Wal-Mart has delete the album's entry from their website. Because of this, image cannot be deemed reliable. Alkclark (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Actually, it seems bothentries are still there (as are theimages), although they're listed under "Music for DELETION". (!) But I do agree that the uncertain status of the pictures at least requires adjusting the current boilerplate non-free use rationale, which is written with the assumption that the cover art is unquestionably official. Perhaps more to the point, we're not Wikileaks: we're supposed to pay some attention to copyright owner's financial interests when using non-free material, and the withdrawal (half-assed though it may be) at least suggests the possibility that the record company might have an interest in keeping the covers secret until the album is released. (Good luck to them, I'm sure everyone and their bldog has already grabbed a copy, but that's not really the issue; WP:NFCC#2 — and possibly #4 as well — is.) Might be best just to delete the images for now and wait until the album is officially published: then we can reupload them to illustrate both the album and, whether or not they turn out to be official, the probably inevitable "Wal-Mart leaks Beyoncé's new album cover" story. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wal-Mart has delete the album's entry from their website. Because of this, image cannot be deemed reliable. Alkclark (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unused, no source, Unencyclopedic. -Nard 02:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image is encyclopedic (or at least, its subject, Lou Cowell is also the subject of an article written by the uploader) and I have added the apparent source (Lou Cowell's myspace page). That said, it is unlikely that the uploader will be able to come up with a fair use rationale. Crypticfirefly (talk) 04:49, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
unused, doubtful that the image was released into public domain ThePointblank (talk) 03:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be a picture of members of Chinese military. (I'm not sure of the insignia, but isn't that a Chinese firearm?) I'm not sure if works of the Chinese government are exempt from copyright, but if so, it is possible that's what this is. Image had been included in the article QJY-88. Further investigation of the article edit history suggests the image came from http://www.gun-world.net/china/mg/qjy88/qjy88.htm but I can't read Chinese to figure out what the status of the image is. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:04, 21 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 - original concerns addressed - Papa November (talk) 09:54, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No source. No evidence this logo was released under gfdl. Damiens.rf 13:28, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Since this is a logo, I changed the permission to {{Non-free logo}} and added a fair-use rationale. I think everything should be okay now. The same thing should be done whenever a logo's public-domain status is doubtful. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:57, 17 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 - Use and rationale satisfies NFCC#8. There appears to be sufficient sourced commentary Peripitus(Talk) 12:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say keep: the provided rationale seems quite reasonable to me. WP:NFC#Acceptable use says that (emphasis mine) "music clips may be used to identify a musical style, group, or iconic piece of music when accompanied by appropriate sourced commentary and attributed to the copyright holder." A single 30-minute sample from a band's collective works to illustrate their particularly distinct style of music seems appropriate enough, and, having read the (admittedly rather stubby) article and listened to the clip, I'm inclined to believe the rationale's assertion that "the effect cannot really be described in prose." Thus, this file seems to satisfy WP:NFCC#8. Or were you claiming it fails some other criterion? —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:05, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see what happens to the article. If it lives, the clip is fine in accordance with WP:NFCC. <eleland/talkedits> 17:07, 17 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 discussion was: delete. No need to see the book cover to understand the article. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -Nv8200ptalk 16:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Originally deleted as invalid fair use; deletion review suggested listing here. In the view of several participants in the DRV, this image does not meet our fair use guidelines; it is an illustration of the book used as the lead image in a biography of the author, and in that role it is replaceable. Chick Bowen 16:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book is discussed in the article which the image illustrates and this conforms to the language of the fair use licence used. The book is an autobiography and so the author and the book are naturally inter-related. Splitting the article would not be helpful to our readership and it is sensible to keep this material together. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the existance of the book is discussed, the image of the book is not. Commentary of the order of Billy_Ripken#1989_baseball_card where the image is required for the text to make sense is needed. A free image of the Author is clearly creatable and would for readers replace this one so the image fails NFCC#1. The book is commented on by sources, but the cover is not and it's use in this article is purely decorative - Peripitus(Talk) 22:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, discussion of the cover is not required - your contention is absurd and goes far beyond our consensus on fair use of such matters. For example, I just checked a couple of book articles - The Lord of the Rings and Casino Royale (novel) where cover images are used as fair use without the cover itself being discussed. Such images are like a quotation from the work and are well-recognised by copyright law as being fair use in articles of education, commentary and criticism. Acceptance of your doctrine would lead to massive disruption of many articles - books, albums, DVD, games, etc - for which cover images are routinely used. If you think this doctrine is established then please cite. Otherwise, a sweeping decision of that sort would require significant input from Village Pump or the like. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference with those two examples is that an image of a book illustrates an article on a book. Long standing consensus here (as documented in WP:NFC) is that such illustration is, for wikipedia purposes, fair-use. Please see WP:NFC, unnacceptable use (images) points 8 and 12; at least one of which covers using this image in the article about the author. The issue is not about using an image of a thing to illustrate an article on that thing, it is claiming fair-use to illustrate a different article. Admittedly Wikipedia policy goes further than required for a strict legal interpretation of fair-use, though nowhere near as far as the German wiki - Peripitus(Talk) 12:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference since the image illustrates a section about the book and there is no separate article about the book - just redirects to this article. We are not required to split articles for this purpose because an article with multiple sections is effectively the same as two separate articles since the article/section distinction is purely a Wikipedia technical format issue with no legal standing. Section 7 in WP:NFC is therefore applicable. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor use of a non-free image. The article, while containing a brief discussion of the subject's autobiography, is not about that autobiography. Wikilawyering in order to keep an image which primarily serves to identify the subject of a BLP makes no difference -- we don't use non-free images to illustrate BLPs unless it can be successfully argued that such images aren't freely replaceable. The uploader has offered no argument that a free image of Darius Guppy can't reasonably be made or found. Lu Ta 19:08, 21 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.
image watermarked w/(c); absent uploader w/history of mistagging images SkierRMH (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike below picture (uploaded by same person), I don't see anything here to suggest that uploader had a right to post this image. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:16, 21 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 discussion was: keep per WP:AGF. -Nv8200ptalk 16:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
no source; absent uploader w/history of mistagging images SkierRMH (talk) 19:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Source given is the uploader. It is a rather unprofessional-looking candid picture of Rusty Glover, per the image metadata the photo was taken with an inexpensive consumer-grade camera. In other editing comments uploader claims personal knowledge of Glover. In light of all the circumstances, I'm prepared to believe that the uploader is the creator of this image. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:15, 21 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.
Further comment-- being personally familiar with both 311 S. Wacker and the Sears Tower in Chicago, I can confirm that those are the buildings shown in the image. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:07, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
orphaned image, absent uploader, conflicting license and permission text; text added states "This image is copyrighted. Please ask for permission before use.", therefore not free. Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:53, 17 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. Unorphaned. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:31, 25 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, condictions provided in license state the image can "not be combined with other images" which would prohibit derivatie photo combonations. Jordan 1972 (talk) 23:37, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-1.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
-1.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-1.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
-2.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
