Non-free image fails NFCC. Fails NFCC#1, easily replaceable (or not even needed) and NFCC#8, adds nothing relevant to the articles it's in. -
Nard01:14, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Unused image. Not sure of what - CD cover? Summary says "I own the copyright for this image as I took the picture and am in the band". Comment on image says "Get on yer bike and ride..."
Soundvisions1 (
talk)
04:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
The official seal is the National coat of arms, this is the Institutional image of this Presidency (not a "temporary logo") and it goes in all the paperwork of the Executive Power and its dependencies, which use a customized logo based upon this model. Besides this, the story of how the Institutional image was "restored" to the full coat of arms ("slashed" during the Fox administration) was an important event in Mexican politics, making the image revelant to the article.
Keep Government seals are public domain under Mexican law. I am going to move this to Commons with correct licensing. -
Nard19:47, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Delete the .gif; keep the new upload (a .png file of a single panel from the comic in question.) This seems in better keeping with fair use. (n.b., I'm the original uploader.)
Sdedeo (
tips)
20:54, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Really? What do you think about this claim of irreplaceability: "A pictureaustralia.org and images.Google search reveal no other photo of Blunt whatsoever, there are no copyleft alternatives of such a photo"
[2]
And the rationale goes on with some blatant lies, like that "the photo and its historical significance are the object of discussion in the article" and some other non-senses, like saying that the person featured on the photo "is no longer in the public domain" and that the image (a headshot) shows a "major event in significant person's life"
Speedy Keep It looks already appropriately tagged prior to nomination and seems bordering on disruption, seeing that nominator has had history of bad faith edits. --
Arnzy (
talk·contribs)
07:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep - meets NFCC criteria and appropriately tagged for fair use. It is NOT used on the subject's biography page which would be in breach of NFCC criteria; it is used on a separate page to do with a party the person was involved in. Also bordering on disruption to renominate this.
JRG (
talk)
12:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Strong delete does not meet NFCC. There is absolutely no reason for this image to be used in that article. He is mentioned once, in the party leaders list. In no way does the article make critical commentary about the subject of the image that warrants this photo. Additionally, he is a living figure and, as such, a free image is feasible to obtain.
Either way (
talk)
01:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)reply
It is not feasible to obtain. You cannot think like an American and consider it is easy to get. Blunt is not in public life anymore.
JRG (
talk)
02:18, 4 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete - I gotta agree with Damiens and either way. on the failure of NFCC -- He is not a reculuse, the image in no way has historical significance, and just because an image does not currently exist does not mean it is appropriate to use a non-free image. Many people on WP believe no image is better then a non-free one.--
Jordan 1972 (
talk)
02:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Delete as per .--
Jordan 1972's comments. Fails
NFCC #1. "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." While there may be no images available, one could be created. --
AussieLegend (
talk)
05:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep, while an image of Blunt now could presumably be acquired, it would not be appropriate to have a modern image of Blunt on the page of his political party (
National_Party_of_Australia), given that his appearance is presumably rather different, and for the reasons enunciated in the Fair Use rationale. NFCC therefore does not apply as any image that we could create of Blunt would not serve the same encyclopædic purpose as this image.
Lankiveil(
speak to me)13:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC).reply
What purpose did it serve to the article? As I noted, all it was was a picture of him that had the caption of his name and when he served. The article also had his name in a list. There was no critical commentary gained through the usage of this image.
either way (
talk)
02:03, 6 November 2008 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was: Delete It's of decent quality, so I was considering keeping it per Lifebaka. However, the licensing is extremely suspect and I'm guessing it's a copyvio. No use keeping an unused image that's a potential legal liability, especially when we have about a million photos of moustaches already.
Calliopejen1 (
talk)
13:40, 11 November 2008 (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.
Please keep - non-use is not a reason for deletion. Put it on Commons if it isn't used, don't ust delete it; there are no copyright problems here.
JRG (
talk)
00:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)reply
To quote the guidelines for IFD: "State the reasons why the image should be deleted. Some common reasons are...Orphan - The image is not used on any pages in Wikipedia."
If someone is volunteering to upload it to Commons, I add to the wish list that an SVG version should be made and the source for the information should be provided. --
Damiens.rf00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)reply
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 debate was: - Keep - a true and accurate (as this appears to be) rendition of a public domain work is subsequently public domain. It has been variously expounded that, no matter how skillfull, slavishly copying something that is PD does not add a layer of copyright over the top. The sites (c) notice DOES apply to text on the page however -
Peripitus(Talk)07:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment: I can't find any explanation on their site regarding the licensing of their images. Can you enlighten me how this image is a copyvio? ~~
[ジャム][talk]23:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep: The image of the flag is straight from the
Flag Institute's "UK Flags Register". A condition of registration is that the flag design be freely available and subject to no copyright claim. I suspect that the one on Commons is the older version, not the official, registered flag.
Keep as above how can it be subject to copyright? To quote from the Flag Institutes site - Criteria for inclusion in the Flag Registry - The design must be in the public domain, ie. not subject to copyright.
Keith D (
talk)
21:51, 9 November 2008 (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.