Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 March 6

< March 5	March 7 >

March 6[edit]

File:Concession300.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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Used in now-deleted article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted under WP:F3 — the source page says that this is CC-by-nc-sa, which is an improper license. Nyttend (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2010 (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.

File:Concessioncast.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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Used in now-deleted article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted under WP:F3 — the source page says that this is CC-by-nc-sa, which is an improper license. Nyttend (talk) 16:32, 10 March 2010 (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.

File:Concessionlogo.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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Used in now-deleted article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted under WP:F3 — the source page says that this is CC-by-nc-sa, which is an improper license. Nyttend (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2010 (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.

File:Carota 3b.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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Useless file -Nard 04:22, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is in use on the uploader's userpage. We routinely permit the usage of personal images on userpages. Nyttend (talk) 16:26, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above.--IsaacMorrison (talk) 11:55, 13 March 2010 (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.

File:Ken okeefe.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: Kept/Withdrawn - Peripitus (Talk) 21:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, conditional-use file. Nancy ^talk 11:16, 6 March 2010 (UTC) Nom withdrawn. See below. Nancy ^talk 09:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It shouldn't have been orphaned in the first place. And the licence conditions of the image are perfectly compatible with Wikipedia: "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the original image author and image description are credited." Christiaan (talk) 08:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: image no longer orphaned. Added back to article it should have never been deleted from.Christiaan (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as nominator). Completely misread last para of template. My error, apologies. Nancy ^talk 09:24, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, great, that was easy.Christiaan (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2010 (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.

File:Oblivioncedega60.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion is proprietary making this file non-free and its use in the Cedega article is not permitted by the WP:NFCC IngerAlHaosului (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2010 (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.

File:1983 Postage stamp of UpperVolta, Freres Robert, La Carolina- 619a.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 ⚡ 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8 - non-free stamp image being used in non-stamp articles only one of which has a fair-use rationale. In each instance prose could or does provide enough information that the use of a non-free image in the articles will not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the article. ww2censor (talk) 16:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question Do we have any idea whether Upper Volta copyrighted its stamps? I'm not arguing for keeping under "maybe it's free", but if we could find that it's PD, there wouldn't be any reason to delete. Nyttend (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, but I see that Burkino Faso, previously Upper Volta, were signatories to the 1971 Berne convention, under which copyright subsists to the author for his life plus 50 years as a minimum, though they did not sign the "Universal Copyright Convention" per this. This suggest a minimum 50-year copyright and maybe more, such as author's life plus 50 years. I could not easily find any more on the World Intellectual Property Organization website so 1983 seems way off the mark.
Now I found this Copyright Statute which confirms general copyright of the author's life plus 50 years but Articles 24 and 48 indicate a 20 year copyright for State works but only where there is no agreement to the contrary, which unfortunately we cannot verify. ww2censor (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent stamps are produced by Cartor etc, and I'd bet a dollar they're all keeping the rights to themselves, to resell to the next exploitable country. I can't make out the imprint on this particular issue, and it's not in my own collection. In the time period I see Cartor and Impressor S.A. at least. Stan (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2010 (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.

File:1994GhadafiPrize MS Wikipedia.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2010 (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.

File:1997WWF MS Wikipedia.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2010 (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.

File:BigMatchStamp.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used in the infobox to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image but there is no commentary about the stamp and it could be replaced with a free image, so also fails WP:NFCC#1. ww2censor (talk) 16:46, 6 March 2010 (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.

File:FRI DEHRADUN TEMP 1954.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free postage stamp, without purpose being given is used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. Indian stamps are copyright for 50 years. ww2censor (talk) 16:51, 6 March 2010 (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.

File:Four Great Inventions HK Stamps.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free 2005 postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose is perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:53, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - What is being illustrated is the stamp series itself. The stamp series is not notable enough to have its own article, and so details on the stamp series is incorporated into the 'Four Great Inventions' article. Removal of the image would be detrimental to the understanding of the reader about this stamp series issue. LK (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Works from the Kong Kong Post office are licensed for reuse as long as it is attributed and non-commercial. See this copyright notice. LK (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Sorry but non-commercial use, per the HK Post website, is not an acceptably free licence for Wikipedia. We require commercial and derivative permission. ww2censor (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article would need to say something about the *physical appearance* of the stamps to make the image worth keeping. Is there any significance to the designer's choice of colors, or photographs, or layout? Without any of that, the image is merely decorative. Stan (talk) 01:37, 11 March 2010 (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.

File:Baroness Ashton 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:01, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This would appear to be a television screenshot created by the uploader and listed under GFDL. The article Catherine Ashton has two free images which sufficiently illustrate the subject. Cloudbound _{(formerly Wikiwoohoo)} (talk) 16:56, 6 March 2010 (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.

File:GCDev Stamp.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image but there in no critical commentary about the stamp. ww2censor (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2010 (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.

File:Weaver team badge.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

low quality Spartan008 (talk) 21:04, 6 March 2010 (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.