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
Deleted. Orphaned, none objecting. WilyD 13:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution), Unencyclopedic (uploaded for Cole industries - deleted through WP:Prod process) BigrTex 02:23, 5 August 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 discussion was: Kept Nomination was dependent on AfD result which was keep. ~ BigrTex 02:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is in conjunction with the image's related article, also up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandro Nocentini. If that article is deleted, this would be orphaned and b/c of it's GFDL status, likely transferred to Commons. However, I feel the uploader may have been unfamiliar with what GFDL is because they already had blatently violated WP:VANITY and made no other edits to wikipedia. In good faith, i feel we should delete the image, pending article deletion, because in all likeliness the artist would not appreciate finding their work used for commercial purposes without compensation. ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is rather jumping the gun, seeing as the article hasn't even been deleted and the first response is a keep. Also click on WP:VANITY to see why it shouldn't be used as a shortcut. Ty 02:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for pointing me to that, i was unaware of the change. as for me jumping the gun, i think more people who nominate at AFD should concurrently begin discussions about what to do with orphaned images, we have thousands sitting on the servers right now that either should have been moved to Commons right away, or nominated for deletion. there's absolutely nothing wrong with garnering consensus on the condition of deletion. at any rate though, it seems the AFD nom has worked better than the two-year old cleanup tag :) the article has greatly improved. -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria 13:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks for the last comment.:) I think it best to settle the AfD, then deal with any images. However, in this case it is a prize-winning painting, and is now also on the Sulman Prize page. I don't think we can second-guess uploaders' intentions: they release under GFDL of their own choice. Ty 00:35, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The image's inclusion on the Sulman Prize article appears to settle any concerns about conflict of interest - it's notable and, as a pretty straightforward image, unbiased. I'm ambivalent about ΖαππερΝαππερ's point about whether the artist/uploader actually intended to release it into the public domain. On the one hand, a professional artist almost certainly has at least a passing understanding of intellectual property issues, and in any event the release into PD is irrevocable. On the other hand, it seems like an unusual move for a professional artist to release such an image, and I've seen no evidence that the uploader is in fact one and the same as the artist (other than that the uploader chose that particular PD template with first-person language). I guess, I'm feeling that we deal with it if the copyright holder protests. --Ipoellet (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The image is fine and the article will probably survive. I see no problems with keeping a relevant and important picture demonstrating without words what the work looks like....Modernist (talk) 23:24, 8 August 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.
Not used, also no indication on the source website that the image has been released as public domain, or even that the source website actualy hold any rights to this in the first place (victim photos grabbed from newssite). Sherool(talk) 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's a screenshot from a television news broadcast. Kind of a reach to suggest that the station's owners have released it under a free license or into PD. --Ipoellet (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, can't find any info about this particular image, but content on drummerworld.com in general appears to be under standard copyright restrictions. Sherool(talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, don't think there is a great call for armpit photos, but if anyone thinks otherwise feel free to move it to commons instead. Sherool(talk) 23:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, can't find image on the linked source website and it seems to just be a single page webhost of some kind... Sherool(talk) 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not used, can't find this exact image on the source website, but the site only contain a standard "all rights reserved" notice so not sure why this would be tagged PD either. Sherool(talk) 23:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
