Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2012 September 2

< September 1	September 3 >

September 2

Three CD covers

Superfluous to File:Bara-bara-bere-bere-by-alex-ferrari.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 12:49, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 2 and 3 / Delete only 1 - You may have a point regarding the image by Alex Ferrari (digital). But the other two images are actually real releases in other countries where Alex Ferrari version is not available. I am ok with deleting File:Bara-bara-bere-bere-alex-ferrari-digital.jpg, but the other two charting versions should stay as independent, distinct and charting covers. Leo Rodriguez version is charting independently in Netherlands and Belgium (Vlanders) and Michel Telo version is a hit in Italy and Brazil itself. For Leo Rodriguez charting eveidence with my introduced cover see http://dutchcharts.nl/showitem.asp?interpret=Leo+Rodriguez&titel=Bara+bar%E1+bere+ber%EA&cat=s For the Michel Telo charting version cover evidence see http://dutchcharts.nl/showitem.asp?interpret=Michel+Tel%F3&titel=Bara+Bara&cat=s Hardly superfluous covers. Putting the Ferrari cover and denying those two by Rodriguez and Telo means we are exercizing a personal (subjective) preference of one cover over another. All covers are valid covers when they chart in different countries. werldwayd (talk) 18:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 20:17, 13 August 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 04:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC) werldwayd (talk) 04:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no discussion and no sources discussing any of the images in the article. All of the rationales are the, incorrect in this case, "primary image associated with the article" boilerplate ones that are not relevant for these additional images. The inclusion of them adds nothing of significance to reader understanding and their use is largely decorative - Peripitus (Talk) 12:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - each different release is described, and visual identification of that release is important for the reader, just as it is for any album page we have. That the content of the cover itself is not described is immaterial to me: this serves as a means of visual identification which words themselves could not describe anyway. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 09:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:46, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:PinkFloyd MastersofRock.jpg

Superfluous (WP:NFCC#3a) to File:TheBestofthePinkFloyd.jpg. Stefan2 (talk) 18:01, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - completely different design to the alternative cover. When I uploaded it, just that fact was enough to meet NFCC. However, this could easily have critical commentary written on it to pass NFCC with flying colours; a black and white variation shows up in the DSotM sleeve as well. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 18:15, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- One image is enough to identify this product. There is no need for two. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:20, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - The cover does more than identify the product; in many cases it is a part of the product and has come to be as or more famous than the product itself. Also not according to our precedent - as long as alternative covers are distinctive enough and critical commentary addressed the different covers. Also, see Wikipedia:Non-free content/Cover art RfC. Either way, you're disputing the fair use rationale and so these should have been nominated at Wikipedia:Non-free content review, where editors who specifically deal with the free-content criteria would be more likely to respond. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - That RfC discussed whether articles are allowed to have an image or if they can't have any image at all. Here we have a different situation: the article has 2 non-free images, but I think that only one would be enough. Besides, the RfC doesn't seem to discuss WP:NFCC#3a at all. --Stefan2 (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This album cover has no particular significance in the history of the band (nor indeed anything else). It reuses a band photo from elsewhere, and the band most likely had no involvement whatsoever in its use in this content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pink Floyd Relics 1996-300.jpg

Superfluous: File:Pink Floyd Relics 1971.jpg Stefan2 (talk) 18:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This version of the cover is substantially different to the original to the extent that trying to describe how one derives from the over would be far too cumbersome, and much easier to convey with an image. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- However, one image is enough to identify the product. See WP:NFCC#3a. Compare with #File:Gggbrihannadeluxeedition.jpg above which looks like an obvious delete to me. Just superfluous. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:37, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - You need to specify why one image is sufficient per WP:NFCC#3a. "Just superfluous" sounds like "But it's just not notable!". --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - having the differences (mostly it's a colourised version) described in text alone, I find, is sufficient for me to adequately understand the topic. I cannot see what significant additional understanding this image is supposed to give me, it looks to be largely decorative - Peripitus (Talk) 23:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:52, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this is not "mostly a colourised version". The original cover is a line art drawing - this is a photograph of a model. The former was drawn by Nick Mason, the latter was photographed by Storm Thorgerson. Essentially, they are two completely separate pieces of artwork, linked only by theme. More tellingly, the description you refer to is unverified by reliable sources, and its possible this image is the only means to cite this. --Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 10:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:OCTA your wheels.png

New logo uploaded to article. File not used anymore. WJetChao (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Commons. This is not copyrightable anyway, {{PD-textlogo}} applies. We should it back it up on Commons for historical reference. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ccsds logo white on black small.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low quality logo Bulwersator (talk) 04:52, 2 September 2012 (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:Cindy1963rdar.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. Sourced to NASA in the PDF document, figure 14.

Unverifiable source (dead link, IA blocked by robots.txt) Bulwersator (talk) 05:02, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sourced to a NASA paper in PDF form (the file works just fine - for me, at least). Works by NASA are in public domain. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:14, 2 September 2012 (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:Classical Planets.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: Speedy deletion per CSD F1. De728631 (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, File:Solar system.jpg is the same but better Bulwersator (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2012 (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:Press Release (12-02-2008).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 ⚡ 15:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, previously used in a biographical article which was deleted for lack of notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Stanson). Unlikely to have further encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 05:12, 2 September 2012 (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:Epl-talk-logo-small.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 ⚡ 15:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo. Corresponding article was deleted twice for non-notability; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPL Talk and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EPL Talk (2nd nomination). —Bkell (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2012 (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.

FYICODE

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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fyicode.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Realestatefyi.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Badgefyi.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Forsalefyi.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Uploaded by Dawnrenee14 (talk · contribs). Images from a deleted promotional article FYICODE. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2012 (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:Olegi Osepaishvili.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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused images that appear to be blatantly promotional. Corresponding article (Olegi Osepaishvili) was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#G11 for blatant advertising or promotion; the articles Olegi osepaishvili and Osepaishvili olegi have also been deleted multiple times. The Georgian text in the image description here apparently says something like, "Osepaishvili is a great artist, his art, his deep connection to his Georgian origin. The oil painting shows a subtle sense of humor and a deep inner passion. His work has been shown in Russia, Georgia, USA, France and Italy. His paintings are in private collections in many countries around the world." —Bkell (talk) 06:06, 2 September 2012 (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:Huron outline.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: keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, unlikely to be used Bulwersator (talk) 08:56, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The file is used at an article (List of lakes by area) and is essential at that article and is needed & essential for 1-2 others. There is a dispute at the article and it was temporarily taken out (which might temporarily happen again) by someone who claims that Lake Huron is not a lake. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In use. It was uploaded only a few hours before the nomination, so maybe the image had not yet been inserted in the article when it was nominated. I think that it is a bad idea to nominate files for deletion as orphaned immediately after upload. It always takes some time for users to insert them in articles. However, marked as {{Bad GIF}} and {{Should be SVG}}. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Exact same situation as next one down (Michigan outline) which was settled as keep. The person who claims that Lake Huron is not a lake again removed it from the article. I plan to handle it in a civilized way with no rush. The image is essential. North8000 (talk) 01:04, 8 September 2012 (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:Michigan outline.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.

Unused, unlikely to be used Bulwersator (talk) 09:32, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The file is used at an article (List of lakes by area) and is essential at that article. It is also needed and essential for future work at 1, and possibly 2 other articles. There is a dispute at the article and it was temporarily taken out (which might happen again) by someone who claims that Lake Michigan is not a lake. North8000 (talk) 10:54, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK Bulwersator (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2012 (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:Bluepalace.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 ⚡ 15:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, extremely small and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_palace.jpg exists Bulwersator (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2012 (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:Bad Schmiedeberg Heilbrunnen.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 ⚡ 15:09, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

almost the same as http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bad_Schmiedeberg_Heilbrunnen.jpg Bulwersator (talk) 10:53, 2 September 2012 (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:Bangkok 2008 Olympic bid logo.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. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not discussed critically → fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 11:03, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. NFCC #8 doesn't require critical discussion. It requires that the image adds to reader understanding of the topic. The logos -- which have negligible commercial value, and clearly aren't a legal problem -- do that, being probably the most visual and memorable distinctive part of what otherwise is pretty much a rather dry paper process. As to WP:NFG, that is as it says itself general guidance rather than a hard-and-fast rule. It was brought in to avoid galleries of tv episode thumbnails of minimal informative content, rather than images which have real informative relevance to the topic of the article in themselves. These images are exactly the kind of detail that WP should be recording and presenting in the relevant place in our article, if "Summer bids for the 2008 games" is a subject that we aspire that our readers should be able to find a comprehensive treatment of. Jheald (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- But the logos do have minimal informative content and are purely decorative. Note that the article is called Bids for the 2008 Summer Olympics, not Logos for the bids for the 2008 Summer Olympics. This is an article about the bid process, not about the bid logos. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I rest on what I wrote above: the logos (by design) are the most visual, distinctive and memorable things about the different bids. That is the kind of thing people come here purposely to seek, and exactly what -- if we aspire for there to be a solid, comprehensive treatment on the bids here -- we should be presenting. Jheald (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - But WP:NFCC#8 says nothing about images being distinctive or memorable. WP:NFCC#8 says that the images should help you understanding the subject of the article better. The logos provide absolutely no information about the bid process. The logos only provide information about the entities involved in the bid process, but the article is not about those entities. Compare with the article Microsoft Windows: the article is about a piece of software (Microsoft Windows) but not about the entity behind the software (Microsoft), so the Microsoft logo is nowhere to be found in the article, since it is not relevant for the topic. In that case, we are even talking about a {{PD-textlogo}} work (File:Microsoft.svg), so the WP:NFCC#8 restriction doesn't exist in the Microsoft Windows article, but the image is still not included in the article. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2012 (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:Istanbul 2008 Olympic bid logo.svg

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 ⚡ 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per comments above for Bangkok. Jheald (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2012 (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:Toronto 2008 Olympic bid logo.svg

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 ⚡ 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 11:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above for Bangkok. Jheald (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2012 (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:Athens 1996 Olympic bid logo.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 ⚡ 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' per comments above for Bangkok. Jheald (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2012 (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:Toronto 1996 Olympic bid logo.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 ⚡ 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 11:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments above for Bangkok 2008. Jheald (talk) 19:15, 2 September 2012 (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:Melbourne 1996 Olympic bid logo.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 ⚡ 18:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFG. Stefan2 (talk) 11:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comments on Bangkok 2008 above. The question we should be asking for each of these images is: "Is this something that a comprehensive knowledge of the topic should include?" If so, we ought to be presenting it. (NFCC #8) Jheald (talk) 19:20, 2 September 2012 (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:Dragon landing on Mars.jpg

This seems to be an unsettled {{subst:rfu}} case. I am bringing it to WP:FFD to have it settled. On 12 August 2012, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise tagged it with {{subst:rfu}}. User:DMacks later added {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|Best I can tell, Red Dragon (spacecraft) doesn't actually exist yet, so I don't expect a free image could be made for that vehicle that would represent it well. I pinged FutPerf (who added original di tag) a few days ago and got no response.}} Stefan2 (talk) 17:00, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question 1 It says that NASA is involved in the Red Dragon (spacecraft). NASA images are in the public domain. Are there any NASA images of the spacecraft? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question 2 A spacecraft is basically a utilitarian object. Utilitarian objects are in the public domain in the United States. Wouldn't it be possible to make your own 3D model of the spacecraft? Or would you need access to a photo of the spacecraft or even access to a real spacecraft in order to make your own 3D model? --Stefan2 (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I could probably make a line drawing of it but since the DragonRider design (which is what Red Dragon is based off of) isn't finalized, I would recommend we hold off on that for now.--Craigboy (talk) 00:43, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not going to fight this deletion nomination that hard because there's some inaccuracies to the image, like how there's a docking mechanism that wouldn't be on the Red Dragon variant. Also since the DragonRider design isn't finalized yet, we don't know what the Red Dragon will look like.--Craigboy (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncertainties about the eventual embodiment of the subject and a general lack (as far as I can tell) of published blueprints of the current proposal (in order to build our own model) are the core of my non-replaceability argument at this point in the development of it. If someone finds a NASA image now or in the future (Question 1), or SpaceX makes a more concrete (or more in line with later proposals) data available in order to create a free model from scratch (Question 2), this one here becomes replaceable. But if there aren't extensive specific details of the utilitarian form of the object available, I think we're stuck using their creative interpretation of exactly what they envision. If this image is the main source of information they provide and it's non-free (I'm not sure about how "purely utilitarian" this thing is), anyone else's re-creation based substantially on it is a derivative work and therefore non-free. DMacks (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The above makes sense to me. There was a similar case yesterday, involving File:Opel-Adam 3trims 279642.jpg. When I saw the image, I thought "modern car → replaceable" and missed that the car model doesn't exist yet. When this was pointed out to me, I removed my {{subst:rfu}} tagging, since I couldn't find a way to create a free replacement. You may wish to read the discussion on the file talk page about this matter. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:10, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. As with all future designed projects, depicting the object as it's being marketed/displayed is appropriate. Once the ship becomes a prototype, we can delete this image. Right now, it's pretty much all that exists. Buffs (talk) 02:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Old K-LOVE Logo.jpg

As a company logo, I do not believe this can be released under CC-SA. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:48, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Under the current license, agreed, not bloody likely. However, I don't know if this necessarily can be PD-text or if it's original enough to qualify for copyright. Could someone else weigh in on this? I think we need more information. SchuminWeb (Talk) 11:41, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:29, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Text isn't supposed to be copyrightable in the United States. However, one could argue that the "K" isn't a letter but a human being. Tricky case. "No soliciting" (copyrighted) isn't very complex, but at the other end we have File:Nikken Logo.jpg (not copyrighted). Still, I would argue that the examples at Commons:COM:TOO#United States look more simple than this logo. They basically just show the name or abbreviation of the company in a fancy font, sometimes with some extremely simple or PD-old artwork. This logo shows not only what the entity is called, but it also tells you that you should listen to the radio channel and dance. Maybe this makes the logo too creative. --Stefan2 (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Into The Vietnamese Kitchen p10.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 F5 by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scan of copyrighted text not used in any articles, only in the Talk namespace; fails WP:NFCC#7. In any case, this text was used only to serve as a source in a discussion. We shouldn't be uploading copyrighted documents here as sources; we just need to cite them. —Bkell (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just use {{subst:orfud}} when you find something like this. A non-free file is orphaned if it isn't used in the article namespace. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I was considering doing that, but I was a bit surprised that some bot hadn't come around and done it automatically, so I hesitated, thinking that maybe {{orfud}} wasn't appropriate. But now I know. —Bkell (talk) 19:38, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded them. Please speedily delete. — AjaxSmack 02:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bkell, a question - my understanding of copyright is that an representation of a short chunk of text for review or discussion purposes is fair use, and that whether it is manually reproduced or reproduced in the above method doesn't matter. Is my understanding incorrect, it could be.

I'm not arguing with the deletion, they served the purpose, they were a very useful source for a discussion that led to the articles being restored after undiscussed moves to the form found in the Vietnamese cookery books AjaxSmack uploaded. Due to the limits of OCR/GoogleBooks I honestly think that without AjaxSmack's uploads those articles would now be misnamed based on a misreading of sources - and I don't think you can link to specific page in Amazon LOOK, again I may be wrong.

The reason I'm asking is twofold. (1) An example of one of those type of images would be a useful upload for a HOWTO page on reliable sources, (2) I'm kind of hoping AjaxSmack will occasionally do similar, as they are incredibly useful in a 7-day WP:RM which hinges on what sources actually look like, which only Amazon LOOK can show.

If this isn't the place, please reply on my Talk page. Thanks! In ictu oculi (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that short excerpts from copyrighted works generally qualify as fair use. I'm sure that these images, as they were used, qualified as fair use under United States copyright law. But their use did not meet the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, specifically point 7, because they were not used in an article. The Wikipedia non-free content policy is intentionally stricter than United States copyright law, because our aim here is not merely to follow the law in producing an encyclopedia but to produce a free encyclopedia that anyone can use for any purpose.

Now, I don't really think these images did any harm. They were probably quite useful in the discussions in which they were used. I don't think the actual scans were necessary, though; a simple citation of the work, and possibly a textual quotation, would have sufficed.

In any case, we really should not be encouraging editors to upload copyrighted documents to use as sources—the proper way to refer to sources is to cite them, not to upload them. This instance was not particularly bad, because the excerpts were quite short; but I've seen editors upload entire PDFs of presumably copyrighted documents simply to serve as sources. So I really don't want to see a how-to guide explaining the process for uploading copies of sources. ;-) —Bkell (talk) 03:37, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, I understand about the how-to. Nevertheless, those examples were both good and useful, and helped us around the technical problem that it is impossible to cite to a LOOK page in Amazon.com, I just tried it. It would be good to find some way to follow the spirit of the rule for the 7-days that a RM lasts.... but... the greater priority of the "free encyclopedia" is understood. Maybe we'll just have to expect people to develop good faith and actually believe an editor citing something from Amazon LOOK. :) Thanks for your full answer, complete and nicely put. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:28, 3 September 2012 (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:Drum majors.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 ⚡ 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo of some drum majors. Unlikely to have encyclopedic use. Tagged {{PD-self}}; a source URL is given, and the justification for the public-domain claim seems to be "its just a school website and i asked the people in the photo". —Bkell (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2012 (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:Mikey3.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 ⚡ 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo of a high school band. Unlikely to have encyclopedic use. Tagged {{PD-self}}; a source URL is given, and the justification for the public-domain claim seems to be "the image is on a public domain," which is evidently a misunderstanding of what "public domain" means. A request for clarification on the uploader's talk page five years ago produced nothing. —Bkell (talk) 19:36, 2 September 2012 (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:Bell tower.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused low-resolution image. —Bkell (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2012 (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:Fooshy logo.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused logo. —Bkell (talk) 20:09, 2 September 2012 (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:Minnie Mars Jamieson Elementary 2007.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 ⚡ 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low-resolution photo of a school. The corresponding article (Minnie Mars Jamieson Elementary School) was deleted as a copyright violation. —Bkell (talk) 20:31, 2 September 2012 (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:Nosferatu Movie Poster.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 ⚡ 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The description of this image is false; This image is not a poster, but rather a copyrighted DVD cover of the restored edition of Nosferatu. There's not even any explanation on the page as to why the image is irreplaceable. At least a screenshot of the film, cause the film itself is in the public domain (well, in the U.S. copyrighted in Germany until 2029), could be used in the film's infobox to illustrate the entire subject, rather than a copyrighted DVD cover. EditorE (talk) 21:05, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the original images from the film can be used to illustrate the article, the DVD cover isn't needed. That aside, Germany has a copyright term of 70 years, so if copyright was only held by F. W. Murnau then the screenshots should have been PD since 2001. And while Universal acquired the rights for adaptions, the original publishing company Prana-Film went bankrupt in 1922 right when the fim was first published. De728631 (talk) 21:20, 7 September 2012 (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:Hedgehoghugs.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 ⚡ 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused Sonic the Hedgehog fan art. No encyclopedic use. Likely copyright violation as a derivative work. —Bkell (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2012 (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:Pct6118.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 ⚡ 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused map in JPEG format. The copyright notice from the source [1] includes a clause that says, "reuse is however conditional upon respect of the integrity of the information and data…." It is unclear to me whether this clause is meant to prohibit derivative works, but if so, the license is not free enough for Wikipedia. —Bkell (talk) 21:39, 2 September 2012 (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:CNSStudent1.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 ⚡ 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly from http://fri.cns.utexas.edu/. The rotates images routinely so it is impossible to locate the exact image.. Sumanch (talk) 22:12, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update - According to metadata, the author is Sasha Haagensen of College of Natural Sciences. Image title - Student Researchers 2008.Sumanch (talk) 22:16, 2 September 2012 (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:KEC 7001.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 ⚡ 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photographs of furniture. Their purpose seems to be to promote a furniture business. —Bkell (talk) 22:17, 2 September 2012 (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:Chat room.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unused screenshot of non-notable software; seems promotional. —Bkell (talk) 22:42, 2 September 2012 (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:SealOfTheEmpireOfMan.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 ⚡ 07:04, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fan art. The use of fan art in an article about a novel seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia. It might be considered original research or a copyright violation as a derivative work. —Bkell (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fake seal used in place of the real thing. The novels describe the seal but don't have a picture of it, so any artistic representation would be just an interpretation of text, and text can be interpreted in many ways. The only way fan art could be used is if it is a diagramatic representation without artistic flair. -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 06:40, 3 September 2012 (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.