Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 November 21
November 21
[edit]
- - uploaded by TeamGardenLaundry (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic - an image uploaded by a contributor with no other edits, it seems to be of no encyclopedic value whatsoever. --Hojimachongtalk 02:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Note: The entire page is now up for deletion. - Koweja (talk) 16:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
File is too small to have been taken with a digital camera, and there is no camera information either. It's obviously stolen from a website. - Marc Averette (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- This user has ten photos in the Miami article already and hawks the page to make sure noone replaces them. The new photo is much clearer ... all he can say is that it's "obviously stolen off the internet" with absolutely no basis to back it up. He's just protecting his own image instead of looking out for the greater good of the page. 70.146.67.72 (talk) 08:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - It is beside the point whether it is a nicer image or not - anon, instead of making baseless and petty accusations, you should try to prove there is no copyright breach. Green Giant (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Huh? You can easily resize digital photos and remove camera information. Just look at some of the images on your own user page, Averette. And Green Giant, you've provided no evidence that there's been a copyright breach, while it's not really possible for the uploader to prove that there hasn't been. How do we know Averette is the copyright holder of Image:Miamiskyline20071016.jpg? We don't; we assume good faith. As for quality concerns ... the new image shows up a little better when shrunk down to fit in the infobox, though Averette's version clearly shows us more when clicked on. Neither are great images, though; the new one is tiny, while Averette didn't have a very good camera to start off with. -- RG2 10:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Masssiveego (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, possibly unencyclopedic. Also a copyright violation, as it's a derivative of what is likely a nonfree work. -- RG2 08:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Masssiveego (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, possibly unencyclopedic. Also a copyright violation, as it's a derivative of what is likely a nonfree work. -- RG2 08:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Hhhoootttbbboooiii (notify | contribs).
- Also orphan, unencyclopedic Warut (talk) 13:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Image:Apple-iPhone.jpg (closed)
[edit]
- - uploaded by -Majestic- (notify | contribs).
- The user interface is copyrighted. Lokal_Profil 14:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Does that mean that every photo of the iPhone should be deleted then? I don't follow why this is a valid reason for deletion. PaulC/T+ 04:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- It means that every photo of the iPhone displaying the user interface is copyrighted and can therefore not be released under a free license such as creative commons. So in short the answer to you're question is yes unless it's turened of or the picture doesn't show the interface. Anyhow someone seems to have transwikied the image to Commons anyhow (although there was a deletion request here) so this request can be closed. /Lokal_Profil —Preceding comment was added at 13:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- Does that mean that every photo of the iPhone should be deleted then? I don't follow why this is a valid reason for deletion. PaulC/T+ 04:30, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I see, next time would you mind being a little clearer with your reason for deletion? There are lots of other photos that are put up for deletion that are already copyrighted photos used under fair use. According to this logic, no photo that contains a copyrighted screenshot can be released under "free" licenses, which means pretty much every photo here that includes the screen when it is on needs to be deleted. That is quite a lot of photos. Here is the discussion at the commons if anyone wants to weigh in on this. PaulC/T+ 03:49, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry about being unclear. About ither iPod models. Whether the screenshot part of the images are copyrighted or not depends to an extent on how "artistic" they are. As an example I'd say that the screens in commons:Image:Image-IPod 5G, nano 2G, shuffle 2G.jpg are not artistic enough to be copyrighted so that and similar images should be safe. /Lokal_Profil 23:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
- This discussion is moot because the image is on Commons and not Wikipedia. The local copy was speedied by LaraLove. Refer to Commons:Deletion requests. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Amukuwannabe (notify | contribs).
- OR, UE. Orphaned image of a non-notable individual.- Muchness (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- OR, UE. Orphaned image of a non-notable individual.- Muchness (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- OR, UE. Orphaned sketch of no discernable encyclopedic value.- Muchness (talk) 16:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Phillip J. Fry (notify | contribs).
- Outdated. Dalekusa 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Image kept until an updated logo is supplied and this one is orphaned. -Nv8200p talk 12:55, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
- Tagged GFDL-self,but the edit summary says wikipedia only. Rettetast (talk) 22:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Not used, not ensyclopedic. Sherool (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- I think his other image (Image:Photo 16.jpg) should be deleted too, but I don't have time to put all the tags. Warut (talk) 22:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
- Speedied both. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Pier Snake (notify | contribs).
- Unused image, no encyclopedic value or potential use whatsoever. -Pumpmeup 23:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
