Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 July 16
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
July 16[edit]
File:Rome_Oregon_DDT.JPG[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by MGA73 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 08:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Rome Oregon DDT.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- License indicates Non-Commercial/No derivatives terms- These are not compatible with Wikipedia Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
<a rel="license"nofollow" class="external free">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"><img alt="Creative Commons License" style="border-width:0" src="http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/3.0/88x31.png" /></a>
Rome Oregon DDT.jpg by D.D. Thompson is licensed under a <a rel="license"nofollow" class="external free">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License</a> Ddtfamily (talk) 05:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the updated license info to the photo. Ddtfamily (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy close, or whatever it's called here, because the copyright holder has fixed the problem and released this under a cc-by-sa license. Nyttend (talk) 16:49, 26 July 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:Eden T. Brekke.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Keep. Files that claim fair use should not be discussed here; feel free to take it to WP:FFD if you believe that it should be deleted. Nyttend (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Eden T. Brekke.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Fair-use rationale does not address all of the criteria in WP:NFCC and is therefore defective. Rodhullandemu 11:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Which of the NFCC points does it fail to address ? the image is actually unfree, hence the licence tag, not possibly unfree - Peripitus (Talk) 11:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Does this address your concerns? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems OK. Rodhullandemu 15:11, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- So it was going to be deleted because it wasn't formatted pretty with the latest template despite having a valid rationale and a proper source? Is that the way to build an encyclopedia? Newer prettier formatting will come along every few years, the idea is to build an encyclopedia to last, not to find as much to delete as possible. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Richard. In all fairness to Rod the new-improved FUR template delves in a bit more detail into the minutiae of resolution, market value etc. so it provides a more detailed and organised fair use rationale. I know the main points are still the same as the old-type rationales but the theory here is that more detail equals fewer possible FUR problems. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 15:39, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but it always better to make the changes needed than to nominate for deletion because it is missing the latest fashion in templates. What you did was correct, fix before deleting. Anyone can improve, not just the uploader. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As a matter of principle I agree with you. On the other hand it is also a matter of taste for the individual editor. Some editors prefer tagging versus adding a FUR template. Others prefer the reverse. In a collaborative environment it should work out in the end, At least theoretically. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 21:40, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This image is currently tagged as non-free. If there is a dispute with the rationale, please tag the image with {{dfu}} or list it at WP:Non-free content review. Otherwise, unless there is another reason for listing here, the listing will be closed by an administrator and the image kept. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:46, 17 July 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:Medunjanin.JPG[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Medunjanin.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs).
- From a football clubs official facebook page - I can't see any evidence that the original was under a free licence Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 16 July 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
File:FGM-girl.jpg[edit]
- The following discussion is an archived inquiry of the possible unfree file below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete; deleted by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 23:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:FGM-girl.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).
- Looks like this image has been circulating on the internet[1][2][3][4][5][6] for some months and probably was downloaded from the internet. In fact, when doing the google images search for "female genital mutilation" (after being uploaded on July 16, 2010, the image was added to the article female genital mutilation), the very first hit is this image[7]. The uploader User:无名氏, in the file description page, claims that he/she is the holder of the copyrights for the image and is releasing them into the public domain. Seems to be a dubious claim under the circumstances. Nsk92 (talk) 19:36, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This article[8] contains this photo with an attribution to "Robert Skinner". Nsk92 (talk) 04:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- In fact, here is a link to the announcement about Finalists announced for 2004 National Newspaper Awards (Canada)[9]. Skinner's photo is mentioned among the nominees in the Feature Photography catefory: "Robert Skinner of La Presse in Montreal for a photo of a young girl as she undergoes a female circumcision". Most likely that photo was the original source of this image. Nsk92 (talk) 04:59, 17 July 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 images's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.