Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 October 7

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Japanese cicada stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chzz (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 could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a) Why was I not notified of this discussion? b) Please could you clarify your deletion argument; I don't understand it, specifically the part about "being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp" - I'm not being pointy here, I honestly don't understand that sentence. Thanks!  Chzz  ►  05:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please consider the Non-free use rationale rationale that I provided; "represent the influence of the animal in popular culture, Representation adds encyclopaedic value to the article by demonstrating the importance of imagry of the animal in Japan; this is a unique example".  Chzz  ►  05:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You were notified with this edit. There is no verification by a reliable source of your claim the stamp is shown "represent the influence of the animal in popular culture" other than a caption which states it existence. ww2censor (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, stamp image used for decoration only. Not even mentioned, let alone subject to critical commentary, in the article. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 7 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeita stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Elie plus (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp 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 use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 00:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep the stamp is no longer in use since 40 years, usage of image is fairly justified: the section title is numismatics and philately. Eli+ 06:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, readers don't need to see the stamp to know it existed. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment your justification is silly, readers dont need to see any picture in any article to know the subject existed, so why dont you apply your deletionism on all non free images on wikipedia. At least this one's use is perfectly justified. Lebanese copyright law allows educational use Eli+ 09:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the main requirements for non-free content in Wikipedia is that it must substantially improve readers' understanding of the article on which it is used. This image is used in List of people on stamps of Lebanon, and it does not improve readers' understanding that article. Even if your comment on deleting other non-free images held water, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not considered a strong argument. Stifle (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not alowed per WP:NFC#Images #3. Rettetast (talk) 10:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It is still a copyright stamp and the fact that it is 40 years old does not justify its use, besides which there is no attempt to provide any reliable source to support the text: "Jeita became a national symbol when Lebanese authorities issued a stamp featuring the lower cavern to promote national tourism". How do we know this? Who said so? Please provide some sourced commentary about the stamp itself, not the place and justify the fair-use rationale. ww2censor (talk) 12:47, 8 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Johan Laidoner stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Karabinier (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp 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 could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 00:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the image is related to a section that discusses the stamp itself. --Martintg (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, users do not need to see the stamp to understand the article. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Image of the stamp is to aid identification of the issued stamp. --Martintg (talk) 10:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be fine, if the article was about the stamp. It's not. It's about the person depicted on it. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: beside which there is no fair-use rationale for this use, even if justification of the purpose was made. The current rationale relates to a different article entirely; for that reason alone it could be deleted. ww2censor (talk) 12:51, 8 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.

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. There are other images in the same section which do not carry the additional copyright baggage of being stamps. kmccoy (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jerusalem Stamps.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic on the stamp in an article not about the topic, Marc Chagall 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 could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 00:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Commentary about the stamps and the subject is included in the article in detail and the stamps were issued to illustrate and commemorate the stained glass produced by Marc Chagall. There is no commercial or artistic detriment to the government of Israel by displaying their stamps and stamps are meant to be publicly displayed each time they are used on an envelope. An article about Marc Chagall, the artist who made these windows, would be the most logical and beneficial place to show these images. The images shown on these stamps could not be described by prose alone as stained glass must be seen to be understood. The image shows only small 150px portions of the stamps and can only have the effect of supporting the commentary in the article. While the stamps are not as good as real photos, one could argue that discussing these windows without some illustraton would be detrimental to the subject's understanding.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Citation and text added. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The stamps are used to decorate a section about stained glass windows, which already has two images of Mr. Chagall's stained glass windows. They are replaceable there by photographs of the said windows. If they were used in a section about the stamps themselves, it would be OK. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't the only copyrightable part of the stamps the stained glass images they contain? As far as freeness is concerned then, how are they distinguishable from photographs of the stained glass? Postdlf (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The photographs are copyrightable in and of themselves due to the photographer's choice of angle, lighting, composition, exposure, etc. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Those elements would only be copyrightable if the stained glass were 3-D, which it doesn't appear to be based on the stamps. An accurate photograph of a 2-D work of art is not independently copyrightable. Postdlf (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's still a derivative work though, and hence non-free (assuming copyright exists in the original work). Black Kite 06:20, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's still a derivative work? The stamps? Not if they didn't contribute anything copyrightable; they just present images of the stamps with labels. Or do you mean the photographs of the stained glass within the stamps? Not if they are accurate photographs of 2-D art. Then the only copyright at issue is the stained glass itself, in which case using the stamps is no different than using one's own photograph of the copyrighted stained glass. Postdlf (talk) 14:48, 12 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jose Maria Moncada.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jamespeterka (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the subject of the stamp and used in a non-stamp article clearly fails WP:NFC#Images #3. ww2censor (talk) 00:24, 7 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Juan Bautista Sacasa.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jamespeterka (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the subject of the stamp and used in a non-stamp article clearly fails WP:NFC#Images #3. ww2censor (talk) 00:26, 7 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Julius kuperjanov stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Karabinier (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp 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 could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the image is related to a section that discusses the stamp itself. --Martintg (talk) 03:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the prose does not discuss the stamp; it just identifies the fact that a stamp was issued. There is no discussion about the stamp itself by way of critical commentary at all that should be supported by verifiable reliable sources. Besides which the stamp is missing the required fair use rationale for its use in the article Julius Kuperjanov in which it is currently displayed. ww2censor (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes ofcourse, I am intending to expand the section to discuss the stamp, and will add a rationale in due course as well. --Martintg (talk) 04:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, standard decorative fair use. Readers do not need to see the stamp to know that it was issued. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Image of the stamp is for identification of the issued stamp. --Martintg (talk) 10:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And is it necessary to understand the article about the person depicted on the stamp? Stifle (talk) 08:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is no need to include the image. There is no critical commentary on how te stamp looks like and it is not needed to show the subject of the article. Also. It has no rationale for the only article it is used, and therefore fails WP:NFCC#10. Rettetast (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Critical commentary doesn't appear to be a requirement. WP:NFC#Images #3 states: "Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency". --Martintg (talk) 11:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's one requirement; you can see the rest at WP:NFCC. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 8 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurpie stamp 01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikited (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp 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 could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 03:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but one I think there is a valid case to be made for including one of these images, but not four or five of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 8 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurpie stamp 02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikited (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp 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 could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but one I think there is a valid case to be made for including one of these images, but not four or five of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 8 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurpie stamp 03.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikited (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp 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 could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but one I think there is a valid case to be made for including one of these images, but not four or five of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 8 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kurpie stamp 04.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wikited (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp 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 could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 03:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but one I think there is a valid case to be made for including one of these images, but not four or five of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 8 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:L'Oiseau Blanc stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Elonka (notify | contribs).

• Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to identify the topic of a stamp and 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 could be perfectly well explained in prose without the use of a non-free image. There are other non-free images of the L'Oiseau Blanc that would likely pass WP:NFCC easier than an image of a stamp. ww2censor (talk) 03:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The image of the stamp portrays information which could not be adequately represented by text alone, is clearly discussed in the article, and represents an anniversary event directly related to the subject of the article (the plane's disappearance). --Elonka 03:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you tell me what information you think the image of the stamp conveys that (a) could not be adequately represented by text and (b) is so important that readers would not understand the article as well if it were removed? Stifle (talk) 08:08, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite simply, what the stamp looks like. Text could say, "the 40-year anniversary stamp included an image of the biplane and its two aviators," but that is a poor substitute for seeing the actual image. Further, the stamp includes an image of Nungesser's wartime logo, which is very difficult to convey in text. And since the plane was lost at sea, no free images could reasonably be obtained in modern times. --Elonka 03:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No critical commentary on the stamp. Clear violation of WP:NFC#Images #3. Rettetast (talk) 11:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Besides which the stamp is being used in the infobox. This is the place where we use an image to identify the subject of the article and, despite the lengthy caption, that is its use here. The infobox should have an appropriate freely licenced image of the plane, such as the one here which might actually be free. Imagery of the fliers is unnecessary here. All the caption tells us is what is displayed on the stamp with no commentary about the stamp itself and no reliable source to back it up. Sorry but the use is inappropriate. ww2censor (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for searching for a new image, but the one you linked is not appropriate. For one, it's copyrighted by the French Air & Space museum, as the copyright image below the image clearly shows. It also says "droits réservés", meaning "rights reserved". It is not a free image. Further, there is someone standing in front of the part of the fuselage where Nungesser's wartime logo would have been displayed. Which means that we still have a reasonable case for fair use of the stamp image in the Wikipedia article: It is a commemorative stamp related to a significant anniversary of the article subject, it is discussed in the article, it is sourced, the imagery of the stamp could not be adequately conveyed in text alone, and there is nothing about the use of the stamp's image which could negatively impact the rights of the copyright holder. Indeed, the stamp was only issued for a brief period in the 1960s, so it is not possible that there could be any negative impact whatsoever on sales. --Elonka 21:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: What about an image of the First Day Cover of the stamp, showing the stamp along with the postmark and other artwork on the cover related to the anniversary? Would that then be Fair Use? Or would it then be "photographer permission" for the derivative work? --Elonka 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but one I think there is a valid case to be made for including one of these images, but not four or five of them. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only one Fair Use image on the article. So does this mean that you are saying to keep it? --Elonka 03:18, 13 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Davidlewis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Formeruser-81 (notify | contribs).

• I declined to speedy delete this file because it is a somewhat complicated issue, and it sat around nominated for speedy deletion for an entire week, so it seems no one is comfortable deleting it through that process. This file is taken from the Library and Archives of Canada. The licensing information on their site[1] says the following conditions must be met:

• Library and Archives Canada is identified as the source;
• You exercise due diligence in ensuring the accuracy of the material reproduced;
• You do not manipulate and/or modify the material reproduced; and
• The reproduction is not represented as an official version of the material reproduced or as having been made in affiliation with, or with the endorsement of, Library and Archives Canada.

• Is that conistent with Wikipedia's licensing, or isn't it? My thinking is that the criterion that it not be modified is a deal-breaker, but if there is one thing I know for sure it's that I am not an expert in this particular area. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I corresponded with LAC on this issue and it is quite clear that their licensing is incompatible with Wikipedia. It's annoying that some of their language implies otherwise (the "no restrictions on use" phrase refers to the restrictions that the original creator has put on LAC, not LAC on the general public). See also the notice at commons:Category:Images from Library and Archives Canada. --Padraic 10:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can't modify it. That's not allowed. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • "You do not manipulate and/or modify the material reproduced" is a deal-breaker as it prohibits derivative works. Delete. Stifle (talk) 21:18, 10 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.

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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Parco dello Storga - Treviso.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Patafisik (notify | contribs).

• Now this image already exist in commons Patafisik (talk) 08:14, 7 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:RED TAPE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Carrion0819 (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE Eric Bauman (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey, do you think you might want to put these nominations in English instead of "alphabet soup," it's not very clear why you are nominating these images. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviations are on the main page WP:FFD. Eric is saying this is an orphan file, uploaded but not used anywhere, so why have it? And that it's UnEncyclopedic, doesn't serve the purpose of an encyclopedia. Typing the four letters "OR, UE" saves him typing time... and everyone else reading time. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guide to deletion asks users not to use Wikipedia acronyms in their nomination statements. The least he could do is link them, for this very reason. This is confusing even to experienced Wikipedians, I am personally familiar with "OR" meaning "original research" and "UE" meaning "use English." I shouldn't have to be a mind reader or an expert in image specific acronyms to understand a nomination statement. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:12, 12 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.

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:VR.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Prowl583 (notify | contribs).

• OR, UE, CV Eric Bauman (talk) 13:12, 7 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Us senate result 2000.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Willhsmit (notify | contribs).

• OR, OB Eric Bauman (talk) 13:22, 7 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Uncanny4.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yiotaskarveli (notify | contribs).

• OR, AB user has a history of CV Eric Bauman (talk) 13:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uploader appears to be the artist, or at least consistently claims so. COI when writing about herself, but not CV. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:07, 10 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Now in the Past.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yiotaskarveli (notify | contribs).

• OR, AB user has a history of CV Eric Bauman (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uploader appears to be the artist, or at least consistently claims so. COI when writing about herself, but not CV. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:06, 10 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Book of Hours III.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Yiotaskarveli (notify | contribs).

• OR, AB user has a history of CV Eric Bauman (talk) 13:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The uploader appears to be the artist, or at least consistently claims so. COI when writing about herself, but not CV. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 04:05, 10 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:TN DSCN0909.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kylewong (notify | contribs).

• OR, LQ Eric Bauman (talk) 13:57, 7 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.

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 close - no substantive reasons were advanced for deletion, and the nomination appears pointy -- Y not? 14:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Shalhevet Pass.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joyson Noel (notify | contribs).

• What this toddler looked like is not relevant for the explanation of the events that caused her death. Damiens.rf 15:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: While the photograph is not relevant for the explanation of the events that caused her death, it is highly relevant for the illustration of her appearance so as to let readers know what the toddler looked like, especially since the article is about her murder. Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 15:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What the toddler looked like isn't relevant. She just looked like any white toddler of her age. --Damiens.rf 20:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, it is. The flawed reasoning behind your argument for deletion is apparent. Do all white toddlers look alike? If so, may i know as to from where did you get that piece of information. Is it statistics, or are you a recognized independent observer of some sort? By that logic, i could also argue that Kofi Annan looks like a lot of black men of his age who sport a French beard. Hence, there is no need for illustration. Now, does that make any sense? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 21:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be inactive in Wikipedia for a long time. As a result, i will be unable to respond. However, i must point it out to you that a person's similarity in appearance (in this case, the toddler) to someone else is not a valid reason for image deletion. The reason that you propose is nowhere mentioned in WP:GID as justification for deletion. Furthermore, the article is about her murder. So, on what basis can you claim that what she looked like is irrelevant and doesn't deserve illustration? Joyson Noel ^{Holla at me} 21:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Relevant image to the story and identification of the subject. - DonCalo (talk) 23:49, 7 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.

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⚡ 00:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Braggingrights2009a.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Skiryder4life (notify | contribs).

• An already existing image that serves the same purpose is already used in the article. The current format as agreed to by WikiPorject Professional Wrestling is to use the poster, which is already in the article. TJ Spyke 20:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually there was no agreement, the discussion is still underway.--WillC 22:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The agreement was from a long time ago, when it was decided to go from the DVD covers to the posters. The current discussion is just because a user doesn't agree with the consensus and wants to change it. TJ Spyke 23:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to see that discussion, because usually no discussion is ever held. It is just, since it has become the normal format it is a seeming consensus without ever discussing it.--WillC 00:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I oppose the deletion. There is a discussion underway at WP:PW. So far, the majority is in favor of the use of this type of image. You assessment of why there's a discussion going on is in error, besides being irrelevant. Wwehurricane1 (talk) 00:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Bulletproof has already made the necessary modifications to this image, File:Bragging Rights (2009).jpg. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 10:22, 10 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.