Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 October 14: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:55, 20 August 2021

< October 13	October 15 >

October 14

File:Dsperfect.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dsperfect.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sami.mannila (notify | contribs).

Not necessary for commentary under fair use guidelines. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the guide is notable enough, an image of the cover can appear on an article about the guide. This article is an inappropriate location, especially for such a small section. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Really, the official guide needs an image? The one for the actual game is fine, but one for the guide is excessive. Aiken ♫ 11:59, 20 October 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.

File:May Day Parade 1937 Moscow.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:May Day Parade 1937 Moscow.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GrahamColm (notify | contribs).

Nothing to suggest that this image meets either criterion 1 or 2 of {{PD-Russia-2008}} (Author is not listed, so it is unknown if it is anonymous or not-named.) It also doesn't seem to meet Criterion 3: "This work is shot from non-amateur cinema or television film or television broadcast, which was first shown more than 70 years ago." The image would have to have been in the public domain by 1996 for the URAA to apply, and it doesn't look like it was. NW (Talk) 01:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete given the questionable nature of the image and the fact that the image is not referenced at all in the article means its absence will not harm understanding of the subject. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unused dubious image. If the case is not clear, it should go. Aiken ♫ 12:00, 20 October 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.

File:Valentine and Proteus.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 as G7 by Willking1979 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valentine and Proteus.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bertaut (notify | contribs).

I made a mess of the upload Bertaut (talk) 01:36, 14 October 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.

File:Two Gentlemen of Verona.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 as G7 by Willking1979 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Two Gentlemen of Verona.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bertaut (notify | contribs).

I uploaded this with the intention of deleting it myself, didn't realise I had to make a request to have it deleted. Bertaut (talk) 01:38, 14 October 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.

File:RKNarayan.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 NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RKNarayan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cheeni (notify | contribs).

No evidence this is 60 years old and public domain. Hekerui (talk) 06:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this gets deleted could the admin also delete the derivative work File:RKNarayan modified.jpg? Thanks. Hekerui (talk) 10:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As far as I can see the image is taken from the cover of Sahitya Akademi's R. K. Narayan: Makers of Indian Literature, which was first published the same year that the image was uploaded on wikipedia. That book in turn credits the Deccan Herald Archives for the cover photo (see back cover). Haven't been able to trace the provenance any further, but unless we have positive evidence that the image is old enough to be PD or was released as such, we need to delete it from wikipedia. (See parallel discussion on my talk page.) Abecedare (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if it is 60 years old, it seems highly unlikely that the image's copyright has expired in the USA as well (it would have needed to have been created in 1935 or earlier for that), so we can't use it on this site which is hosted in the USA. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Funnily enough, Abecedare, YellowMonkey and I were discussing this image and the PD-India tag around the same time this came up at FfD. Based on my search for R. K. Narayan images, this one is likely from the late 70's/early 80's which implies that it doesn't qualify for the PD-India classification.-SpacemanSpiff 16:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete especially per SpacemanSpiff. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 15 October 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.

File:Nilgiris.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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Nilgiris.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cheeni (notify | contribs).

Indian government pictures are not automatically public domain per the Indian Copyright Act of 1957, Chapter V, Section 25, no evidence this is 60 years old Hekerui (talk) 06:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Copyvio of [1]. Abecedare (talk) 07:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete this is blatant theft. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a copyvio, and there's no evidence of it being older than 60 years. Aiken ♫ 12:02, 20 October 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.

File:Grandblvd.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 Kmccoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:06, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Grandblvd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pepso2 (notify | contribs).

Given the street and trees still exist, this is a replaceable non-free image. PhilKnight (talk) 13:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Below is the discussion (since deleted) as it appeared on the image page with both editor's comment and my response. Since I presented these arguments, I found an additional source on the history of the trees lining Grand Boulevard in Greenwood, Mississippi, and I have added those facts to both picture caption and body copy. I pursue this at length because of the obvious notability ("ten most beautiful") in both image and text.

This image was added to the page at the request of someone who had visited this city. See discussion page. As noted in travel books (see reference), Greenwood's Grand Boulevard was once named one of America's ten most beautiful streets by the U.S. Chambers of Commerce and the Garden Clubs of America. This information was previously in the caption only but has now been added to the body copy. Also more information has now been added to the rationale, including a more complete link to the image source. The purpose of the image is to show why these organizations gave such an honor to the street, one of the most important things travelers would want to know about this city. Why is the image irreplaceable? There are other photos of this street. However, only this photo captures the beauty of the street as it was seen in the 1940s and 1950s, and only this photo shows the street in its full glory as per the citation by the Garden Clubs of America.

Our non-free criteria do not permit the use of non-free images for the sake of illustration. There is no reason given that a Wikipedian cannot visit the city and take a similar photograph; while it may be difficult to capture as pleasant a scene as appears in this image, the quality of this image is not by itself sufficient reason to use it when a free image could suffice. If such an image were provided, differences between the view in this image and the contemporary view could easily convey the previous state of the street. Even now, a verbal description could convey the essential nature of the street — perhaps not quite as well as can this image, but enough that a nonfree image would not be necessary.

The historicity of the image is relevant to the copy. A modern image cannot show the street as it looked when it was given high honors by two leading organizations. This is similar to the type of documentation made by Ken Burns with his use of vintage footage in The National Parks: America's Best Idea. The image is not an illustration of "beauty". The image conveys a historical fact, proving why the organizations made such a choice. Their selection cannot be visualized by text alone, even if described in an extensive word portrait. The image was placed here because copy in a local brochure prompted curiosity. If the image is deleted, such curiosity will return, perhaps prompting new requests. To conclude: Images convey information. No such free image exists or could exist, because in this case, the image itself is history. Pepso2 (talk) 13:52, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm the one who originally tagged it for speedy and wrote the "Our non-free criteria..." paragraph. There's no evidence that this specific picture is a historically significant image, and if we permit this usage, where do we stop? Could we use an image from yesterday because it's now historic and irreplaceable, simply because it showed something as it was yesterday? While we may not be able to find an image that looks as nice as this, that's immaterial to the actual fair-use standards; if I visited this place, I could take an image that was similar enough to convey the necessary information. Nyttend (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant delete As Nyttend notes, there's no citations proving this postcard is historically significant. The street and its trees are of historic importance, not the postcard. As we can see from more modern photos [2][3], the street and trees still exist. Therefore, a new image can be created that is free licensed. Also, though it has nothing to do with deciding to keep or delete, the postcard image isn't all that great. The tone, in particular, is dramatically green shifted. Further, a modern image would offer a much higher resolution image which is preferable to this low resolution image. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, isn't the poor quality of the image another argument for deletion? The poorer the quality of a copyrighted image, the less benefit (even aside from copyright questions) it has over free images. Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just see the other reasons as considerably more important. Plus, the color information is still in the image; if you tone balance it, away from the massive green shift, it looks considerably better, though not representative of the actual postcard anymore. As an aside, I'd like to see the postcard source of this image. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:08, 15 October 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.

File:NogginStamp.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 –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 16:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:NogginStamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Msrasnw (notify | contribs).

Delete: This non-free postage stamp, being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp, fails both WP:NFCC#8 because the stamp's existence and its purpose are already perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity to use the non-free image and WP:NFCC#3a because there is already another non-free image in the article Noggin the Nog. ww2censor (talk) 14:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keeep: This non-free postage stamp, being used to identify the stamp. The image's presence in my view significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the section 'Noggin the Nog#Recognition with a Noggin stamp' and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding and so it passes WP:NFCC#8. There is no other image being used to discuss the stamp which is the topic of the section and so WP:NFCC#3a is not relevant. The other non-free image is being used to identify a book which is clearly different from the stamp. The text of the section is "Noggin has received an accolade achieved by very few Norse characters – he appeared with the Ice Dragon reading him a note from Nogbad, on a British 'greetings' postage stamp (SG1804) in January 1994. The art work for the stamp was drawn by Peter Firmin who also produced a series of illustrations for the advertising campaign to publicize the new stamps.[4] The stamp was one of a set of ten on the theme of 'messages', featuring characters from British children's literature. All the characters were pictured holding a letter, note or message. Noggin's note reads: "I, Nogbad the Bad do hereby promise to be Good."" (Msrasnw (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep -- The image is being used to identify (not merely 'illustrate') the stamp, NOT the character of Noggin (for which it would certainly fail the NFCC guidelines, although the fact that it does show Noggin is a bonus). The stamp is being discussed in the text, as its existence reinforces the notability of Noggin by his recognition beyond the television programme. My understanding is that this is acceptable non-free use. If the problem is with the wording in the NFCC justification, it would be appreciated if help can be given to make the text comply, as it has been written by editors not familiar with the foibles of such text. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the stamp is notable, then it can have its own article. If it's not notable enough for its own article, there's no rationale to include it on this article, which is about the subject of the stamp...not the stamp itself, regardless of the presence of the five sentence (gee, wow! <cough>) section on the stamp. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find in our wikipedia policy support for "If the stamp is notable, then it can have its own article" otherwise ... . I think notable things can be in sections. The section is clearly about the stamp and the image identifies the stamp. I think the stamp's inclusion here helps "to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia" via "judicious use of non-free content". What kind of practical problem is envisaged by the retention of the image on this page? PS I find the use of the sarcastic comments "(gee, wow! <cough>)" is impolite and not likely to lead others to respect the validity of your arguments. Which of the 10 criteria do you think the stamps inclusion fails to meet? (Msrasnw (talk) 14:11, 15 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

What I expressed is common practice around here, and supported by policy at WP:NFCC #8, significance. Also, our WP:NFC guideline is very specific about the use of stamps. We don't use fair use images just to use them. Thanks for the compliments on my sarcasm. I work hard at it. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our policy in stamps and currency seems to me to be "For the identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject." Here we are using the image of the stamp to identify the stamp.

On Contextual significance. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." I would argue that the understanding of the Noggin Stamp is significanly improved by the inclusion of an image of it. Is it the case that you really accept that image helps a bit with identifying the stamp and understanding but that the cost in terms of using non-free images is too great? (Msrasnw (talk) 15:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, you're using the stamp to identify the stamp on an article that isn't about the stamp. Further, you're trying to increase understanding (thus avoiding #8) of the stamp on an article that isn't about the stamp, but instead about the fictional work. Yes, there is a great cost in using fair use images here. That's why it's so severely restricted. We are a free content encyclopedia. We only use non-free content when we absolutely must. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the rule about articles and sections? If there were an article on the stamp instead of a section wouldn't your later point still apply - ie. there is a great cost in using fair use images here. Yes, I am using the stamp to identify the stamp in a section about the stamp. Further, I am trying to increase understanding (thus avoiding #8) of the stamp on a section that is about the stamp. When must we use an image? In my view when not to do so would be "detrimental to understanding" and to preventing significant increases readers' understanding of the topic. In a section about a stamp you should see the stamp. Perhaps an interesting question is how long should the section be to justify a picture? (Msrasnw (talk) 15:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC) )[reply]

The rule is in WP:NFCC #8 significance. We don't and can't codify every possible situation that will arise on Wikipedia. If the stamp is so non-notable as to not enjoy its own article on Wikipedia, no logical argument can be made that we MUST have the stamp image somewhere else. It's a non-notable stamp. Move on. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a rule that you are working too but it is just not written down. And it is quite a clear rule. Perhaps it should be written down somewhere and you could get it discussed as policy and then you could quote it at people in support of you instructions to them. Until it is written down somewhere and accepted we are all finding our way and your tone is hardly constructive. Your suggestion to me to "Move on" is again I think a little rude. It seems to me the stamp is notable (stamps are very important - lots of us use them and lots of people collect them) - the section is on the stamp - the picture helps improve the section by identifying the stamp and our encylopdia is better with it. So all is well with the stamp image in the section. Best wishes, in any case. (Msrasnw (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)) PS I have raised the issue of your suggested rule at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content (Msrasnw (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks for the compliments on my rudeness. If the stamp is notable, why doesn't it have its own article? And, as I said, our NFCC policy does not and can not anticipate every single possible situation that may ever arise. We're just repeating arguments back at each other. If you have nothing new to add, neither do I. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect your rudeness is part of a strategy. There is a dispute about interpretation of guidelines and you quote your side as "the rule" and hope to intimidate editors in experiend in these matters to give up. This is not, in my view, fair. The criteria of needing an article first to establish notability and then to allow an image is one that I think you need to be a guideline or policy or some such before telling people it is one. That is not the way an encylopedia such as this should work. (Msrasnw (talk) 18:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, I suspect you haven't read comment on content, not on the contributor, and that you're using a strategy of attacking the messenger as a means to an end. As to the rule I'm noting, frankly I don't care if you don't believe me. I'm telling you how it is. The same rule has been applied to discographies, bibliographies, videographies, all over the project. But, please by all means feel free to wave a wand and say that since this rule doesn't exist, it's a fabrication I (a very rude person) fabricated so I could win a petty little argument over a single stamp. Hell, I do that all the time. I make up stuff constantly, and then bludgeon people with my rules. Works every time! Everyone always believes me. It's very effective strategy. Heck, it worked here. You believed me too! <cough> Come on. Enough with the bullshit commentary on my 'strategy' and start assuming a little...just a smidgen...of good faith. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is true I have not read comment on content, not on the contributor and clearly should take it into account in future. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 18:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: other than the fact the stamp exists and a description of the stamp there are no reliable sources to verify the stamp is notable in any way that makes it significant. Was there any controversy about the stamp or anything else that made it notable? Apparently not, otherwise that could/would have been added and the stamp would likely have easily passed the fair-use threshold. ww2censor (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: By definition, the very act by a government of issuing a stamp illustrating or commemorating a subject is always notable. Before the 1950s, most country's stamps had nothing more than a printed cost or their king's/queen's/president's face printed, using different colors for each denomination. It was a tiny imprint which had the same effect of currency and coins, except you could glue it on an envelope. Then some countries, mainly the U.S., decided to use stamps to illustrate some "subject," instead of nothing, to help promote the "notability" of the subject. So when a government agency decides to take taxpayer money and create an illustration of something it considers important, one could say that the very "act" of creating and issuing that stamp is "notable" and therefore the "subject" is similarly notable. And by definition, a stamp with no more than a price or common image imprinted (as in currency), would not be notable. The medium is the message; and for stamps, the subject is the stamp, for without the subject no new stamp would have been issued. Notability is always implied in such stamps, even w/o an article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:21, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then I presume you would not mind having an article for every stamp that's ever been in existence? Since this stamp is so notable, I'm sure you can find some significant reliable, secondary sources speaking to how popular this stamp is perhaps, or how it's won record amounts at auction, etc. Anything? Anything? Just creating something doesn't make it notable. I can hit ctrl-p and print this page. That doesn't make this page notable. I could do it a thousand times, and plaster copies of it all over the state I live in. Doesn't make it notable. In the U.S. alone, more than 4,000 stamps have been issued. You honestly think that every single one of these is notable? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're proving the point I'm trying to make, that it's usually impossible to show that a stamp, by itself is notable. Forgetting rare or defective collector items, i.e. stamps, coins, and currency, a tiny piece of perforated paper with glue on the back is simply a machine-made item and therefore cannot be notable. It's the subject printed on the stamp, voluntarily selected and paid for by the government, to honor or illustrate that subject, that is the "notable" aspect. Therefore, a statement/rule such as (#3) allowing an image of "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject," becomes impossible to fulfill. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The stamps were widely discussed at the time of their release (being reported on the BBC (audience in the many millions)), and in the press but this was prior to the internet so the references are hard to come by. Any British Stamp collectors who were young at the time of Noggin being broadcast know the stamp. British philatelists know the stamp. But I would not have thought anyone would doubt this. (If people do doubt this then lack of references is important) On the smallfilms website we can see some discussion of the stamps and an image of the very nice poster by Peter Firmin used by the Royal Mail to advertise the stamps. [[4]] On this site [[5]] in a sub page under Memorabilia and The Stamps we also have some discussion. These are both referenced on the page. The Noggin stamp seems notable to me, worthy of a section and worthy of a picture to allow it to be identified. (Msrasnw (talk) 20:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep - Good image that clearly illustrates the topic at hand. As for the idea above that an image must have article-level notability before it can be included on Wikipedia, that's absolutely idiotic. We would have to delete >95% of our images. - Draeco (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep unless the stamp issuance was shown to be less about recognition and more about making money. Recommend shrinking the image, it's larger than it needs to be to accomplish its purpose. A "postage-stamp-sized" image would do fine. OK, maybe not that small. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reduced size (to less than 20k) as per davidwr's suggestion and modified/corrected errors in summary. (Msrasnw (talk) 15:40, 20 October 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.

File:Machimus cowini.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Machimus cowini.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dave Bellamy (notify | contribs).

Delete: Missing a fair-use rationale, this non-free postage stamp is being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp. Used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose are already perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity to use a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the stamp is notable, then it can have its own article. If it's not notable enough for its own article, there's no rationale to include it on this article, which is about the subject of the stamp...not the stamp itself. This one's section is even shorter than the Noggin stamp case above. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 15 October 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.

File:Mali7.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mali7.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kintetsubuffalo (notify | contribs).

Delete: This non-free postage stamp fails WP:NFCC#1 because it is replaceable by a number of freely licenced scout stamps available from commons:Category:Scouts on stamps; there is even one of Baden Powell. The particular stamp's existence and its purpose could well be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity to use a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete orphaned, and certainly not necessary for the article it has a rationale for. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 15 October 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.

File:Marsupilami stamp.gif

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 ⚡ 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Marsupilami stamp.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pahpaha (notify | contribs).

Delete: Missing a fair-use rationale, this non-free postage stamp is being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp. Used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence is already perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity to use a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 14:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Blatant fail and delete just being used to add spiffy pictures to the page. Yank with prejudice. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 15 October 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.

File:Mesney stamps 1992 lo-res.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 Drilnoth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mesney stamps 1992 lo-res.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by John Hill (notify | contribs).

Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp being used in a non-stamp article without any critical commentary of any kind fails WP:NFC#Images #3 and WP:NFCC#8. The stamp's existence and its purpose is already perfectly well explained in prose without the unnecessary use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete stamps used on the subject of the stamp article, blatant delete. Also add on that it's a non-copyright holder created montage of the six stamps, effectively making this six non-free images, and not one. Wholly unnecessary to the article, where there is already a free image of the subject. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:35, 15 October 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.

@@ Line 24: / Line 24: @@
 The result of the discussion was: '''Delete'''; deleted by {{admin|Skier Dude}} [[User:AnomieBOT|AnomieBOT]][[User talk:AnomieBOT|<font color="#888800">⚡</font>]] 07:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)<!--Template:Ffd top-->
 :<span class="plainlinksneverexpand lx">[[:File:{{ucfirst:May Day Parade 1937 Moscow.jpg}}]] ([{{fullurl:File:May Day Parade 1937 Moscow.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:[[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 October 14#File:May Day Parade 1937 Moscow.jpg]]}}}} delete] | [[File talk:{{ucfirst:May Day Parade 1937 Moscow.jpg}}|talk]] | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:May Day Parade 1937 Moscow.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:May Day Parade 1937 Moscow.jpg}}}}}} logs])</span> - uploaded by [[User talk:GrahamColm#File:May Day Parade 1937 Moscow.jpg listed for deletion|GrahamColm]] (<span class="plainlinks">[{{fullurl:User_talk:GrahamColm|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify]</span> | [[Special:Contributions/GrahamColm|contribs]]).
-*Nothing to suggest that this image meets either criterion 1 or 2 of {{tlx|PD-Russia-2008}} (Author is not listed, so it is unknown if it is anonymous or not-named.) It also doesn't seem to meet Criterion 3: "This work is shot from non-amateur cinema or television film or television broadcast, which was first shown more than 70 years ago." The image would have to have been in the public domain by 1996 for the URAA to apply, and it doesn't look like it was. <font color="navy">'''[[User:NuclearWarfare|NW]]</font>''' ''(<font color="green">[[User talk:NuclearWarfare|Talk]]</font>)'' 01:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
+*Nothing to suggest that this image meets either criterion 1 or 2 of {{tlx|PD-Russia-2008}} (Author is not listed, so it is unknown if it is anonymous or not-named.) It also doesn't seem to meet Criterion 3: "This work is shot from non-amateur cinema or television film or television broadcast, which was first shown more than 70 years ago." The image would have to have been in the public domain by 1996 for the URAA to apply, and it doesn't look like it was. [[User:NuclearWarfare|<b style="color:navy;">NW</b>]] ''([[User talk:NuclearWarfare|<span style="color:green;">Talk</span>]])'' 01:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' given the questionable nature of the image and the fact that the image is not referenced at all in the article means its absence will not harm understanding of the subject. --[[User:Hammersoft|Hammersoft]] ([[User talk:Hammersoft|talk]]) 13:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' unused dubious image. If the case is not clear, it should go. [[User:Aiken drum|Aiken]] [[User talk:Aiken drum|&#9835;]] 12:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)