Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 May 19

< May 18	May 20 >

"This file is in the public domain, because it was found on the world wide web." Blatant copyright infringement. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This file is in the public domain, because it was found on the world wide web." Blatant copyright infringement. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Same problems as Image:1951 Topps Red Backs Phil Rizzuto.jpg. Unfortunately, this is not an illustration of the product in question (i.e. the specific baseball card) but is being used merely as a stock photo. It is quite possible for someone to make up a fictional card with the design to put on the page. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry that will not work since creating a fictional card would violate Topps copyright. There is no way to show what the cards look like without showing an example of one of the cards, as it is not feasible to reproduce every singe card. It is like with a newspaper or magazine, showing a representative sample. Baseball Card Guy (talk) 02:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How would creating a fictional card violate the Topps copyright, at least in a way that's probably worse than using an actual card does? I mean, we use fictional uniforms for sports teams and there doesn't seem to be a copyright concern. Besides, looking at unacceptable use 7, it describes "A Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds" but it would seem strange to allow its use to illustrate the design of the card itself, even it cannot illustrate the players on the card. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, unencyclopedic. Kelly ^hi! 02:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, users only edits, and two image uploads appear to be all to treat this like a social network. -Optigan13 (talk) 06:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the State of Georgia does copyright their works, see the second bullet point at Wikipedia:Public domain#U.S. government works. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned image. The quality is not good enough for it to be used in Coat of arms, and there seems to be no other article in which this could be used. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, not especially encyclopedic. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 05:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned, low quality, not especially encyclopedic. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Claims to be public domain, but is a concatenation of likely copyrighted images for which no permission for derivative works appears to exist. --Kinu ^t/_c 07:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A person's signature does not add substantial encyclopedic content to the article. It's not necessary to understand the subject. There's no discussion of the signature. Also, there's conceivable a privacy issue of publishing a signature. Rob (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]