Contents
- 1 February 22
- 1.1 WoodiesWarehouse.jpg
- 1.2 Jafar image.jpg
- 1.3 KingdomHeartsJafar.PNG
- 1.4 GlennBeckFox.png
- 1.5 Ptkembla.jpg
- 1.6 Norwegian Navy Corporal in M-2000 uniform.jpg
- 1.7 PLDT CTC.jpg
- 1.8 Dawn_Mill,_Shaw_0012.png
- 1.9 Heron_Mill,_Hollinwood_Oldham_0003.png
- 1.10 Malta_Mill,_Middleton_0015.png
- 1.11 Manor_Mill,_Chadderton_0005.png
- 1.12 Mars_Mill,_Castleton_Rochdale_0016.png
- 1.13 Newby_Mill,_Shaw_0017.png
- 1.14 Royd_Mill,_Oldham_0007.png
- 1.15 Harp_Mill,_Castleton_Rochdale_0003.png and others
- 1.16 Mk1mx-8 small.jpg
- 1.17 scan-temple.jpg
- 1.18 File:Santa buddies.jpg
- 1.19 Maumanorig drawing.png
- 1.20 My Boo Video.PNG
- 1.21 Mortal Treasun.jpg
- 1.22 Raymond.roccograndi.thompson.jpg
February 22
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 — Aitias // discussion 00:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:WoodiesWarehouse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AlbertHerring (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, low quality (obviously taken from the Metro). SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:37, 22 February 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.
- 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⚡ 15:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jafar image.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by WikiVillain (notify | contribs).
- Superfluous FU image; there is already one in the article. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with nominator's rationale. Orphaned for same reason. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The other image in the article is barely viewable. Surely it can be used in the wiki article too? I have placed this image in the article. Personally...I would have removed the blurry other image instead of Jafar. Its almost useless sadly. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:54, 26 February 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.
- 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 — Aitias // discussion 00:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:KingdomHeartsJafar.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cat's Tuxedo (notify | contribs).
- Superfluous FU image; there is already one in the article. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Agree with nominator's rationale. Orphaned for same reason. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete indeed in this case. The image is of poor quality anyway. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:58, 26 February 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.
- 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 — Aitias // discussion 00:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:GlennBeckFox.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blubberboy92 (notify | contribs).
- Unneeded FU image. Nothing in this image cannot be satisfactorily be demonstrated by a FU image of the person himself. The news ticker and Fox News logo are not significant. seresin ( ¡? ) 07:36, 22 February 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.
- 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 — Aitias // discussion 03:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Ptkembla.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adam.J.W.C. (notify | contribs).
- Uploaders own work but is restrictive. IIRC We can't have photographs that can be easily replaceable with free-use. Bidgee (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. It's copyrighted, but can be replaced with a free image, so should be deleted. seresin ( ¡? ) 09:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- open you eyes and take a look, its now free. Adam (talk) 11:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Original uploader has corrected the problem. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as the uploader has now released it under the GFDL. Stifle (talk) 18:26, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The uploader has now changed the licensing to GFDL. Very kind of him/her. --Leoboudv (talk) 05:59, 26 February 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.
- 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⚡ 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Norwegian Navy Corporal in M-2000 uniform.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Damsleth (notify | contribs).
- This picture of a Norwegian Leading Rate is not relevant for the article Ensign (rank) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ensign_(rank). Because the article is about an American officer rank, and a Leading Rate is a private rank in Norway.
- Other than that I would like you to delete this picture from wikipedia, because this soldier is not according to dress regulations. It seams to me that he has made up his own. He has Norwegian Army service field marks on his jacket (which is not allowed to bear in the Navy at all), the misplaced skill mark is not allowed to bear on a light field uniform as he does and the pen is not allowed to bear visible, it's supposed to go inside the pocket.
- The text is also wrong, this is not a "Navy Corporal" it's a leading rate.80.203.213.171 (talk) 11:11, 22 February 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.
- 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 — Aitias // discussion 03:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- replaceable fair use - someone can take a free image of the location so this image fails WP:NFCC#1 Peripitus (Talk) 11:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Quite logical to me. If this was the only image for that article I would vote keep but there are many images in it and this one is superfluous. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:02, 26 February 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.
- 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⚡ 12:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Dawn_Mill,_Shaw_0012.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable as free license image exists at File:Dawn mill1.jpg. PhilKnight (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Non replaceable- a picture of a hulk with weeds growing from the brick is not a replacement for a image of a working mill. All images need to be respectful to the architect. In future, a respectful image from the 1960ś may be discovered and this debate may need to be revisited.--ClemRutter (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as replaceable. The image is only used in List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited, and in that context the free photo could be used in its stead. – Quadell (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and Quadell. Ejfetters (talk) 06:02, 4 March 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.
- 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⚡ 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Heron_Mill,_Hollinwood_Oldham_0003.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable as free image exists at File:Heron Mill, Oldham.jpg. PhilKnight (talk) 12:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More difficult to justify. The alternative is a portion of the shot it is trying to replace omitting the chimney. The alternative omits the rich architectural texture of the frontage characteristic of P S Stott. If an image of the frontage up until 1994 emerges this argument should be revisited.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Malta_Mill,_Middleton_0015.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable as free image exists at File:Malta Mill.jpg. PhilKnight (talk) 12:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Chris Allens image show the corner of a reduced box.This is no replacement for an image of the mill, no engine house , chimney, detailing, identification signs. The only thing that is similar is the title. Chris has some nice images on geograph of othermills- I assume that means that no better image in available. This is the west pier arguement.
--ClemRutter (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as replaceable in the current context, as above. – Quadell (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 06:02, 4 March 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.
- 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⚡ 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Manor_Mill,_Chadderton_0005.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable as free image exists at File:Manor Mill, Chadderton.jpg. PhilKnight (talk) 12:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A set of windows appearing above the roof line, of Homes fit for Heroes, does not act as a replacement for an image of a working mill. Though the Byzantine dome is visible, you cannot see the characteristic George Stott detailing. --ClemRutter (talk) 22:33, 23 February 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.
- 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, defaults to keep. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mars_Mill,_Castleton_Rochdale_0016.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable as free image exists at File:Mars Mill, Rochdale.jpg. PhilKnight (talk) 12:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No- the image that Chris has labelled Mars Mill, is not. This is the Marland Mill next door and behind it you see the water tower of Mars. See 1932 1:10560 OS map. This goes to show how careful one needs to be in illustrating a mill. All the images I have uploaded have been labelled by the 1950s owner so they are definitive. Both these mills have now been demolished and the image I have presented is as yet the only verifiable image.
- Keep. The free image would not adequately replace this image. – Quadell (talk) 22:06, 2 March 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.
- 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⚡ 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Newby_Mill,_Shaw_0017.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable as free image exists at File:PMBNewby.jpg. PhilKnight (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Both images are interesting in their various ways, in a sort of then and now situation. Again the proposed replacement is a rear view that omits entirely any of the detailing that distinguishes this from any other Shaw Mill.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 16:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Royd_Mill,_Oldham_0007.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- Replaceable as free image exists at File:Royd Mill, Hollinwood.jpg. PhilKnight (talk) 12:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In researching available images, I have come across several references to the interior of this mill and we may have to loose the uploaded image as there may be a collection that could do the job of the one image-or it may be that this mill has more history available than I suspected and than it becomes more obvious why the proposed alternative is lacking. I suggest we hold till that is established.
- 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.
Harp_Mill,_Castleton_Rochdale_0003.png and others
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: All deleted. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Harp_Mill,_Castleton_Rochdale_0003.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- File:Coppull_Mill,_Chorley_0012.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- I'll concede this one. [1] have sufficient images for a composite replacement.
- File:Century_Mill,_Farnworth_0001.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- File:Bolton_Union_Mill,_Bolton_0011.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- File:Blackridings_Mill,_Oldham_0011.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- File:Ace_Mill,_Hollinwood_0000.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- File:Heron_Mill,_Hollinwood_Oldham_0003.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ClemRutter (notify | contribs).
- The photographs of these mills are replaceable as the buildings are still in existence. PhilKnight (talk) 12:20, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These are images of working cotton mills not just the shell or hulk that remains today- only the hulk can be photographed today-thus they are not replaceable. By 1960, the LCC was in terminal decline, it was taken over by Courtaulds, which split and the textile division was taken over twice more. It is doubtful if the copyright holder even knows of these images- if we can determine who holds the copyright. Change of use of a cotton mill can mean that the chimney and engine house are destroyed, and the top two or so floors are removed, if it does not, that too is significant. The hulk, whether abandoned or utilised does not look the same as the working mill. These 53 working mills represent, about a third of the spinning capacity of the industry in 1950; 104 potentially viable mills were purchased in the 1920's by government intervention (LCC being a quasi-governmental company) and these were the only ones to be still in production in 1950. Now there are none. These images represent the notable work of P S Stott, George Stott and other Oldham architects- it is disrespectful to them to show their work when it has been abandoned, downgraded and neglected. --ClemRutter (talk) 15:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- These are non-free images used in List of mills owned by the Lancashire Cotton Corporation Limited. To the untrained eye, there really isn't much difference between each image. How much more visual information is gained by seeing each one? over and over again... (and they may be 'working', but that cannot be seen readily from the images. A facade of a building is still a facade of a building, regardless what may be going on inside...) Not to mention NFC related to lists/galleries. I don't see why we need all of these images on the list page. If each mill had it's own article, and it was not possible to take a contemporary photograph, then I could see a use in resorting to non-free images. But in the current context, I see this situation as an abuse of non-free imagery. -Andrew c [talk] 15:28, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Copyright in historical images is a nightmare. Can we need keep them until some copyright holder objects? As soon as a copyright owner says that WP is in breach of copyright, the image must of course be taken down, but is it really necessary before that? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia. It follows that content which is not free should only be used in exceptional circumstances. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All of these images are replaceable by free images, in the article's context, even if the mills are not in operation. – Quadell (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Quadell. Ejfetters (talk) 06:04, 4 March 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.
- 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 — Aitias // discussion 03:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mk1mx-8 small.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Guyfromboracay (notify | contribs).
- Questionable copyright status. Different watermarks, one says "timawa.net" (1), one says "Photo by LAD, Phil. Army". When army personnel made this image, as stated in the summary, there needs to be a proper licence that images made by them is public domain by Philippine law. DavidDCM (talk) 15:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The reasons given by the nominator are quite correct. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:09, 26 February 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.
- 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 — Aitias // discussion 03:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- orphan Kbala1055 (talk) 16:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Leoboudv (talk) 06:04, 26 February 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.
- 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 — Aitias // discussion 03:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Santa buddies.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Luigi-1up (notify | contribs).
Deserted image, missing license. The Cool Kat (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Image has no FU rationale. --Leoboudv (talk) 06:07, 26 February 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.
- 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 - it is sufficiently unclear that this is a PD image so the copyright tag is needed. per WP:NFCC#10 a rationale is required for each use and one has not been provided. Also asserted that a free alternate could be created - Peripitus (Talk) 11:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Maumanorig drawing.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dbachmann (notify | contribs).
- Image lacks a clear, specific, rationale in plain language for each use of the image. Tag was removed by the uploader. Stifle (talk) 18:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- there is no reason to delete this. It is a drawing of an ancient inscription. We have tons of such images claiming "PD, author died more than 70 years ago". Deleting it because in this case somebody went to the pains of establishing who made the drawing is ridiculous. If I had never added that reference and just claimed "PD, author died more than 70 years ago", it would never have occurred to Stifle to list it for deletion. On the legalistic side, even if there is any original work in this strictly reproductive drawing of the inscription (which I doubt), it would easily fall under fair use for any article discussing the inscription. --dab (𒁳) 20:53, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should this be
{{PD-ineligible}}, since it's merely a non-creative tracing of a PD inscription? – Quadell (talk) 22:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply] - Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 06:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep If within the realms of Wikipedia policy Jim (talk) 23:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Clearly public domain. Fuzzy (talk) 12:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ...no, it was made in 1938. Or am I missing something? ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The transcript was published in 1938. The question whether transcripts (of public domain materials) are copyrightable usually gets a negative answer. I can find the specific ruling, but since the image was already deleted and I don't plan to file a deletion review request, it's a waste of time. Fuzzy (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no fair-use rationale, not even a caption in the article! And does anyone really believe that there is no way a free version could ever be made? The alphabet isn't copyrighted, just the image. Any schmoe with a pencil or Illustrator can make their own. Delete ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 02:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep this drawing as it is particularly interesting due to the Maltese/Phoenician/Aryan/Old British Cross which is shown next to the inscription. Square crosses are found on many pre-christian British inscriptions/monuments as well as in Phoenician/Hittite/Syrian/Old Indo European sites.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I feel that this image fails WP:NFCC#8 as it merely depicts the artists without adding to readers' understanding of the article Stifle (talk) 18:21, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kindly delete Although Dan56 tries to improve the fair use, I still feel it fails to meet the criteria. --Efe (talk) 23:52, 22 February 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.
- 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 PhilKnight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:06, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Mortal Treasun.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jerry teps (notify | contribs).
- Non-free image of living persons, failing WP:NFCC#1, and also image is used for decoration only and not to aid readers' understanding of the subject, failing WP:NFCC#8. Stifle (talk) 18:22, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: I uploaded the image when I first started editing Wikipedia and had limited understanding of policies back then. Jerry teps (talk) 01:13, 23 February 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.
- 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 image is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Raymond.roccograndi.thompson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:#File:Raymond.roccograndi.thompson.jpg listed for deletion|]] ([ notify] | contribs).
- Orphan 72.161.43.101 (talk) 21:01, 22 February 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.