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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colonial warrior pin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Franksed (notify | contribs).

• Although licensed as an original creation, this seems not sufficiently transformative from the original, distinct and copyright design to substantiate a claim of "author's original work." As a fair-use image, it lacks an FUR and is orphaned. --EEMIV (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above; this is an invalid license. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Orphaned, and no foreseeable encyclopedic use. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2009 (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⚡ 07:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:FTL Jump -- Battlestar Galactica (2004).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Matthew (notify | contribs).

• No discussion of the image's content (i.e. specifically what, when, where, why) it depicts. No discussion of the production or development of the underlying special effects. Wholly fails to meet WP:NFCC #8. --EEMIV (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• delete as gratuitous eye candy on gratuitous article I just sent to AfD. Cheers, Jack Merridew 04:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This image does not appear to enhance reader understanding of the topic at hand (as EEMIV explains quite well above), so this fails WP:NFCC#8. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2009 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tommy Knight.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sfxprefects (notify | contribs).

• The image is someone else's work from Flickr, and the owner does not give the appropriate licensing to use on Wikipedia. Ωphois 15:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, as you can see under "Additional Information", it is licensed under Creative Commons, specifically Attribution-Non-commercial-Sharealike - as stated under the "Permissions" section of the image's fair-use template - which means it can be used here. If the owner did not want it to be used elsewhere under the same terms, they should have uploaded it as copyright/all rights reserved. 62.56.123.132 (talk) 21:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is a template posted by the original uploader, not by the owner. The image is licensed as "non-commercial", which cannot be used as a free image. Ωphois 23:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, but as there's no free alternative image available, I would say this one is acceptable under fair use policy until a fully-free alternative can be found, as per many other images on articles with no alternative. I felt that originally you were wanting to point out primarily that the owner's permission hasn't been sought, but as a non-free image under acceptable use and with the owner using the CC license as they did seeking the owner's permission is a non-issue. 62.56.123.132 (talk) 00:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The author has not given permission for it to be used, and images are not required for a page. Ωphois 00:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Again you only mention asking permission for it "to be used", but it's worth pointing out that the license is there to allow people to use the image without asking permission first provided the license conditions (attribution, non-commercial, sharealike) are met; but, as I think I understand what you're getting at - that the user hasn't given permission under the commercial attribute, as required by the Wikimedia Commons - I agree, and will leave it at that. 62.56.123.132 (talk) 04:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not an expert on images. Since it attributes the author and stuff, it might be usable under fair-use. My previous experience has said otherwise, but I'm not exactly sure. Either way, the current rationale must be changed. I'll leave it up to whoever makes the final decision on deletion, and perhaps he/she can give insight. Ωphois 05:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The image's source uses a "non-commercial" license which is not compatible with Wikipedia. This image could not be used under the non-free content criteria, because it is likely replaceable by an actual free image.--Rockfang (talk) 18:44, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Indeed, this file does not meet WP:NFCC#1, as a free equivalent can be created. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2009 (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 - the source for the image is dubious. We need more than a link to a geocities site. Real image source and date is not identified. I would suggest that one of the many books discussing here will have a sourceable image - Peripitus (Talk) 12:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Maria Luisa Arcelay.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

• No hard evidence this image is really pre-1923 (when the subject was less than 30 years old). The copyright holder is not identified. As a "source", only a link to a copyright vilolating web-site is provided. Damiens.rf 21:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Before 1923, the subject was already a successful businesswoman who owned a needlework workshop which employed 400 workers. The attire in the photo is typical of those used in the early the 1920s. The tactic of stating that As a "source", only a link to a copyright violating web-site is provided to maybe persuade others is interesting, even though I do not believe it is a valid one. However, if the nominator can prove that the source indeed is a proven copyright violator, I myself will gladly delete the image with no further due. To the nominator, I do not wish to interact with you here due to your name-calling in the past. Direct whatever you have to say to the community in general and not to my person. Thank you Tony the Marine (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a "tactic". The website you download it from uses images without citing the origin or claiming copyright. Most websites are not as strict as we are, period. And please strike out you accusation of name-calling. You once called me a fascist, but I have never called you anything. --Damiens.rf 05:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment-Did you forget "Marine's imbecile rationales"? As to your "fascist" allegations, I responded to a message which referred to a fascist, however I honestly had no idea that you were involved with the Iwo Jima deletion situation. Now let's let this nomination take it's course. Tony the Marine (talk) 22:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calling the rationales you wrote "imbecile" is not the same as calling you an imbecile, just like saying one of the articles you wrote is "perfect" would not be the same as saying you are "perfect". --Damiens.rf 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence that the image was published before 1923. Rettetast (talk) 18:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree that there is no hard evidence that the image is per-1923. Considering that the subject in question is a historic Puerto Rican figure and that the image may be not-replaceable, I believe that it may meet the Non-free fair use criteria and have tagged it as ((Non-free fair use in)) (if I am correct, that is why we have said tag), with a proper rationale as required by Wikipedia policy. I will accept whatever decision is made. Tony the Marine (talk) 23:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We can't use non-free images that we grab from random websites that do not care about author's attribution and copyrights. --Damiens.rf 15:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Even the image's uploader admits that there's no evidence this was published before 1923. Barring proof that this is public domain, I support deletion because the copyright holder is not identified and WP:NFCC#2 is not met. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2009 (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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 05:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Da n on stage with boomgang.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Daniel-darren charles (notify | contribs).

• File that is not associated with any article; uploaded by party that created an autobiographical article. Uploader is suspect in WP:SOCK. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Orphaned, unencyclopedic. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:20, 31 December 2009 (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.