Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 May 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 25 May 27 >

May 26[edit]

Kilted.jpg[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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 01:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • File is no longer being used on kilt article as was not informative, added nothing to the article, has been replaced by a more demonstrative, learned and informative image.
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.

Bill photo.jpg[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bill photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Glnalln (notify | contribs).
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.

Noah Ringer as Aang.jpg[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: Keep. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Noah Ringer as Aang.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Antuan10 (notify | contribs).
  • This image doesn't really add anything to this article; it is only a promotional shot of the actor who plays the animated character Aang. I don't believe it is defensible as a fair use image, as it doesn't add anything extra to the article that could not be covered by words and a link to Noah Ringer's article. NW (Talk) (How am I doing?) 04:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's not uncommon for even featured articles to show single images of other versions of a character. Take Batman for instance, it contains 2 alternate media pic's that serve essentially the same function, which is to show the reader how the character is depicted in other media. That said, I'm neither for nor against deletion, just pointing that out. Derekloffin (talk) 23:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the file: I agree with Derekloffin as the picture show a another version of the character. I wouldn't have seen it otherwise, as I didn't know how far in production the movie was. -- PJonDevelopment (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since the article clearly discusses discusses the different versions of the character, having a picture of each to show the differences is a reasonable use of such an image. Discussing the differences is encyclopedic and having the image adds to the article. - Mgm|(talk) 11:16, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I believe this passes NFCC#8 and #3 in that it shows material needed to fully understand the article, relevant to the text, not replaceable by text. – Quadell (talk) 19:11, 27 May 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.

Evan Money.JPG[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Evan Money.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emoney555 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unencyclopedic, orphaned, use not stated. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:24, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The related article Evan Money was prodded. Based on the content, the article is unlikely to survive a deletion debate, which means we don't need the image either. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 27 May 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.

Monobook-bullet-star.png[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: Keep. Images used for page layout shouldn't be deleted as nowcommons, as descriebd in comments below. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monobook-bullet-star.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ruud Koot (notify | contribs).
  • nowcommons? commons:File:Monobook-bullet-star.png Liangent (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The image is protected as high-rish because it appears on all pages that have listed featured articles in foreign language WPs. If we delete our local version, we depend on the commons to do the protecting for us. Keeping our local version means we restrict risks to a minimum. - Mgm|(talk) 11:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should it be tagged {{nocommons}}? – Quadell (talk) 19:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't know that template existed, but yes, it seems to sum up my point nicely. If more people agree with what I said, I think that is the solution we're aiming for. - Mgm|(talk) 09:25, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as protected version of Commons image, but tag {{nocommons}} and {{shouldbeSVG}}. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 29 May 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.

Pluckley information board 16-07-07.JPG[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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pluckley information board 16-07-07.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nse1986 (notify | contribs).
  • Photo of a copyrighted image, and therefore resultant image is not free Edgepedia (talk) 06:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion Worth contacting the company that wrote it (named at the bottom right), to see whether they will release their copyright? CC-BY-SA perhaps? I can't see any great reason why they'd want to say no. Jheald (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Even if we can't justify using the whole board, most of the old images of the station are too old to be copyrighted or have no free alternative which could make them potential fair use. We could simply cut this image up in smaller pieces... - Mgm|(talk) 11:25, 27 May 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.

Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg[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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rubikonchik (notify | contribs).
  • The file is licenced under fair use, but fails to fulfill the following criteria: 1) The sampled recording is not discussed in any manner anywhere in Sofia Rotaru article, 2) The clip is several times longer than the standard set in WP:FU, 3) The excerpt is not of reduced quality compared to the original live recording Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Jaan Pärn is continuously edit warring on articles related to Sofia Rotaru, enters into meaningless debates and basically destroys existing Wikipedia material in a disruptive manner of editing, inlcuding lying. I do not think this user has posted this file for deletion as a fully neutral and interested user in cosntructive editing on Wikipedia. For more information, please see talk pages and edit history of the following articles: List of highest paid musicians in 2008, Sofia Rotaru, File:Sofia Rotaru - Wer liebe sucht.ogg, File:Sofia Rotaru - Immensita.ogg, File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg. I would not be surprised to see Jaan Pärn nominate all together the article Sofia Rotaru for deletion here as well. The aforementioned files (i) comply with Wikipedia standards, (ii) are discussed in the article and (iii) are most certainly of reduced quality. However, taking into consideration the ruthless speed of deletion of portions of article, including music files listed there, you may also simply not see anything about these files in the article after all. All I can say: "please, help!".--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The curios detail, as user Jaan Pärn wants to delete this audio file, he creates other audio files--Rubikonchik (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try not to take it personally. I've had stuff I've uploaded and articles I've written deleted too. It isn't personal, but people trying to follow the non-free content criteria. If you need help, please contact me on my talk page. — BQZip01 — talk 15:15, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or truncate. At 1 minute 17 seconds, this is much too long for us to use as non-free media. Also, the song "Circus" is not mentioned in the article, and should be discussed in order for us to use a sample. – Quadell (talk) 18:41, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The song is about 5 minutes long. Therefore I thought an extract of 1m17s should be in accordance with W rules. I am most willing to discuss it in the article, as long as user Erikupoeg stops deleting portions of the article.--Rubikonchik (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with no prejudice; the user is welcome to upload a shorter clip using the guidelines at WP:NFC: "Samples should generally not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter." — BQZip01 — talk 15:15, 7 June 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.

Sofia Rotaru - Immensita.ogg[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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sofia Rotaru - Immensita.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rubikonchik (notify | contribs).
  • The file is licenced under fair use, but fails to fulfill the following criteria: 1) The sampled recording is not discussed in a critical manner anywhere in Sofia Rotaru article, 2) The clip is considerably longer than the standard set in WP:FU, 3) The excerpt is not of reduced quality compared to the original. Jaan Pärn (talk) 08:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Jaan Pärn is continuously edit warring on articles related to Sofia Rotaru, enters into meaningless debates and basically destroys existing Wikipedia material in a disruptive manner of editing, inlcuding lying. I do not think this user has posted this file for deletion as a fully neutral and interested user in cosntructive editing on Wikipedia. For more information, please see talk pages and edit history of the following articles: List of highest paid musicians in 2008, Sofia Rotaru, File:Sofia Rotaru - Wer liebe sucht.ogg, File:Sofia Rotaru - Immensita.ogg, File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg. I would not be surprised to see Jaan Pärn nominate all together the article Sofia Rotaru for deletion here as well. The aforementioned files (i) comply with Wikipedia standards, (ii) are discussed in the article and (iii) are most certainly of reduced quality. However, taking into consideration the ruthless speed of deletion of portions of article, including music files listed there, you may also simply not see anything about these files in the article after all. All I can say: "please, help!".--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The curios detail, as user Jaan Pärn wants to delete this audio file, he creates other audio files--Rubikonchik (talk) 06:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this file is 30 seconds long and of reduced quality, and it is discussed in the article. None of the nominator's concerns appear valid for this image. – Quadell (talk) 18:44, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by: "This file is 30 seconds long," and fine by fair use! WP:MS explicitly states, unlicensed clips should "not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter. For songs under 5 minutes in length, 10% is shorter."

What do you mean by: "...it is discussed in the article."! It is barely mentioned in the article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep...sort of... There are too many clips in the article to meet WP:NFCC#3a. Keep only one of the clips to show the musical style of the performer. — BQZip01 — talk 15:19, 7 June 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.

Sofia Rotaru - Wer liebe sucht.ogg[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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sofia Rotaru - Wer liebe sucht.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rubikonchik (notify | contribs).
  • The file is licenced under fair use, but fails to fulfill the following criteria: 1) The sampled recording is not discussed critically in Sofia Rotaru article, 2) The clip is considerably longer than the standard set in WP:FU, 3) The excerpt is not of reduced quality compared to the original. Jaan Pärn (talk) 09:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
User Jaan Pärn is continuously edit warring on articles related to Sofia Rotaru, enters into meaningless debates and basically destroys existing Wikipedia material in a disruptive manner of editing, inlcuding lying. I do not think this user has posted this file for deletion as a fully neutral and interested user in cosntructive editing on Wikipedia. For more information, please see talk pages and edit history of the following articles: List of highest paid musicians in 2008, Sofia Rotaru, File:Sofia Rotaru - Wer liebe sucht.ogg, File:Sofia Rotaru - Immensita.ogg, File:Sofiarotarucircusindialive.ogg. I would not be surprised to see Jaan Pärn nominate all together the article Sofia Rotaru for deletion here as well. The aforementioned files (i) comply with Wikipedia standards, (ii) are discussed in the article and (iii) are most certainly of reduced quality. However, taking into consideration the ruthless speed of deletion of portions of article, including music files listed there, you may also simply not see anything about these files in the article after all. All I can say: "please, help!".--Rubikonchik (talk) 14:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The curios detail, as user Jaan Pärn wants to delete this audio file, as he creates other audio files--Rubikonchik (talk) 06:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this file is 30 seconds long and of reduced quality, and it is discussed in the article. None of the nominator's concerns appear valid for this image. – Quadell (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by: "This file is 30 seconds long," and fine by fair use! WP:MS explicitly states, unlicensed clips should "not be longer than 30 seconds or 10% of the length of the original song, whichever is shorter. For songs under 5 minutes in length, 10% is shorter."

What do you mean by: "...it is discussed in the article."! It is barely mentioned in the article. --Jaan Pärn (talk) 22:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep...sort of... There are too many clips in the article to meet WP:NFCC#3a. Keep only one of the clips to show the musical style of the performer. — BQZip01 — talk 15:20, 7 June 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.

SW antenna cost 2009 USD.png[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SW antenna cost 2009 USD.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader claims "I created this work entirely by myself", but it's just a screenshot of http://www.antenna.be/ – Quadell (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete image but leave link to actual source for referencing in article or on related talk page. - Mgm|(talk) 11:35, 27 May 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.

Shortwave antenna switch matrix PALS 1960s.jpg[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shortwave antenna switch matrix PALS 1960s.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Source is Radio Liberty, license in {{PD-USGov}}, but Radio Liberty is an independent organization, not a part of the U.S. government. – Quadell (talk) 12:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but this is more a case for WP:PUF than here. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mistagged and not encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 11:40, 27 May 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.

Variant types of HRS antennas PALS 1960s.jpg[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Variant types of HRS antennas PALS 1960s.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Source is Radio Liberty, license in {{PD-USGov}}, but Radio Liberty is an independent organization, not a part of the U.S. government. – Quadell (talk) 12:22, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Radio Liberty should be author with VOA listed as the source. If that happened, the tag would hold up, but the image still isn't encuyclopedic. -Mgm|(talk) 11:42, 27 May 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.

HRS antennas Radio-Liberty PALS 1960s.jpg[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HRS antennas Radio-Liberty PALS 1960s.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Source is Radio Liberty, license in {{PD-USGov}}, but Radio Liberty is an independent organization, not a part of the U.S. government. – Quadell (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the tag it's a sub of VOA which is a government agency. Either way, it's not encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 11:43, 27 May 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.

Antenna system used Radio-Liberty 02.jpg[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antenna system used Radio-Liberty 02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Source is Radio Liberty, license in {{PD-USGov}}, but Radio Liberty is an independent organization, not a part of the U.S. government. – Quadell (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see the previous comments above about the licensing. It's still not encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 27 May 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.

Antenna Coverage Radio-Liberty 01.jpg[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Antenna Coverage Radio-Liberty 01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Source is Radio Liberty, license in {{PD-USGov}}, but Radio Liberty is an independent organization, not a part of the U.S. government. – Quadell (talk) 12:24, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete see the previous comments above about the licensing. It's still not encyclopedic. - Mgm|(talk) 11:44, 27 May 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.

FOREX USD vs AUD and NZD.png[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FOREX USD vs AUD and NZD.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Tagged {{PD-USGov}}, but works of the U.S. Federal Reserve are not PD, and works of the St. Louis Federal Reserve (like this) are certainly not PD. – Quadell (talk) 12:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The data is not copyrightable. I'm not sure the presentation shows sufficient creativity to get U.S. copyright. Provisionally, Keep. Jheald (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's bad to copy-paste images over, but it's even worse when they're not fully backed up. Without the exact provenance, there are no reliable sources to back this up making it unsuitable for inclusion. If anyone finds them, the sources should be cited, not copied. - Mgm|(talk) 11:47, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no proper source, and while the data is not copyrightable, this presentation seems to be. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 29 May 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.

RTE standards conversion.png[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: Keep –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:26, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RTE standards conversion.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader claims he created this image himself. However he has claimed this on a dozen other images that were deleted as copyright violations, and I don't believe this is entirely his own work. – Quadell (talk) 12:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems a very basic image. Is there any evidence that it isn't his own work, put together from basic public domain clipart? Jheald (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The other images were either high-quality or showed compelling evidence they actually belonged to someone else, the claim is actually believeable for this image. - Mgm|(talk) 11:48, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mgm. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 29 May 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.

NICAM-spectrum-PAL B G.png[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: - Deleted - while searching for the data that this derives from so that I could create a free svg version. I found the source of the image - an unambiguous copyright violation - Peripitus (Talk) 09:23, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NICAM-spectrum-PAL B G.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader claims to release this document into the public domain, but also says "This is historical documentation of the NICAM system". I don't believe the uploader created this image. – Quadell (talk) 12:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but images like this should be listed on WP:PUF usually. Stifle (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. If the curves are factual data, is there anything here to make it pass the creativity threshold for U.S. copyright? Provisionally, Keep. Jheald (talk) 13:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant copying. even if there is no creativity involved, claiming it as your own is not allowed. Also, without the original source, it fails the verifiability policy, since the uploader clearly isn't a reliable source himself. - Mgm|(talk) 11:51, 27 May 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.

RNZI-dbu.png[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: Withdrawn. – Quadell (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RNZI-dbu.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Description page says "VOACAP software (display code, not scientific calculation code) exists under 'GFDL like' intellectual property usage rules. The graphical output of VOACAP can be placed into public domain (for educational, lobbying, technical illustration, etc ...) without any further restrictions." I don't believe that's considered a free license on Wikipedia. – Quadell (talk) 12:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment VOACAP was developed by NTIA/ITS.[1] The ITS homepage for it states "Disclaimer: The software contained within was developed by an agency of the U.S. Government. NTIA/ITS has no objection to the use of this software for any purpose since it is not subject to copyright protection in the U.S." That looks like a specific abrogation of any copyright claim to me, so no reason not to Keep. Jheald (talk) 13:22, 26 May 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.

RCI-sask-LAT-dbu.png[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: Withdrawn. – Quadell (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RCI-sask-LAT-dbu.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed "GFDL-like", as above. – Quadell (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this and the next eight, per the previous. Jheald (talk) 13:23, 26 May 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.

RCI-sask-ANZ-dbu.png[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: Withdrawn. – Quadell (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RCI-sask-ANZ-dbu.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed "GFDL-like", as above. – Quadell (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above
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.

RCI-bc-MEX-dbu.png[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: Withdrawn. – Quadell (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RCI-bc-MEX-dbu.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed "GFDL-like", as above. – Quadell (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above
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.

RCI-bc-ANZ-dbu.png[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: Withdrawn. – Quadell (talk) 16:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RCI-bc-ANZ-dbu.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed "GFDL-like", as above. – Quadell (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above
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.

FK-BBCWS-SW-dbu.png[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: Withdrawn. – Quadell (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FK-BBCWS-SW-dbu.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed "GFDL-like", as above. – Quadell (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)#[reply]
  • Keep per above
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.

CHU-BC-dbu.png[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: Withdrawn. – Quadell (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CHU-BC-dbu.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed "GFDL-like", as above. – Quadell (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above
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.

CBC SRC-nf-dbu.png[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: Withdrawn. – Quadell (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CBC SRC-nf-dbu.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed "GFDL-like", as above. – Quadell (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above
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.

CBC SRC-BC-dbu.png[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: Withdrawn. – Quadell (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CBC SRC-BC-dbu.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed "GFDL-like", as above. – Quadell (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above
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.

RCI-BC-ANZ431-dbu.png[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: Withdrawn. – Quadell (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RCI-BC-ANZ431-dbu.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed "GFDL-like", as above. – Quadell (talk) 12:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above
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.

Nauen Antenna-vectors.png[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 CIreland (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nauen Antenna-vectors.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader claims to release it under the GFDL, but he has claimed this on numerous other images that are just screenshots of websites or copyrighted papers. I believe this is just another. – Quadell (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The data is factual and complete, therefore is not copyright (at least, not in the U.S.). I don't believe the presentation of it shows sufficient artistic originality or creativity to attract U.S. copyright. Jheald (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: In the Feist v. Rural decision, the court held "To be sure, the requisite level of creativity is extremely low; even a slight amount will suffice. The vast majority of works make the grade quite easily, as they possess some creative spark, 'no matter how crude, humble or obvious' it might be.... No one may claim originality as to facts.... Factual compilations, on the other hand, may possess the requisite originality. The compilation author typically chooses which facts to include, in what order to place them, and how to arrange the collected data so that they may be used effectively by readers. These choices as to selection and arrangement, so long as they are made independently by the compiler and entail a minimal degree of creativity, are sufficiently original that Congress may protect such compilations through the copyright laws.... Thus, even a directory that contains absolutely no protectible written expression, only facts, meets the constitutional minimum for copyright protection if it features an original selection or arrangement." I don't see any way to read that passage and still consider these charts and figures ineligible for copyright. – Quadell (talk) 16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a table, sorted by antenna number. There is not even minimal creativity in the selection of the data or its presentation to pass the threshold. Jheald (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The selection is which antennas to include and which not to; not all antennas are included in this list. The arrangement is the text chosen, the grouping by region, the various footnotes, the specificity of the ranges, the ordering of the fields, etc. The other similar images below have even more new content. By keeping these images, we'd be saying "Yes, we could recreate these charts and alleviate copyright concerns. But because it's too much work, we should use someone else's chart, and if WikiMedia gets sued, we'll rely on the judge agreeing that the arrangement and selection is not creative enough." And that's an unpleasant risk to put WMF in, for no gain that I can see. From Feist again: "Notwithstanding a valid copyright, a subsequent compiler remains free to use the facts contained in another's publication to aid in preparing a competing work, so long as the competing work does not feature the same selection and arrangement." So why don't we insist on that instead? – Quadell (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's be clear: all the antennas broadcasting to each particular region are listed. That's the point of the table. There's been no selection of data here. And regarding the grouping, if you want to know which antennae are broadcasting the station to a particular area, this is the inevitable grouping you will get. In the jargon of copyright, it is functional rather than expressive. The transmit directions are physical realities of the antenna set-up, not arbitrary choices. The only input that has gone in to the content here is what order to list the individual transmit directions in, and what order to list the fields in. Both are trivial, and below the threshold for copyright protection. Beyond that as far as I can see the only selective element is the choice of typeface used.
Feist was a case about telephone directories. In the context of a telephone directory, how to most clearly lay out the information is a significant design question, and a source of real commercial value to differentiate competing directories.
This on the other hand is simply a functional table, spat out using Excel to get the job done. Jheald (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation is that the table should be kept, because I believe it is legal in the USA, and therefore does pass WP's minimum standards. But it should be tagged as needing a source reference, just for WP:V. Jheald (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The content might be encyclopedic, but a user who has repeatedly mistagged their images is not a reliable source for such information. For it to remain we'd need to find the real source of the information. - Mgm|(talk) 11:37, 27 May 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.

CHU-bc-dbu.png[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: Withdrawn. – Quadell (talk) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:CHU-bc-dbu.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed "GFDL-like", as above. – Quadell (talk) 12:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per VOACAP entries above. Jheald (talk) 13:25, 26 May 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.

Juelich Antenna-vectors.png[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 CIreland (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juelich Antenna-vectors.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader claims to release it under the GFDL, but he has claimed this on numerous other images that are just screenshots of websites or copyrighted papers. I believe this is just another. – Quadell (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this would appear to be a list of data which is exempt from copyright. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The data is ineligible for copyright, but the presentation is copyrightable. As such, we could create our own table of the data without violating copyright. As our article on the applicable Feist Publications v. Rural Telephone Service says: "In regard to collections of facts, O'Connor states that copyright can only apply to the creative aspects of collection: the creative choice of what data to include or exclude, the order and style in which the information is presented, etc., but not on the information itself. If Feist were to take the directory and rearrange them it would destroy the copyright owned in the data." – Quadell (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't believe the presentation shows sufficient artistic originality or creativity to attract U.S. copyright. Jheald (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Claiming something as your own is not allowed regardless of copyright concerns. Whether it is exempt from copyright is irrelevant. It isn't verifiable and thus unsuitable for inclusion. - Mgm|(talk) 11:53, 27 May 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.

Estimated-program-hrs-per-week external-broadcasters.png[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 CIreland (talk) 09:28, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Estimated-program-hrs-per-week external-broadcasters.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Image description page says "The information contained within is of Public Domain origin, but the table is scanned from History of Internatioal Broadcasting. It is source neutral." As a scan from a copyrighted book, this is a copyvio. – Quadell (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's a table of data. Simply sorting on the most recent column is not sufficeintly creative to attract US copyright. Jheald (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This contains unique wording, six footnotes, and a selection of countries (not all countries are included). Why not recreate instead? – Quadell (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tabelize In contrast to the other tables we've seen, this one gives its sources. If we were to recreate it ourselves and properly cite the source, there'd be no problem. The problem is misformatting (images were tables will do and faulty licensing) which can both be overcome by reformatting it all. - Mgm|(talk) 11:56, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to table per Mgm. Rendering text as images on a wiki is poor form because it disables editing. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 29 May 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.

FDMA-vs-PCMA.png[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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:FDMA-vs-PCMA.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Possibly self-created, but unused, and the uploader has a history of copyright problems. – Quadell (talk) 12:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. that seems a bit of a slur on the user, if all you're going on is the reasonable mistake above that 1950s Radio Free Europe technical diagrams would be covered by U.S. Government non-copyright. Provisionally therefore, Keep.Jheald (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I was more referring to File:SW antenna cost 2009 USD.png ("I created the work entirely by myself", but it's a screenshot of a copyrighted website), or File:RDS vs DirectBand FM-spectrum.png (Tagged PD-Self, but copied from this), or File:Spectral-Band-Replication CODEC.png (tagged GFDL, but taken from [2]), etc. etc. Looking through his logs shows constant problems, which he usually deals with by deleting the questions from his talkpage. – Quadell (talk) 17:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as orphaned (though I would prefer a tool to make sure it wasn't recently removed from some article). It looks like an MSPaint image and is very likely self-made contrary to the images Quadell has linked to. - Mgm|(talk) 11:58, 27 May 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.

HDTV channel protection params.png[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 Aervanath (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HDTV channel protection params.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Scan of a copyrighted table. The data is not copyrighted, and this table could be recreated, but the presentation of the data (wording, arrangement, footnotes) is copyrighted. – Quadell (talk) 12:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Presentation does not show sufficient creativity to attract U.S. copyright. As for the text, it falls well within the amount we'd consider de minimis for quoting, so long as the source is identified. Jheald (talk) 13:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was referring to the selection of countries and channels. – Quadell (talk) 18:43, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Addendum: I don't know if there was creativity in the choice of countries and channels or not. Does anyone else? – Quadell (talk) 18:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless a source can be found. I'm not so concerned about the copyright issues as much as concerns with reliability and/or WP:OR. For usability, including this information in a table would be preferable. — BQZip01 — talk 15:22, 7 June 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.

Packets-and-Frames illustration.png[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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Packets-and-Frames illustration.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Scan of copyrighted image. Could and should be recreated. – Quadell (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What makes you so sure it's a scan? Seems well within what any user could create. Provisionally, Keep. Jheald (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure it's a scan, but Quadell has a point. Without a source or an actual claim of ownership, we can't let an image by a serial violator slip through. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 28 May 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.

Block-ECC-Codes 2D 3D types.png[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 Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Block-ECC-Codes 2D 3D types.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Scan of copyrighted diagram. Could and should be recreated. – Quadell (talk) 13:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What makes you so sure it's a scan? Seems well within what any user could create. Provisionally, Keep. Jheald (talk) 13:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on the quality and comparing it to the stuff they really did create using MS Paint, I doubt this was the user's own creation. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 28 May 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.

HR441-mathmatical-model.png[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HR441-mathmatical-model.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Scan of a copyrighted image – Quadell (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant copy of copyrighted material, where free options are clearly available. - Mgm|(talk) 09:31, 28 May 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.

ATSC-DVB-ISDB-system-comparason.png[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ATSC-DVB-ISDB-system-comparason.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Scan of a copyrighted table. The data is not copyrighted, and this table could be recreated, but the presentation of the data (wording, arrangement, footnotes) is copyrighted. – Quadell (talk) 13:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Blatant copyvio. Without a source, we can't use the wikified version of the tabel either because that would break verifiability rules. -Mgm|(talk) 09:32, 28 May 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.

MT63 Packet RTTY-performance.png[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MT63 Packet RTTY-performance.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Scan of a copyrighted table. The data is not copyrighted, and this table could be recreated, but the presentation of the data is copyrighted. – Quadell (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A simple 2D plot, based on technical data, with no sign of any considered artistic or design contribution. I don't see sufficient originality here to qualify for U.S. Copyright. Therefore, Keep. Jheald (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's still a violation to include it in Wikipedia because it doesn't give a reliable source to verify the information included in the image. - Mgm|(talk) 09:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no valid source. Stifle (talk) 09:59, 29 May 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.

MT63 Packet RTTY-comparason.png[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:MT63 Packet RTTY-comparason.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Could be the user's own creation, but the user has a long history of scanning copyrighted graphs and tables and claiming to release them under a free license. – Quadell (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AGF. Provisionally, keep. Jheald (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We should always assume good faith, but we should not assume that an image is free of copyright. On several occasions (detailed above) the uploader has claimed copyright on works that were not his creations. – Quadell (talk) 18:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed; AGF is less often applied on the matter of copyrights. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to previous inappropriate uploads. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Images whether self-created or taken from another place, need to be backed up by reliable sources. - Mgm|(talk) 09:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because I can find no references in the image or the files where it is used to indicate the graph is correct; why keep something with questionable copyright status when it may be inaccurate as well? (I am a ham operator, and the graph does not seem grossly wrong, but I don't know if it is correct in detail.) --Jc3s5h (talk) 16:18, 28 May 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.

AAC low-delay.png[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:AAC low-delay.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Could be the user's own creation, but the user has a long history of scanning copyrighted graphs and tables and claiming to release them under a free license. – Quadell (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AGF. Provisionally, keep. Jheald (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Images whether self-created or taken from another place, need to be backed up by reliable sources. This one has none. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 28 May 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.

HR221.png[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HR221.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Could be the user's own creation, but the user has a long history of scanning copyrighted graphs and tables and claiming to release them under a free license. – Quadell (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AGF. Provisionally, keep. Jheald (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks sources and information of authorship. GFDL implies ownership, but user can't be trusted regarding that because of their background in copyvio images. - Mgm|(talk) 09:38, 28 May 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.

HR441.png[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:HR441.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eyreland (notify | contribs).
  • Could be the user's own creation, but the user has a long history of scanning copyrighted graphs and tables and claiming to release them under a free license. – Quadell (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AGF. Provisionally, keep. Jheald (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Images whether self-created or taken from another place, need to be backed up by reliable sources. This one has none. - Mgm|(talk) 09:39, 28 May 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.

Jn.JPG[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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 06:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jn.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Snowman Guy (notify | contribs).
  • Unnecessary FU image. The logo is already in another image on the page; this image is therefore unjustified. ÷seresin 16:48, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we sure the fair use claim for the promotional poster holds up? Otherwise, this one might be the preferred image to keep. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the other image passes all NFCC fine, and is the better image. – Quadell (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as NFCC#3 vio. – Quadell (talk) 18:32, 4 June 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.

Boneyard.jpg[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Boneyard.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Snowman Guy (notify | contribs).
  • FU image that is entirely too small to be useful. ÷seresin 16:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Extremely low quality, unencyclopedic. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:27, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not encyclopedic or useful at all due to small size. - Mgm|(talk) 12:00, 27 May 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.

IOAPC Logo.jpg[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:IOAPC Logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Snowman Guy (notify | contribs).
  • Very small FU image which contains no informative elements other than the Islands of Adventure logo, which, if deemed, necessary, can be replaced by an image of the logo itself. ÷seresin 16:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very low quality, unencyclopedic. -FASTILY (TALK) 04:28, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Resolution too low to be of encyclopedic use. - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 28 May 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.

SR443map.GIF[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:SR443map.GIF (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Coolrocketdude3444 (notify | contribs).
  • Low Quality (colors make this difficult to read) and a possible Copyright Violation (appears to be a Google Maps image that has been edited in MS Pain; compare to this Google Map). I have already removed the image from Nevada State Route 443. --LJ (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete low quality. I urge an open map to be found. Computerjoe's talk 19:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not up to quality standards. - Mgm|(talk) 09:43, 28 May 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.

Vince foster.jpg[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⚡ 04:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Vince foster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ashcroftgm (notify | contribs).
  • Source provides no corroboration for US governmental public domain licensing. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 20:53, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The claim "Standard US Government press release Photo Found on/in many web sites, books and News reports US Government press release Photos are not copyrighted" is faulty. Photo use is licensed just like Wikipedia articles, but the photograph is still copyrighted. That said, to qualify as a press release photo and benefit from the same advantages, we need proof it is actually a press release image and not something that spread across the net because of people's inability to understand copyright. - Mgm|(talk) 09:46, 28 May 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.

SteinbeckCortez.jpg[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. I think that GiantSnowman's deletion request counts as a G7. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 02:36, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

information Administrator note This image was restored per Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_4.--Aervanath (talk) 04:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
File:SteinbeckCortez.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GiantSnowman (notify | contribs).
  • A first edition cover is also used in the article in question; hence this fair use image is dubious at best: Why do we need both a highly notable fair-use first edition, and a fair-use non-notable modern edition's cover? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the article has no critical commentary on the latter cover, and does not meet the apropos acceptable-use guideline. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 22:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'm the original uploader, but am more than happy that someone has since (4 months later!) uploaded a better picture. Can't believe it's not been deleted earlier to be honest...GiantSnowman 23:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first edition cover image is not of the same book (you can read the article for a full explanation), so if one of the two images should go it should be that one. Both images meet the FU criteria though. Yomanganitalk 06:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The first edition is discussed and the current one is needed to identify the subject of the article. At a low resolution with respect to all the other common fair use rationale reasons, that is totally acceptable especially when there's no free alternative for an image of the current edition. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails WP:NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 10:00, 29 May 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.

Flag of the People's Republic of Antarctica.svg[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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the People's Republic of Antarctica.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rockhead126 (notify | contribs).
  • File used in only one article which is a blatant hoax.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete hoax Beach drifter (talk) 23:12, 26 May 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.

Coat of Arms of the People's Republic of Antarctica.svg[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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:00, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of the People's Republic of Antarctica.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rockhead126 (notify | contribs).
  • File used in only one article which is a blatant hoax.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 22:47, 26 May 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.

000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Untitled.jpg[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 Seresin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 03:17, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 000 Untitled.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ceauntay59 (notify | contribs).
  • Clearly unencyclopedic. I have no experience with the file namespace (for reasons like this), so I was reluctant to speedy it or anything of the sort. The file's name implies that its only intention is in bad faith. —LedgendGamer 23:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unused is a better rationale for deletion. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'd have speedied as a test/vandalism, but I'm a bit more IAR-y than some on that front, I suppose. (ESkog)(Talk) 01:06, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kill it! Kill it dead! – Quadell (talk) 01:16, 27 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_May_26&oldid=1146493153"