Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 April 10

< April 9	April 11 >

April 10

This page is testing an idea. Please don't remove the galleries for now. Please join the discussion here -Nv8200p talk 14:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:N731565026 676000 7016.jpg

File:N731565026 676000 7016.jpg

Image:N731565026 676000 7016.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nagle3 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned UE image used only to attack another Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Rongorongo_X_Birdman_(color).jpg

File:Rongorongo X Birdman (color).jpg

Image:Rongorongo_X_Birdman_(color).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kwamikagami (notify | contribs).

not a 2D object, recent photograph Mangostar (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Waiting for response from Wiki Commons (c) folks, though it might not apply in this case. Might try a Fair Use tag later. kwami (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bhm_theshigerushrine07.jpg

File:Bhm theshigerushrine07.jpg

Image:Bhm_theshigerushrine07.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BHMode (notify | contribs).

Unused image, looks like a manipulated image, no license status, was introduced into Shigeru Miyamoto in place of an applicable image. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 16:33, 10 April 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Image fails WP:NFCC#8 in the articles it was used in. -Nv8200p talk 23:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anna May Wong- Picadilly.jpg

Image:Anna May Wong- Picadilly.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs).

A screen shot from a film. The image is only being used on a page that is not primarily about the film. I guess that an alternate, free image might exists that could be used to illustrate the subject matter. Snowman (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - You "guess" that a free alternate is available? The uploader has said that there isn't, presumably after doing a search to try to find one (after all, a free image is a lot less hassle than a non-free one). How about doing your own search before nominating an image for deletion? In any case, the image, of a notable deceased person, is being used to illustrate the article about that person. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are PD images on the page - these are free images. This makes your statement invalid. Snowman (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject has been deceased for nearly 50 years, and is therefore highly unlikely to provide Wikipedia with a free image, nor is a free image likely to be taken of her. Dekkappai (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are PD images on the page - these are free images. Image copyright is for 75 years after the death of the copyright holder. This makes your statement invalid. Snowman (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If PD images invalidate death, I'm very glad to hear it. Free Images cannot be obtained from a dead person. Dekkappai (talk) 23:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PD images (free images) are available which were taken when she was alive, so there is no need to use a fair use image. Snowman (talk) 23:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was exceedingly difficult to find an image to illustrate the main subject and after discussion, a screen image was the best that could be found to fulfill the infobox image requirements. FWIW, if you check the other images extant, you will see that all of them are either from the Library of Congress or screenshots from films. Nothing else except for magazine covers are available. Bzuk (talk) 22:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: There are PD images on the page, so you could use one of those in the infobox? Can you explain why you think that the image in question here is not replaceable? Snowman (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obvious delete I count at least five free portraits of her on the bio article. No need to use this nonfree one. Mangostar (talk) 00:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the images, they are all from the same photographer found in the Library of Congress files. The use of the same imagery was debated and did not provide a significant image for the infobix. Whenever any of the others were substituted, they all were questioned as to value. Now, the image in question was originally in the body of the text as a screen image from the film, Picadilly. The question that has arisen is not that the image cannot be used as it is a screenshot but that it is being used in another context as an illustration of the subject. As a compromise, I can relocate one of the Carl van Vechten photo series into the infobox, since that is the only question about its use. I will also relocate the image to a film article about Picadilly, to anchor the image more. FwiW Bzuk (talk) 11:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

It is about the rules, and it is nothing to do with a compromise. Do you know of any more images with this problem? Snowman (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1924 - didnt' the copyright run out? 70.55.85.225 (talk) 06:23, 14 April 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.

Image:P4022296.JPG

File:P4022296.JPG

Image:P4022296.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SeanMack (notify | contribs).

photo of copyrighted sign Mangostar (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Can someone point me to a resource showing that photographs of outdoor public signs breaks copyright? Ta SeanMack (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: It is in the Panarama licience, which does not extend to some notices with text on them. It would be ok for some road signs, but probably not all this text here. Snowman (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]