Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

August 26[edit]

File:Yisroel Dovid Weiss in 2005.JPG[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: deleted per G8 Skier Dude (talk) 04:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yisroel Dovid Weiss in 2005.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carolmooredc (notify | contribs).
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:A&cvolume2dvd.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Deleted per G7.Skier Dude (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:A&cvolume2dvd.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Donaldd23 (notify | contribs).
  • WP:NFCC#8. Non-free image used in eight different articles. In all of them it is used in a subsection about a DVD-release. I can not see any commentary on the design of the cover that would needs an image to be understood. Rettetast (talk) 07:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the uses were in gallery format. I removed them all for failing WP:NFG and have tagged the image as orphaned. Regardless of that, delete as failing WP:NFCC #8. We don't need every cover of every DVD package this was released under. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was the original uploader and I am in agreement that there is no value to using this image. delete Donaldd23 (talk) 22:25, 27 August 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:InstrumentOfSurrender.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Overwhelming consensus image is not replaceable by text. -Nv8200p talk 19:15, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:InstrumentOfSurrender.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Idleguy (notify | contribs).
  • Image of text. Is replaceabe with text. The document can be used as a source, but we do not need to host it at wikipedia. Rettetast (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Methinks it is valuable for historical reference to have a photo of the original document, including signatures etc. Compare German Instrument of Surrender and Japanese Instrument of Surrender which both have such photos. Willy Peter Johnson (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DO NOT DELETE-Its a harsh reminder for human genocide activists that they shall not succeed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.95.17.8 (talk) 12:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should not be deleted. Signatures are not replaceable by text. Refer precedent United States Declaration of Independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.144 (talk) 19:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a treaty copyrightable? I know that other governments copyright their creative works, but would a treaty count? In the US, neither signatures, nor fonts, nor scans of a 2D object are copyrightable, so the only question is whether the treaty text itself is a creative work. The SCT has ruled that state laws are not copyrightable [1]. Obviously, this instrument was first published elsewhere, not in the US, but if we don't recognize laws/treaties as copyrightable, then we can host it here, even though Commons would reject it because of the requirement that it be PD in the home country. --B (talk) 21:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per first two comments. Per B I'm not sure if this is subject to copyright anyways. Hobit (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Replacing a copyrighted image of text with text does not mean it is clear of copyright concerns. Text isn't free by definition. If it were, authors would be out of business permanently. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:31, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.246.218 (talk) 14:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Refer German Instrument of Surrender, Japanese Instrument of Surrender, United States Declaration of Independence Vipin Hari || talk 03:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if the text is copyrighted, then replacing the image with the text as text would be a copyright violation. Are you suggesting something else that I'm not interpreting correctly? 76.66.202.213 (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. it is a valuable part of the article ....any attempt to remove it may bring down ta proof cuz this pic is much real ..--Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 21:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although for accessibility reasons, having the text available as well may be a good idea (Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images), such documents have a function quite aside from the words in them (compare for example with the tourists which go to the National Archives in Washington, DC to see original copies of the US Constitution instead of just looking at the printed or online copies which are almost everywhere). Kingdon (talk) 21:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the image is NOT replaceable by text. In particular, the layout of the text and the signatures are not "replaceable as text." Both are important when it comes to representing historical documents such as this. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:50, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if this image is copyrightable, as B notes above. If it is copyrightable, then it should be deleted because a picture of text is not at all required to understand the subject. Copying the text into the article is an issue not relevant here. ÷seresin 20:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The image documents a unique historical event and contains non-textual elements which cannot be reproduced in text. No commercial loss or individual artistic rights are significantly affected by this image. Nicolai (talk) 11:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I donot believe copyright laws apply to a legal document/treaty/signed public declaration; such a document is given to the posterity as evidence/precedence/article of remembrance. Even if this view is deemed wrong, fare use amply covers the issue due to its historic nature.Sumanch (talk) 16:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Call the question if this is not a copyright violation then it's an obvious keep. Given the comments above, a copyvio-based deletion would go against the community's wishes and should only be backed by a lawyer's opinion that there is no way to legally keep the article, or something equally strong. Note: I put my two cents in above, or I would non-administratively close/keep this myself. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:03, 14 September 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:GreyGoose Corks.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:GreyGoose Corks.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cburnett (notify | contribs).
  • Not used in any articles anymore, poor image quality, not useful for any future articles. →ROUX ₪ 15:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep its a vital part of history--Shashank —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.68.166 (talk) 17:53, 1 September 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_August_26&oldid=1146311431"