficient to explain the paper's content and tone. We do not need to look at a picture to significantly improve our understanding. ÷seresin 01:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Seresin, you're reading in words like "necessary" that simply aren't there. It's not interpretation not to read in words that don't exist. Reading in words that aren't there is the interpretation. The image of banner headlines taking up half the above-the-fold region wonderfully illustrates what this case is about. In fact, there should be a similar illustration for Sheppard v. Maxwell, which was similarly egregious, if not more so. TJRC (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are going to play semantics, fine, we'll play your game. Explain to me how lack of this image would be detrimental to my understanding of the SC case. What don't I understand before that this image makes clear. ÷seresin 04:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's already been explained above ad nauseum (i.e., the specific newspaper depicted was the subject of the court case), that you insist on having a differing opinion has also been stated ad nauseum. But I would like to point out one of the errors in your comment above, regarding my statement that "the specific edition of the newspaper pictured is one of those for which the criminal prosecution was brought." You somehow thought this was contradicted by Near v. Minnesota (most of which I wrote), which states that "all nine issues published between September 24, 1927, and November 19, 1927...constituted a violation of this law." There clearly isn't a conflict there, except where you omit "one of those" from my statement. Postdlf (talk) 04:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If you are going to play semantics, fine, we'll play your game. Explain to me how lack of this image would be detrimental to my understanding of the SC case. What don't I understand before that this image makes clear. ÷seresin 04:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all due respect, Seresin, you're reading in words like "necessary" that simply aren't there. It's not interpretation not to read in words that don't exist. Reading in words that aren't there is the interpretation. The image of banner headlines taking up half the above-the-fold region wonderfully illustrates what this case is about. In fact, there should be a similar illustration for Sheppard v. Maxwell, which was similarly egregious, if not more so. TJRC (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. My emphasis added. You can choose to interpret that as not saying the picture must be necessary to understand the subject, but that's pretty much standard interpretation and I'm not sure what else you can suggest it means. As for your other point, that it is the specific edition of the newspaper ... for which the criminal prosecution was brought, you'll have to show me a source to say that, because our article says otherwise (viz. all nine issues published between September 24, 1927, and November 19, 1927 ... constituted a violation of this law.) But even if it were the specific article in question, the omission of the picture would not be detrimental to anyone's understand of the case. Text is fully sufficient to explain the paper's content and tone. We do not need to look at a picture to significantly improve our understanding. ÷seresin 01:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Non-relevant article"? Please explain, given that the specific edition of the newspaper pictured is one of those for which the criminal prosecution was brought, and Near v. Minnesota was about whether that prosecution was constitutional. The very heart of the Supreme Court's opinion, and therefore the Wikipedia article, is about whether the defendant had the constitutional right to publish that newspaper. Furthermore, notwithstanding the nom's comment and yours, WP:NFCC#8 does not require that the image be "necessary" to the reader's understanding, but rather that "its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." (emphasis added) That standard is met here, as explained above. Postdlf (talk) 00:02, 23 September 2009 (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 discussion was: delete Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Vicky Leandros Sommernacht am meer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tasoskessaris (notify | contribs).
- The album cover is used in the artist's article without critical commentary against "Illustrates the article Vicky Leandros which provides enough critical commentary for fair use to be applicable" from the fair use rationale and against Wikipedia:Non-free content. In fact the only time the album's name is used is in the caption that does not even discuss the album. The image has been twice tagged with a disputed fair use tag, only to have the uploader delete the tags while adding no critical commentary to the article although he says he does in an edit summary, [1]. Aspects (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please quit being so uncivil in your remarks. Did you check the picture caption as it appears in the article? Just in case I quote it here:
Vicky's album: Sommernacht am Meer (Summer Night By the Sea) It is an example of her presence in the German market and her multilingual career
- You may think this is not critical commentary but I do. Therefore there is no need to imply that I did not add critical commentary or that I used misleading edit summaries, because that's exactly what I thought I was adding in good faith, something that you obviously do not think I should be granted. It is sad that you try to delete this file by trying to impugn other editors' reputations. Very sad. Also what prevented you from listing this file for deletion after I reverted your tag? Why do you attribute to my reaction your failure to act by bringing this file to afd a lot earlier? Dr.K. logos 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That caption is not critical commentary because it does not even discuss the album. The image is used as "an example," so it is being used to show her "presence in the German market and her multilingual career" instead of illustrating the album.
- If you look at the difference I provided, you claim you provided the critical commentary that was already there and instead you removed the disputed fair use tags. It was a misleading edit summary since you did not do the edit summary says. Aspects (talk) 22:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the critical commentary was already there then my edit summary that the critical commentary was provided was correct. I did not have to provide it after the edit summary if I had provided it already. I cannot explain this in simpler terms. Also your definition of "critical" is not the same as mine. And you still have not answered why you did not bring this file a lot earlier to afd. My edit summary is a poor excuse for your inability to act. In fact here you seem to agree with me because you reverted yourself. Anyway, your inability to assume AGF and your continued insistence on attacking the quality of my edit summary have gone on long enough. I wish no further interaction with you.Dr.K. logos 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AAGF too. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry but telling someone they use misleading edit summaries without good reason to do so is prima facie evidence of bad faith. Dr.K. logos 17:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:AAGF too. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If the critical commentary was already there then my edit summary that the critical commentary was provided was correct. I did not have to provide it after the edit summary if I had provided it already. I cannot explain this in simpler terms. Also your definition of "critical" is not the same as mine. And you still have not answered why you did not bring this file a lot earlier to afd. My edit summary is a poor excuse for your inability to act. In fact here you seem to agree with me because you reverted yourself. Anyway, your inability to assume AGF and your continued insistence on attacking the quality of my edit summary have gone on long enough. I wish no further interaction with you.Dr.K. logos 22:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, image is not being used in accordance with its tag, namely to illustrate an article about the album itself. Angr 05:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not used in accordance with fair-use rationale. Hekerui (talk) 08:35, 17 September 2009 (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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Pothead Scale.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ZenCopain (notify | contribs).
- WP:NOT a free webhost, and this image is far beyond the usual use of a userpage into creating a personal webspace. Additionally, the image contains a copyright notice, which would seem to contradict the "public domain" claim made by the creator/uploader. (ESkog)(Talk) 22:11, 16 September 2009 (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.