August 20
edit
- 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 Angusmclellan (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Battle-City-Awesome.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Weebo (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Unencyclopedic: Once used on Battle City (online game), which is now deleted. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Orphaned from the deletion of the parent article on August 20 due to an AFD. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:12, 25 August 2010 (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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Jerome Cavanagh.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Elatanatari (notify | contribs | uploads).
- No source given, but I found it at [1]. Not PD-USGov as tagged. howcheng {chat} 16:06, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, likely owned by the city of Detroit. I'd guess that the uploader was confused and thought that all governmental images originating in the USA, not just federal governmental images, were PD. Nyttend (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2010 (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 King of Hearts (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 21:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Owif-hcihysg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Bwmoll3 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Doesn't help with identification. The article already has the CD single cover and doesn't need a scan of the 45 as well. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: Beyond what Ten Pound Hammer said this is an image that could be easily created free. The FUR states that it is not replaceable with an uncopyrighted or freely copyrighted image as none probably exists. and the caption in the article simply states 7 in vinyl single. Anyone with a camera and a stack of 45s can take a picture of it/them, or any fan of Patty Loveless can stack up their records, singles and CDs and snap a picture of them and it would serve the same purpose. The image fails the Non-free content Policy, 1 - No free equivalent and Non-free content Policy, 8 - Contextual significance. Soundvisions1 (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2010 (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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- File:Plan of Caernarfon Castle.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Nev1 (notify | contribs | uploads).
- Copyright page that could be replaced by someone else doing a similar drawing. SilkTork *YES! 20:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- How would you go about replacing the plan? Nev1 (talk) 23:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a prime example of our non-free policy working to achieve one of its primary purposes: to force people to create free content that can be created. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. There are two aspects to this image that we must consider: the facts that it represents and the way in which it represents them. Although the way it represents them is original enough for copyright, the facts (the layout of the actual castle) that it depicts aren't copyrightable. Therefore, if you look at this image and produce your own drawing, you can release the drawing freely, because you're making your own original rendition of it. Think of city maps — Google, Yahoo, and Mapquest have city maps that are virtually identical, but they don't violate each others' copyright because they're creating their own ways to represent the actual city streets. Nyttend (talk) 19:48, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for explanation, I was hoping someone could tell me where I was going wrong. Architectural plans can be invaluable when discussing a building (especially a complex one) so I want to fix issues now before they come up again. But I don't think this situation is cut and dried as something similar arose during the FAC of Bodiam Castle. Even though a plan had been redrawn from a copyrighted version, the status of the reproduction was uncertain, and there were mixed opinions on the matter [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. As the status was uncertain, the redrawn version was given a fair-use rationale for a belt and braces approach. As that was the end result, I thought any version redrawn from this plan would experience the same difficulties. Hence I bypassed the redrawing stage and went straight for a fair use rationale. Nev1 (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2010 (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.
![[3]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elcobbola/Archive9#File:Plan_Bodham_Castle.svg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nev1/Archives/January%E2%80%93February_2010#File:Plan_Bodham_Castle.svg){kind=link}