Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 13#File:Ass Ponys.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 - Using a postcard to illustrate a building is one of the classes of use that falls into WP:NFC's unacceptable use listing. As the building was finished in 1926 it is not certain that this card is PD. If someone would spend the time perhaps it could be proved to be so - Peripitus (Talk) 03:06, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:CarlingHotel.JPG}} ([{{fullurl:File:CarlingHotel.JPG|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 13#File:CarlingHotel.JPG}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:CarlingHotel.JPG}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:CarlingHotel.JPG}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Mgreason ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Mgreason|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• The image was tagged with {{tl|AutoReplaceable fair use buildings}} but was contested with the rationale "Building has undergone several renovations and been built-up around it, so no free replacement is available". Sending to FfD for analysis; I personally am neutral on the matter. NW (Talk) 02:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• If the postcard is from the 1920s, isn't it likely that the copyright was never renewed, in which case fair use is moot? -- Zsero (talk) 17:54, 13 December 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.

: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 {{admin|Jimfbleak}} AnomieBOT⚡ 20:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Mian Yawar Zaman.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Mian Yawar Zaman.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 13#File:Mian Yawar Zaman.jpg}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Mian Yawar Zaman.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Mian Yawar Zaman.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Mr.bilalsalim ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Mr.bilalsalim|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Clearly not PD-100; no source, no metadata Skier Dude (talk) 03:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Note that on Commons he claims to have taken it himself, which is at least more plausible than claiming that the photographer has been dead for 100 years! I doubt it, though; it looks like a professional photo. -- Zsero (talk) 17:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• I have tagged it as a copy vio from a government website http://www.pap.gov.pk/index.php/members/profile/en/9/431 © 1997 - 2009 Provincial Assembly of The Punjab. All Rights Reserved. MilborneOne (talk) 18:04, 13 December 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.

: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 as failing NFCC#1. - Peripitus (Talk) 03:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:IndefArmorDiagram.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:IndefArmorDiagram.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 13#File:IndefArmorDiagram.jpg}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:IndefArmorDiagram.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:IndefArmorDiagram.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by User:Sturmvogel 66 ([{{fullurl:User_talk:User:Sturmvogel 66|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Delete. Creator of the actual image is very displeased at seeing his work reproduced on Wikipedia and is considering contacting his publishers. Under no circumstances would he consent to its reproduction here. --Simon Harley (talk | library | book reviews) 12:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Unsure. If the fair use claim is valid then it's not up to him. And if this is an exact diagram of how the cruisers are laid out, then I wonder why it's copyright in the first place. But if it is copyright because of some spark of genius in how the diagram is laid out, then it should be possible to create a free version by copying all the information but laying it out differently. -- Zsero (talk) 17:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The drawing is the artist's interpretation of the armor layout and is legitimately copyrighted by him. It may or may not be based on original diagrams drawn by the builder or the Royal Navy. The issue is the fair use claim and I believe it to be valid as the diagram is essential to fully grasp the complex armor layout of the ships. The verbal description just isn't as useful or easily understandable.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

::But you could make a different diagram based on the same information. If that isn't possible, i.e. if there is only one sensible way to present the information in diagram form, then by definition the diagram can't be copyright. -- Zsero (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

:::Most of the replacement suggestions involve a significant degradation in the amount of information conveyed. A modified Brassey's-type of diagram would be extremely superficial and could not convey the complexity of the armor arrangement. I'm not at all sure that it's possible to convey the same amount of information in any other way that is as clear to the viewer barring some sort of rotating 3-D effect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:17, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The diagram is copyright. The information in the diagram is not. It is certainly not the only way of representing the information, so 'fair use' does not apply. Anyone who has tried to create such diagrams will appreciate how very much work is required, both in the conception and execution of the diagram.

:One of the problems with Fisher's ships was that whereas previous admiralties had been honest and open about the ships they procured, under Fisher (who was a 'spin-doctor'), the admiralty lied and exaggerated. If you compare the Brassey's diagram with the Robert's diagram this comes across clearly. (Unfortunately the Brassey's diagram has the turret layout of the Invincible class, which is unfortunate.)

:All that is needed for the purpose of Wikipedia would be to modify the Brassey's diagram in two ways. (1) to show the correct turret layout, and correct any other layout errors. (2) To show how the armour really was. It would be useful to have two diagrams, so that readers could compare what the public was told with the truth.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

• Replaceable I think. If this was a simple 3-view plan there would be nothing to copyright, but since it's an armour layout and a 4-view I agree with Toddy1: there are many other ways that this could have been drawn so this is covered by copyright. If, however, it were a copy of something in the DNC's files or the ships covers, that would be another story. Let's assume that it isn't. Either something could be copied from the National Maritime Museum holdings, or a simpler diagram could be created. Readers might be best served by having an image as like :File:Indefatigable class battlecruiser diagrams Brasseys 1923.jpg as possible so they can compare the two. If some bold volunteer can produce something like it. I certainly couldn't. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:40, 15 December 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.

: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 {{admin|Peripitus}} AnomieBOT⚡ 05:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Behringer Truth 3031A.png}} ([{{fullurl:File:Behringer Truth 3031A.png|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 13#File:Behringer Truth 3031A.png}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Behringer Truth 3031A.png}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Behringer Truth 3031A.png}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by Reiknir ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Reiknir|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• Previously nominated for not-so-speedy deletion as replaceable but kept (twice?). The uploader stated "This item has not been widely distributed so far, I have thus not been able to get hold of an image that comes without licensing issues". This seems a very long way short of "no free equivalent is available, or could be created" as required by WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete if it exists somebody can take a picture, the fact one cant be found is not a criteria. MilborneOne (talk) 17:55, 13 December 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.

: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: {{Relisted}} at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 21. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::File:{{ucfirst:Ass Ponys.jpg}} ([{{fullurl:File:Ass Ponys.jpg|action=delete&wpReason={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2009 December 13#File:Ass Ponys.jpg}}}} delete] | talk | [{{fullurl:File:{{ucfirst:Ass Ponys.jpg}}|action=history}} history] | [{{fullurl:Special:Log|page={{urlencode:File:{{ucfirst:Ass Ponys.jpg}}}}}} logs]) - uploaded by FotoPhest ([{{fullurl:User_talk:FotoPhest|action=edit&preload=Template:Fdw_preload&editintro=Template:Fdw_editintro§ion=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | contribs).

• WP:NFCC#1 states that "[n]on-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Here we have a non-free picture of four living people posed in front of a shack doing nothing. This could be replaced by between one and four free pictures of living people posed doing nothing or something in a different location. They'd still be identifiable, and "identification" is the only coherent rationale offered for using this non-free content. This image is eminently replaceable as defined by NFCC#1 and should be deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The article is not about the individual members, but about the band, which no longer exists. Pictures of the individual members can still be taken, one at a time; but it is impossible to take a picture of the band as a band. That makes it the same as a person who is dead or who is never seen in public, where we presume that unless a free image can be found fair use may be made of an unfree image. -- Zsero (talk) 17:44, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - unless I am rather mistaken this image is replaceable. According to the article the band made a release this year (Songs From A Checkered Past) - Still active and releasing. The people still exist. Someone could contact them and make an image. No harder that for any other group shot of people - Peripitus (Talk) 03:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
• : Read it again. There's nothing in the article to indicate that the band is still active, and the album title shows that. -- Zsero (talk) 03:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

::Comment - 2009 listing was not correct; I looked at the band's official site and the last stuff done was around the end of 2005. This, band as group doesn't exist any more. Skier Dude (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)