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.
no source specified, user has a history of copyright violations at en.wiki and all his other uploads as well as at least one article he copy/pasted have been deleted Calliopejen1 (talk) 02:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like the source is specified. If you look at Image:Oliver North 2.jpg which was later cropped by Will_Beback, it was originally uploaded by user Dbro257. In the description for the image, it is stated that one of the men depicted is Lieutenant Douglas Brown, and the image is further stated in the edit comments to be part of the collection of the uploader, explaining that Dbro257 is Douglas Brown. I am prepared to believe that he is the copyright holder or otherwise has the right to post it here. (How do you know his camera wasn't on a timer?) Furthermore, it is rather pointless to try to contact Dbro257 here for further explanations if any are needed, because he hasn't edited a page since 2007. Far better to track him down and email him directly, though apparently he is no longer with the Clinton Township Fire Department in Columbus, Ohio. But the other man (other than Oliver North) in the picture-- Fire Chief John Harris-- is still with the Fire Department, one could email him [1] and ask for further information on the source of the picture if you feel it is lacking. Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:03, 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.
Unused. Logo of a nonnotable band whose article was speedy-deleted a few months ago. No encyclopedic value. —Angr14:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, go ahead. I wish you could delete your own pictures on Wikimedia projects but no (how retarded), which I tried to do with this one a long time ago. I uploaded it for a friend. --nlitement[talk]14:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non-admins can put {{db-g7}} on images they uploaded themselves if it's uncontroversial. That tags them for speedy deletion and keeps down clutter here at IFD. —Angr14:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest trying to find the original on a website somewhere and re-uploading a low res fair use version to illustrate the article (subject is no longer living). This version seems to have been stretched by the use of incorrect HTML. Apteva (talk) 17:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see that this was deleted before. Can someone take a look at the deleted version and see if it is better: 02:04, 3 January 2008 After Midnight (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Kaysone.jpg" (Speedy deleted per (CSD I6), was an image with fair use tag but no fair use rationale for more than seven days. using TW) Apteva (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The deleted version had the exact same dimensions as the latest version you uploaded and looked pretty much identical to it, except that it was slightly lighter in tone and had some dithering artifacts. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without complete information about the copyright holder, it can't be used under a "fair use" claim anyway. I don't suppose Kaysone Phomvihane ever visited the White House; if he had, there'd be a good chance of finding a public domain (U.S. Government-made) photo of him. —Angr15:44, 17 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.
Doesn't it seem a bit ageist to suggest that a Wikipedian could not have taken a photo sometime in 1969-70? If you do a google search for the uploaders' name, you will find that there is a person who plausibly attended the same school as McCrery at the same time. Heck, he could have been a yearbook photographer for all we know. And more to the point, on his talk page he states that his old yearbooks are public domain (note that the U.S. copyright laws required explicit registration in 1970). The correct thing to do is to ask the uploader to verify that, and change the copyright tag to US public domain. Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your conclusion that he got it from someone else is based on what, exactly? To say that it "seems to be a private photograph from 1969 to 1970" is irrelevant, unless you have know that the uploader isn't old enough to have taken photos during that time. There are plenty of people editing Wikipedia who absolutely were taking photos themselves during that time. Yes, it says "I own photo" and I suspect the uploader is confused. As I commented above, this guy has uploaded a lot of images from (PD in the US) yearbooks of that era, and given the scan lines in the picture it is most likely a yearbook photo. The "other person" he got it from would be the yearbook. That's why I'm suggesting that we get the uploader to verify whether it should properly be tagged {{PD-US-no notice}}. Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:02, 25 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.
Weak keep. I've uploaded a retouched version with better contrast, and have posted on the reference desk to see if the tree in the picture can be identified. I do agree that it's of limited value without positive identification of the subject, but I wouldn't toss this quite yet. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:52, 15 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.
The result of the debate was: Keep - rotation fixed, link to suitable article given.
The image appears to depict the gopuram at the Murudeshwara temple. (Wouldn't it be nice if they could settle on a consistent transliteration?) Seems potentially encyclopedic, so I'd say keep. I've losslessly rotated the image in exiftran. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 18:28, 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.
