Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 October 24



File:P7180074.JPG

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:P7180074.JPG ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Wile e2005 ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned. Not moved to Commons because of blurry quality. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:16, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, not useful; the images in Commons:Category:Fire alarm notification appliances make this entirely needless. Nyttend (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree, all the photoshop magic in the world can't fix this and there are plenty of good images in commons.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Useless image. This adds nothing of value to wikipedia. Outback the koala (talk) 16:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:File name.ext

 * 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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace " " with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after " ", and your reason for deletion just after " ". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * File:File name.ext ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by User talk: ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * 124.182.28.200 (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Vincenzo Perrella.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Vincenzo Perrella.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by User talk: ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Orphaned. Unencyclopedic, possible copyright violation 124.182.28.200 (talk) 07:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see any reason to call this a possible copyvio, but it's definitely useless. Nyttend (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I can see this potentially being a copyvio, since it looks to be a professional photo.  Regardless, it's orphaned, so we can safely dispense with it.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Brandeis stamp.jpg

 * 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 - fails NFCC#8 (does not significantly add to reader's understanding) - Peripitus (Talk) 11:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Brandeis stamp.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Wikiwatcher1 ( [ 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 fails WP:NFC #3 and WP:NFCC. The stamp's existence and its purpose are already perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: The stamp is not being used to illustrate the subject of the stamp. It is used to illustrate detailed and cited commentary about the stamp issuance itself (see "Honors" in "Legacy" section.) NFCC#8 can be said about practically any image on Wikipedia since it is always a subjective opinion, and ignores the fact that many readers prefer skimming articles and looking at pictures to save time.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, once we establish that a stamp has been issued for him, this image serves no useful purpose except illustration, and that's not a sufficient reason to use a nonfree image. Moreover, we already have a reference to a Postal Service press release, so an interested reader can look at the picture there.  Nyttend (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Carl A Larsen JASON Stamp.jpg

 * 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 a few arguments for keeping. One is that the image qualifies for the waiver of the Crown copyright. However, the "provided" items basically give a license of ND, not allowing derivatives. That keeps the image non-free. Second is the claim that there is an exception for items on permanent display in public view. This is the UK's version of panoramafreiheit, or freedom of panorama, and is intended to allow you to take a photo in a public place without worrying about the copyright implications of all the little bits of creative expression that you might capture. It's not there to place into the public domain anything that gets tacked to a wall somewhere. Once again, the image remains non-free. Third, the uploader claims that they own the rights to the photo. If that is the case, they should upload the photo itself (not the stamp) and send documentation to OTRS for the copyright release. So the remaining argument is that it's fair use. However, the article has an image that is free use and more than adequately illustrates the subject. The stamp itself is simply being used as decoration, and redundant decoration, at that. It would be problematic if we always used stamps to illustrate the people pictured on them, and especially so since this one isn't even needed. The argument about WP:NFCC remains and the image is deleted for that reason. kmccoy (talk) 16:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * File:Carl A Larsen JASON Stamp.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Hbkitty ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Delete: This 1981 non-free postage stamp, is still covered by crown copyright for 50 years, and is being used to illustrate the topic in a stamp and the fact the topic was illustrated on a stamp fails WP:NFC #3 and WP:NFCC. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep With all due respect, I think this image should be considered as fair use. As it clearly states in my rational. It is believed that the use of postage stamp, to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

Further reasoning is for it to qualify as fair use is there is no possible commercial disadvantage to the copyright holder by using this image of a stamp in a Wikipedia article because the stamp's value is in the physical stamp, not the design.

It is also clear under UK law that the Crown copyright is waived and no formal licence is required in this instance as stated on the The UK Government web site regarding Waiver of Crown copyright. From the web site:

(Some Crown copyright material is waived. This means that although Crown copyright is asserted no formal licence is required to re-use. The waiver applies to specific categories of material where it is in Government's interests to encourage unrestricted use.)

The only conditions required are the following: You may re-use waiver material free of charge without requiring a formal licence provided that it is:


 * 1) acknowledged
 * 2) not used in a misleading way
 * 3) reproduced accurately and kept up to date

I believe that I have met all these conditions and would ask that the file in question be removed from the deletion list forthwith. Sincerely, (Hbkitty (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Please provide a link to the claimed crown copyright waiver you are making so this can be reviewed. ww2censor (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, it's easy to use a stamp catalogue to cite the fact that a stamp was issued for him, and this image serves no other useful purpose. If we have a source saying that CC has been waived here, keep and move to Commons, as it's a good image.  Nyttend (talk) 23:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Exceptions to copyright:

(As with many other countries the UK defines an exception to copyright infringement for artistic works on public display. Section 62 of the Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988 states that it is not an infringement of copyright to film, photograph, broadcast or make a graphic image of a building, sculpture, models for buildings or work of artistic craftsmanship if that work is permanently situated in a public place or in premises open to the public.)

This stamp is displayed in the museum in Grytviken so therefor this exception clearly applies.

(Ice Explorer (talk) 02:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC))


 * Exceptions to copyright does not apply to , please refer to this commons discussion which clarifies the issue that stamps are not covered by this claim because the crown copyright waiver does not apply to graphic works. Such stamps can only be used under a fair-use claim which this stamp fails per my nomination. ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 *  Fair use as well as Exception to copyright does apply: The stamp in question is a scan of a photo that was taken by my father who was a philatelist and also the grandson of the person on the stamp. He used the photo a number of times in catalogs he produced with permission. He has since past away and so I now own the rights to the photograph. I then made a scan of the photo. I also believe fair use and the exceptions to copyright apply since I own the rights to the photo and the stamp is displayed in the museum in Grytviken, I do not believe have infringed on any copyright. (Hbkitty (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.136.186 (talk)


 * Keep as per Hbkitty and Ice Explorer Outback the koala (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Yes we should keep it. (Ice Explorer (talk) 12:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC))
 * Delete - the image is copyright (until 2020ish I think) so the licence is correct. The image is not mentioned nor discussed in the article, is simply decorative and does not significantly add to reader's understanding. It, to me, clearly fails WP:NFCC and could be replaced adequately by text - Peripitus (Talk) 11:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Lebann2.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Lebann2.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Kintetsubuffalo ( [ 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 fails WP:NFC #3 and WP:NFCC. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's easy to use a stamp catalogue to cite the fact that a stamp was issued for this organisation, and this image serves no other useful purpose. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Lebanon3reg.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Lebanon3reg.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Kintetsubuffalo ( [ 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 fails WP:NFC #3 and WP:NFCC. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:37, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's easy to use a stamp catalogue to cite the fact that a stamp was issued for this organisation, and this image serves no other useful purpose. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Lebanonca.jpg

 * 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 AnomieBOT ⚡  03:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Lebanonca.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Kintetsubuffalo ( [ 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 fails WP:NFC #3 and WP:NFCC. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's easy to use a stamp catalogue to cite the fact that a stamp was issued for this organisation, and this image serves no other useful purpose. Nyttend (talk) 23:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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:Moshe Smoira stamp.jpg

 * 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. While the use of nonfree images for identification of dead individuals is occasionally considered acceptable, it is not the case with images of stamps. The fair use rationale given in the stamp template explicitly disallows this, with "It is believed that the use of postage stamps ... to illustrate the stamp in question (as opposed to things appearing in the stamp's design) ... qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law." (emphasis added) This makes the fair use rationale and corresponding arguments below invalid. kmccoy (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Moshe Smoira stamp.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by M0RD00R ( [ notify] | contribs).


 * Delete: Non-free postage stamp being used to identify the subject of the stamp by being used in the infobox fails WP:NFC #3 and WP:NFCC. The stamp's existence and its purpose could be perfectly well explained in prose without the necessity of using a non-free image. ww2censor (talk) 16:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, the use of nonfree images for identification of dead individuals is acceptable. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: postage stamp images cannot be relied upon to be truly accurate representations of the people honoured because they are usually artistic interpretations, not copies, of the original photos supplied as references to the stamp designers. ww2censor (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: images for identification of dead individuals is acceptable. We should keep this image. (Ice Explorer (talk) 12:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC))


 * Comment indeed photos are used often accepted under a fair-use rationale justification it identify dead people but stamps are not used in this way. ww2censor (talk) 03:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I think. Though I can't read hebrew, a sister site he.wikipedia has an image of the supreme court with him sitting and it appears to assert that it was public domain from 2002. Looks replaceable with a free alternative - Peripitus (Talk) 11:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Amateur clown.jpg

 * 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. Image embellished, more suitable for inclusion. — ξ xplicit  02:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Amateur clown.jpg ([ delete] | talk | [ history] | [ logs]) - uploaded by Hristodulo ( [ notify] | contribs).

Keep I cropped the image and photoshoped it removeing background and foreground element. Request reassessment.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * With the best will in the world, this is a terrible photograph and unnecessary here; it's essentially a snapshot which adds no understanding to the article in which it is used. It's poorly framed, with extraneous content, such as a part-person in the foreground and a thermostat in the background, and does us no favours. Sorry, but I think we can do better than this. Rodhull  andemu  23:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's a lot better now, and usable, and don't mind if this is closed per WP:SNOW; subject to other opinions, of course. Rodhull  andemu  16:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.