Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 January 3

< January 2	January 4 >

January 3

Image:Button noref.jpg

Image:Button noref.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Betacommand (notify | contribs).

Terrible JPEG artifacts, low resolution, unused. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of which are reasons for deleting. If the uploader wants to have it deleted, he can mark it for that. --Hammersoft (talk) 00:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

its not un-used I have it in my user-interface, as an edit toolbar button. I also know a few users who have copied my monobook and they too use it. β^_command 00:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. -Nv8200p talk 23:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image come from a video uploaded to YouTube. This is a copyright violation since the company that owns the videos copyirght has never given permission for their material to be hosted on YouTube and has frequently had their videos taken down. I have suggested to the uploader that they can rent or buy the DVD (since the event has been released twice on DVD) and take a screen cap of the same moment, since that would be allowed. TJ Spyke 07:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hogan slams Andre.jpg

Image:Hogan slams Andre.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alex Roggio (notify | contribs).

The image come from a video uploaded to YouTube. This is a copyright violation since the company that owns the videos copyirght has never given permission for their material to be hosted on YouTube and has frequently had their videos taken down. I have suggested to the uploader that they can rent or buy the DVD (since the event has been released twice on DVD) and take a screen cap of the same moment, since that would be allowed. TJ Spyke 07:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Eh, the medium for getting the image is irrelevent. Simply say the source came from WWE, and that will be enough. Mshake3 (talk) 01:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Led-22123.jpg

Image:Led-22123.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Satya76 (notify | contribs).

Delete Unencyclopedic image uploaded exclusively to act as a vehicle for an image summary that advertises the uploader's business. Mayalld (talk) 10:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:L3413a39a0000_2_3893-1-2.jpg

Image:L3413a39a0000_2_3893-1-2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GingyDude (notify | contribs).

Orphaned; Copyright violation, Google Image Search finds an attribution to FHM. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Doug at work.jpg

Image:Doug at work.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Craig burlinson (notify | contribs).

image not needed

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:

Image:QE2_statue.jpg

Image:QE2_statue.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Flibirigit (notify | contribs).

derivative of likely copyrighted work, given the queen's age. does anyone know when this sculpture was created? Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a photograph of a statue is not a derivative work! Mayalld (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, this is the definition of a derivative work. See derivative work. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is a photograph I took myself, on April 11, 2003, at 5:20 PM, EST. It stands on Parliament Hill in Ottawa. How is a self-created photo copyrighted? Do you want the full uncropped photo version of the statue, or would you like to travel to Ottawa to see it yourself? Flibirigit (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Unless it was created prior to 1923 or the creator died more than 50 years ago, the statue is copyrighted. This means that you cannot release a free photograph of it-- see derivative work. Do you have more information about the sculpture that would prove it is free?Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am no expert in copyright law, but per Canadian copyright law, this does not appear to be a copyvio: [1]

32.2 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright 
(b) for any person to reproduce, in a painting, drawing, engraving, photograph or cinematographic work 
(ii) a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship or a cast or model of a sculpture or work of artistic craftsmanship,
that is permanently situated in a public place or building;

Given that this statue is in a public place, my interpretation of this is that this is not a copyright violation. FWIW, the statue was placed in 1977: [2]. Reso lute 17:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- If this is true, I agree. A note about this should be added to our freedom of panorama page, which makes no mention of Canada. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:56, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you mean Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama? Flibirigit (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I will add a line to that essay. The commons article at Commons:Freedom_of_panorama#Canada argues the same for Canada as I did. Resolute 18:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, the essay already notes to look at the commons article for country by country rights on freedom of panorama. Reso lute 18:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Keep. Yep, in the land of the free, we do have FOP up here. ViperSnake151 20:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In the U.S., this would be an infringement, but Canada's FoP is quite generous. See The Canadian Copyright Act, section 32.2(1)(b). – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 00:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Hooray for freedom of panorama. -Nv8200p talk 23:31, 12 January 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.

Image:Q-is-true.gif

Image:Q-is-true.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gregbard (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic as far as i can tell Calliopejen1 (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:QA6.jpg

Image:QA6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cupito (notify | contribs).

orphan, no source, probably PD because she died in 1925 but it's possible this was colorized after her death (which would make it nonfree) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:05, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:QBrating.xls

Image:QBrating.xls (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Billymac00 (notify | contribs).

orphan, an excel chart ranking quarterbacks by what appears to be an original research equation Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:RAlogo.jpg

Image:RAlogo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by William Grimes (notify | contribs).

Duplicate image is available in png format all dependencies have been changed to reflect Image:RailAmerica logo.png. DP67 ^(talk/_contribs) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Storyhill.jpg

Image:Storyhill.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Killercptwinky (notify | contribs).

It's low-res, all right, but this image is featured solely on a page that is in danger of either an AfD or an SD-A7. Two One Six Five Five ^{discuss my greatness} 19:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as article was kept. This nomination was premature. Spacepotato (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image kept -Nv8200p talk 23:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SUPERAUG.JPG

Image:SUPERAUG.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Detective19 (notify | contribs).

Delete image does not correspond to description Mayalld (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]