Claimed as self-created but looks like either a modified derivative or a screenshot from something to me. Also unencyclopedic and unused. Uploader is long gone. Chick Bowen 00:07, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned personal photo. No ID of who these people are for article use. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 16:28, 8 October 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: Delete; an image from Commons is now showing through. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
currently orphaned image (I notified wikiproject about possible licensing issue), was replaced on Juniperus communis with Image:Jun com cones.jpg. The nominated image is tagged with a GFDL-presumed licnese. Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where? I can see a different Commons image showing through, but no indication that the one we're discussing was moved to Commons. Or is that what you meant? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 10:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry, that's what I meant. I'll change wording in the future... —Wknight94 (talk) 01:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I was just a bit confused since my initial association was with {{Now Commons}}. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 09:27, 15 October 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.
Deleted as a non-free image failing to meet the requirements of WP:NFCC. Self-evidently replaceable as politicians do, necessarily, make public appearances. Angus McLellan(Talk) 16:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted picture of a living Australian Damiens.rf 17:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The licencing requirements are stated and complied with and use of the photo on wikipedia meets the fair dealing requirement. Unless an alterntive photo with a less restrictive licence can be found, I oppose deletion of this photo.--Takver (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The non-free content policy says that "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created" (emphasis mine). It has generally been accepted that free portraits of living people, unless they are notorious recluses, could be created, even if none have been found or created yet. Indeed, it is even explicitly listed as an example in WP:NFC#Unacceptable use (images, example 12). Wikipedia is a project to create a free content encyclopedia. Using a non-free photo (even if the restrictions are mild, as in this case) where a free one could be obtained or created does not serve that goal. Instead, you might want to try contacting Warren Truss or his staff and requesting a free image. Or, heck, he's an Australian politician who presumably makes public appearances, you're an Australian Wikipedian interested in photography... —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't appear to come from Australia so i'll forgive you for not realising Australian politicians are amongst the most reclusive in the world. Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Out of 14 approaches to politicians in my home state of Western Australia, I have so far got *one* photograph, and a few dismissive responses. My attempts to photograph three others failed miserably due to light conditions (it is incredible how many political meetings and rallies are conducted at night in dimly lit venues!) My attempts to photograph the previous Premier failed because I was unable to get less than 40m distance between myself and himself and all my shots in (again) a dimly-lit venue resulted in blurry shots - this was the best I managed to get. In order to even *talk* to a politician personally, you've got to at least be a member of their political party, otherwise you just get their paid staff. We're talking boundary of impossibility here. Orderinchaos 02:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Takver, there does not appear to be a violation of any kind here. Orderinchaos 02:38, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
currently orphaned image (was replaced after notification on WikiProject on ships); replaced on Boat building by Image:Schappledore3.jpg. The nominated image is tagged as GFDL-presumed. Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:35, 8 October 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. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted book cover used just to show the living person displayed. The book is not even mentioned on Wikipedia. Damiens.rf 17:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Andren is dead. But in your haste to be a delete queen you didn't know that did you? Timeshift (talk) 21:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Andren report was originally his regular updates to his electors, which was then edited and combined for the book for a wider audience. Many people outside his electorate also read his regular Andren reports via his website. The book cover is significant as it reflects Andren's communication as an independent MP to his electors and the Australian people. It adds significant detail to the article on Peter Andren, even though the book (or the reports it is based upon) are not yet mentioned in the article.--Takver (talk) 13:01, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dead people are generally not a good fit for the category of "living person", despite the efforts of users for whom reading the first line of an article appears to be a terrible struggle. Rebecca (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject is not living, not replaceable by free image. Orderinchaos 02:31, 13 October 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: - Keep - Peripitus(Talk) 05:42, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This copyrighted picture is not necessary for understanding the article discussing the important event it shows. Damiens.rf 17:39, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I strongly disagree. This photo is iconic and depicts an important moment in the 1975 constitutional crisis - Gough Whitlam's impromptu media conference on the steps of Parliament House. I think retention of the photo adds important detail to the article's content and should be retained under the existing 'fair dealing' copyright licence.--Takver (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. It is impossible to gain a free equivelent of such a photo of such an historic event. Timeshift (talk) 23:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This nomination is not about WP:NFCC#1. If you can, please explain us how is this picture necessary for the understanding of the 1975 constitutional crisis. --Damiens.rf 07:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have to agree with Damiens.rf here: our non-free content policy says that "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." Having read the article this image is used in, I have to say I don't feel that's the case here. Yes, it's a good image. Yes, it's evocative, at least when put in context (which the article as currently written doesn't really do, though). But it doesn't really tell the reader anything that the textual quotation of Whitlam's address at the bottom of the section entitled "The dismissal" (which I assume is what this image is depicting, though the article really doesn't even make this clear) would not already convey just as well or better. The article does not need this image. Per Wikipedia policy, that means we shouldn't use it, given that it's not free. So, delete. Ps. If I'm reading this page right, this picture appears to be under Crown copyright. If Wikipedia is still around in 17 years, we can put it back once the copyright has expired. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a still picture of one of Australia's most iconic historical moments. In the context of the 1975 constitutional crisis, it is the precise moment at which that crisis came to the head - the gentleman at the right is reading out the declaration at which the gentleman on the left is becoming the first Prime Minister (and so far only) ever to be sacked by a Governor General. Orderinchaos 02:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep it, plain and simple, even if for no other reason than no other suitable replacement seems to be ready to take its place. It appears iconic on its face. Alexander Burke (talk) 05:15, 15 October 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.
Copyrighted book cover used to illustrate 2 articles. One of them mentions the book in just 1 phrase.The other one doesn't mention the book at all. Damiens.rf 17:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This copyrighted picture showing politicians sitting together is not necessary for understanding the article discussing the important event it shows. Damiens.rf 17:43, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Now Commons shine-through. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:17, 15 October 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: - Delete - For photos of living people see the note in Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 point 12. That we don't currently have a free photo is not a reason to keep the image...only if taking one is impossible - Peripitus(Talk) 06:20, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Copyrighted picture of living Australian Damiens.rf 17:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. The copyright notice attached to the photo gives explicit permission for reproduction on Wikipedia for 'fair dealing'. If there is no photo in the public domain, then this photo should be retained. This copyright notice would appear to apply to all photos from the Australian parliamentary handbook, and I would therefore oppose deletion of any photo covered under this notice unless a reasonable alternative photo can be provided under a less restrictive licence. --Takver (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"This photograph is from the Australian Parliamentary Handbook, and is held under Crown copyright by the Commonwealth of Australia. The responsible Commonwealth agency, AUSPIC, gave written permission on 2 August 2005 for this photograph to be used at Wikipedia (see following). The use of this image by Wikipedia is contended by Australian Wikipedians to be fair dealing in Australia and fair use in the United States. (Letter from AUSPIC to User:Adam Carr: "Dear Dr Carr, Approval is granted to reproduce images nominated below [photographs of Members, Senators and Governors-General appearing in current and past editions of the Parliamentary Handbook] on the Wikipedia website. Subsequent use by a third party will incur reproduction fees if that use is of a commercial nature. Copyright remains with AUSPIC. Peter West, Director, AUSPIC auspic@aph.gov.au)" - direct quote from the licensing info on the image page.--Takver (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. That it's fair use is not the point. Wikipedia policy goes further and only allows fair use if the person is deceased (in most cases anyway). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:25, 15 October 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 - commons shining through - Peripitus(Talk) 06:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OTRS confirmation pending for more than 12 months. Absent uploader. Unverifiable source. Damiens.rf 17:49, 8 October 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.
currently orphaned image (I notified wikiproject about possible licensing issue), was replaced on Amersfoort with Image:Kei2.jpg. The nominated image is tagged with a GFDL-presumed licnese. Jordan 1972 (talk) 17:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned personal photo. Lower quality, noisy, no information on where it's from. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 19:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned personal photo. No information on where/what it is, so unlikely to be ever usable in the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 19:37, 8 October 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 - I'm assuming here thet Ilmari Karonen's identification and use is correct - Peripitus(Talk) 11:43, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned personal photo. No information on where/what it is, so unlikely to be ever usable in the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 19:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appears to have been uploaded for use in Garda (VR), to which I've restored it. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 12:17, 11 October 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.
Orphaned personal photo, no details on where/what it is, for which airline or plane type. Doubtful we can use it. rootology (C)(T) 20:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image orphaned, no explanation given to determine what the image means, original uploader has not been active since 2005. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 22:33, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned personal photo, no details on where/what it is. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. Out of focus, high noise. rootology (C)(T) 23:18, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned Autocad drawing without a clear explanation of where it could be used. Only contrib of editor. In March 2007. rootology (C)(T) 23:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned personal photo, no clear details on where/what it is. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. Low quality. rootology (C)(T) 23:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned personal photo, no details on where/what it is. Not of great value to the encyclopedia. rootology (C)(T) 23:27, 8 October 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: moved to Commons, local copy speedily deleted. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:13, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image is currently only used on a talk page. The image was uploaded in 2005 and subsequently tagged as GFDL-presumed. The addition to the talk page was in March 2007 asking if the image was of use to the article. Since the image does not appear to have been added to the article after notification (edit summaries are hit and miss in the history of the article), the license is questionalbe and (as far as I can tell) the image should be replaceable by someone easily. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The {{GFDL-presumed}} tagging seems to have been a red herring, since the image was already tagged with {{NoRightsReserved}} by the uploader. Anyway, for my own idiosyncratic reasons (I like it, and I might have a use for it if I ever get around to writing the image editing tutorial I've been planning), I've moved the image to Commons and deleted the local copy per CSD I8. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 13:13, 11 October 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.
orpahned image, absent uploader, tagged as GFDL-presumed, the image could easily be replaced by a visitor or resident of Rio. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:30, 8 October 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: - Delete - Though it may be for the noted article, there is no way of knowing if the subject name is correct and the image is still orphaned. Additionally I see that the absent uploader gave us a greyscale web-sized image with no Exif information and no details apart from the {{pd-self}} template (and his other upload was deleted as an Orphaned fairuse image). This makes me suspect that the image is not free but is taken from a website somewhere - Peripitus(Talk) 06:00, 15 October 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.
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
