Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 February 21

< February 20	February 22 >

February 21

File:Trapped underground.jpg

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 Danger (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:21, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was only orphaned because someone removed it from the template it was on, and anyway it's freely licensed so it doesn't have to be used. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:10, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You just made the argument about why we should move it to Commons and delete the local copy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that someone asked that a local copy be kept, and that as a matter of courtesy to them, and because the image is free and therefore harmless, we should allow it. Our hosting of this image does not affect you, or anyone else. SW, this petty application of rules, or the invention of rules that no one's agreed to, is driving editors away. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not an orphan. See 7 July 2005 London bombings. Jimmy Pitt talk 15:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not an orphan, no reason to delete, has a KeepLocal template on it. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin "...someone asked that a local copy be kept..." It looks like that this someone is yourself [1]. You have not provided a reason why this should be kept local.

But the real issue is if the photo is licensed correctly (the webpage does confirms cc-by-2.5 but the photo was not uploaded by the photographer). You have written that "Copyright seems to have been assumed by Adam Stacey." and a note about "works for hire". This is a interessting question that have been discussed before - example here Commons:Commons_talk:Licensing/Archive_20#A_stranger_takes_a_photo_of_me_with_my_own_camera.2C_who_owns_the_copyright?. It seems it os only work for hire if there is money involved and that there is a specific agreement that copyright is transfered to the person who ordered the photo taken. It would however be a shame to loose this picture so I hope you get a response to your request. --MGA73 (talk) 22:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: the template -- there's consensus (e.g. see here) that the "KeepLocal" template should be respected when placed on free images. Re: the release -- writing from memory, the image was released by the person who took it; see the image page for the details. I do have some further emails about this, because I remember writing for more information, so I'll have a look at them later and add anything that might clarify things further. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 22:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The template. The question was if it should be deleted and the result was no. I do not see concensus that we should keep all free images if someone adds the template. In that case it would mean that the template could be used vandalism. If I do not like someone I could just write their name on my butt and take a picture of it and upload it with a "KeepLocal" and you could not delete it. Or I could upload loads of crappy images and add a KeepLocal to prevent you from cleaning up. So I still think that KeepLocal should only be respected if the file is in scope.

But that is not relevant in this case since everyone seem to agree that this picture is usable. Look forward to see the result of your search. --MGA73 (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, but in this case, which was similar (a photographer brought in as a contractor on a photo shoot), the 9th circuit court of appeals held that there was joint copyright. Now, that said, this lawyer has the opposite view and says the photographer owns the copyright. I have a hard time imagining there not being an implied license, though. If I hand you my camera, and ask you to take a picture, it's reasonably assumed that I'm going to do something with it. --B (talk) 01:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But if I get a professional photographer to take my picture it is also reasonably assumed that I'm going to do something with it. Will see if I can find something usefull in the two links you just gave us. Thank you. --MGA73 (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The question of who owns the copyright by default is complicated - much more complicated than this discussion has so-far explored - but mostly irrelevant, given that there seems to be no dispute among those involved in creating the image. It looks like they have jointly consented to release it under a free license. If for any reason this proves not to be the case there is certainly a valid fair-use justification for using the image. That alone is sufficient reason to keep it here. Thparkth (talk) 15:18, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice if you are right. As I understand it Eliot Ward took the photo (it is uncler to me who owned the phone) and it is Adam Stacey who have confirmed the license. If Eliot has also confirmed the license then everything is fine. --MGA73 (talk) 16:57, 1 March 2011 (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:Winslow.jpg

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: no consensus, as it's a free image and there are no BLP concerns, that defaults to keep. This falls squarely into the "not worth arguing over" category. --B (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. SchuminWeb (Talk) 06:28, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Again, it's freely licensed, so it doesn't have to be used. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 11:11, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- You just made the argument about why we should move it to Commons and delete the local copy. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:16, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See above. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 15:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At a future date, I will require that image. Otherwise, I would not have spent a great deal of time drawing it. Who the hell is SchuminWeb to be telling me what I do and do not need? I don't beleive I have come across him before - I do not wish to do so again. When I require it, it will cease to be orphaned - the precise timing of my work is one of the few things that Wikipedia's peurile and grossly overstaffed beaurocracy has no jusidiction over. Now, untill I tell you that you may delete, you will leave it exactly where it is. Giacomo 19:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not your personal Webhost. If you find the file so useful, I'm surprised that you haven't saved it to your own computer so that you can have it. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be presumptious with me. If I have gone to the bother of drawing and uploading an image for a future article there will be a very good reason and it's not your place to reason why. Once I have uploaded a required file that is it, I don't need it on my computer are you seriously suggesting that I do not know what I am talking about when it comes to Wikipedia articles? Please go about your "admin" duties, but don't bother me with them. Giacomo 19:52, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis that it's harmless, legal, and someone plans to use it in the future. What is the benefit in deleting it? Thparkth (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is unused and it has a bad description and therefore I think it is not usable and out of scope. We should keep usable files if the license is ok but we should not keep all free files. A "KeepLocal" should not be used as a way to get unusable files kept on Wikipedia forever. It should be used if the file is usable and there is a good reason to keep it on enwiki. Giacomo should by the way learn not to attack other users and that Wikipedia is not a personal homepage. --MGA73 (talk) 18:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A personal home page? You idiot! Have you the remotest idea what you are talking about? Giacomo 19:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's consensus (e.g. see here) that the "KeepLocal" template should be kept and respected when it's placed on free images, so this image should not be deleted over the uploader's objection. SlimVirgin ^{TALK|CONTRIBS} 20:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that this MGA73 person, like SchuminWeb, is an Admin. How is it such ignorant morons, caring so little for the encyclopedia are able to be Admins? Have I not proved over 7 years, that if I say I need an image, I have drawn myself - I need it! WTF is going on here - who are these stupid people? Giacomo 20:14, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin Given that Wikipedia has thousands of users the concensus of a few users you mention is not impressive. However, as I said I think that KeepLocal is ok if file is usable. But it should not be used as a way to keep files that is not usable or not in scope. If this was a lowres image of a penis I doubt you would think we should keep it just because it has a KeepLocal. The reason I think this is not usable is that it was uploaded almost 5 years ago and is still not used. So I think it will never be used. Even if our aggressive uploader really does create an article as planned I find it most likely that a new and better file will be created. Just look at the file! --MGA73 (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? and by whom - what is it demonstrating? please explain - I know, do you? No, of course you don't. I have been here 7 years - I have often spent 3 years on one single in depth article and written many others between - giving Wikipedia the best coverage on the internet. You are an ignorant, stupid little admin who has not the remotest idea what you are talking about. Giacomo 20:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is now no longer an orphan, so I suggest you now take yourselves back to Facebook or IRC or wherever it is you chatter when not mindlessly chattering here. Giacomo 23:43, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - legal and harmless. I have no reason not to trust Giano that it will be useful at some stage Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2011 (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:EarlyDesigns.jpg

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. Would otherwise have been a keep if not for File:TheClevelandShowPromo.png, which also illustrates the family, and the article contains no discussion of the characters' original appearances, which would be required for the contextual significance requirements of WP:NFCC#8. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This image does meet the non-free image policy. Only one rationale in one article, not in the other article. JJ98 (Talk) 09:02, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fair use rationale for The Cleveland Show seems pretty reasonable. Remove the image from the other article if necessary, but don't delete the image itself. Thparkth (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2011 (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:Cannibal holocaust.png

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:27, 21 February 2011 (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:Gurch-barnstars.png

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2011 (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:We go green bay.jpg

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2011 (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:AVPRefections.jpg

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2011 (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:AeroMint.jpg

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, photo of copyrighted packaging Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2011 (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:Arbys7751.JPG

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2011 (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:Ayman.jpg

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned userphoto Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:51, 21 February 2011 (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:Bernie - 2006-09-03 - 11-53 AN - 26 Seconds - Sunday.jpg

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

orphaned userphoto Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2011 (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:Benztropine.png

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, superseded by File:Benztropin.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2011 (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:Zamaneh Workshop 2006.JPG

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2011 (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:Zellers7778.JPG

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2011 (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:Adecco-CIMG4904.JPG

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, photo of copyrighted sign Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2011 (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:Molson7734.JPG

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

photo of nonfree advertisement, does not significantly contribute to readers' understanding (WP:NFCC8) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2011 (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:Hungry7787.JPG

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, photo of copyrighted packaging Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:14, 21 February 2011 (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:Mikes6978.JPG

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

photo of copyrighted sign, does not significantly add to readers' understanding Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2011 (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:Edmonton-sun6345.JPG

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, photo of copyrighted newspaper Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. 117Avenue (talk) 23:43, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the file license says that's it's not copyrighted, I assume because it's supposed to be a "panorama" type image. 65.95.14.96 (talk) 03:39, 22 February 2011 (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:Psp4805.JPG

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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, photo of copyrighted dvd covers Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2011 (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.