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. Derivative work. -Nv8200p talk 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:The Hill Sign.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Joe n bloe (notify | contribs).

• Doubtful that this was a picture taken, unless he was right on top of the sign. It appears to be a created sign, or a sign downloaded from an unknown website. If it did come from the BC government website, their data is copyrighted. Unfortunately the author has not edited since Dec 08. Admrboltz (talk) 04:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The uploader explicitly states that this is a photo that he took, and the file is accompanied by digital camera metadata. In the absence of evidence that the uploader is lying, I don't see why the image should be deleted.Bill (talk) 07:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Regardless of whether the uploader actually took the photograph or not the focus of the image plainly makes this a derivative work that still falls under the copyright protection of the apropos originating governmental entity (whether the British Columbian or Canadian) and not re-licensable under looser terms. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• To begin with, that's not the argument that the original poster made but a new argument. In any case, it's wrong. Precisely because the photo so faithfully reproduces the sign, it is most likely NOT an infringing derivative work. Read the article to which you link carefully and you'll see this. The theory under which it may be infringing is that it an unauthorized non-transformative reproduction of a copyrighted work. What would actually be ideal would be a photo that was clear enough to be readable but included more of the context so that it could not be considered an unauthorized reproduction. I'm actually hoping to get out that way in October. If I do, I can take a new photo.Bill (talk) 18:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You may have trouble taking an informational and aesthetically pleasing photograph with "context," because the sign is parallel to the roadway, some distance away from it. Joseph N Hall (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a photograph taken from my Jeep next to the sign during a trip to and from Bella Coola. I removed a tiny bit of perspective distortion from the image and cropped it to the edges. If you folks think that a photograph of an informational road sign taken in British Columbia for editorial purposes isn't fair use, you need to go back to copyright school. Joseph N Hall (talk) 02:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• ... but ... just to satisfy the curious and insufferably bored among you, here is another version that I just wasted 30 minutes fishing out of my archives ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Hill_Steep_Grades_2.jpg Joseph N Hall (talk) 03:02, 8 September 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:OutputleveldBfreq.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Leahw86 (notify | contribs).

• Obsolete: Image superseded by SVG. Raster is badly artifacted and PD, so it isn't worth keeping it no more. ZooFari 05:22, 5 September 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: keep. As the image has been added to an article that relates to the image and the text is specific about the image and misidentification of the animal in the image, the image is significant to the article. -Nv8200p talk 15:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Croped BFRO image.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ChubsterII (notify | contribs).

• Fair use arguments are weak, but, more importantly, the image was uploaded for use on an article that was a recreation of a previously deleted (through AFD) article, so with that article gone this image is orphaned. DreamGuy (talk) 15:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article that it was in is lost as a result of page blanking. The image was enabled to be used for other Wikimedia projects in addition to Wikipedia according to fair use guidelines. It may be used for Recreation once all of the Earlier issues have been successfully addressed. The image is also planned for use in other articles. --ChubsterII (talk) 19:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's extremely deceptive to call adherence to a valid AFD consensus to be "blanking". DreamGuy (talk) 16:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Non-free content may not be used outside of articles per WP:NFCC#9. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks THOR, I never seen that one it was a good find I would have been in a lawsuit!--ChubsterII (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Mysteriously humorous image captures the character well.--192.228.19.2 (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This image is not currently used in any articles, and I don't see any reason why it should be. The suggestion to use this file in American Black Bear is absurd — why would we want a crappy, low-quality, fair-use image in that article when we already have better quality free images? *** Crotalus *** 17:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You're correct American Black Bear was not the proper choice for this photo. Rather than wasting the upload I'm adopting it into an article called "game camera" where it does fit. It is no longer orphaned.--ChubsterII (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you're attempting to add WP:FRINGE content about a supposed Bigfoot that experts say is obviously a bear to an article about cameras? Great googly moogly. DreamGuy (talk) 16:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's about a contest and other uses that have had a major impact on game camera history. Bigfoot pictures are always a hoax or some kind of animal nobody is arguing that fact with any experts. I have only added what cited reliable references pertaining to the article say. --ChubsterII (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Major impact on game camera history" - do you just not think about the things you say before you type them, or do you actually believe that? DreamGuy (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How has this image not been deleted yet? DreamGuy (talk) 23:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's the hurry? These game cameras aren't just used for game. Did you check my references? I think you're pushing your POV in a kind of rude way. Isn't the wiki way to get more opinions?--ChubsterII (talk) 00:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was orphaned again I did some digging and found an article that is referring to it.--ChubsterII (talk) 11:44, 27 September 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Character Nine The Sound artwork.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jscrowe (notify | contribs).

• The Sound (EP) was deleted per PROD; Character Nine was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character Nine. It is unlikely that any page will use this artwork in the future. Cnilep (talk) 18:54, 5 September 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Character Nine playing at Arlene's Grocery, New York City, 2008.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jscrowe (notify | contribs).

• Character Nine was deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Character Nine. It is unlikely that any page will use this artwork in the future. Cnilep (talk) 18:57, 5 September 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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 08:04, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:ShontellestuckwitheachotherAkon.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Solotwilight (notify | contribs).

• fan art? - sourced from blog; legit cover found at File:Shontelle Featuring Akon - Stuck With Each Other.jpg sourced amazon.co.uk Skier Dude (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My gut feeling is that the nominated image isn't fan art, but it could be an alternate cover or an alternate version of the single release with different tracks. Kinda like how Metallica did Hero of the Day. 3 technically different single releases with different covers. That being said, I don't know which one is better suited for the article.--Rockfang (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Orphaned file. Even if it wasn't, would clearly fail WP:NFCC#3a. — Σxplicit 21:16, 14 September 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: Deleted, seeing an ID card created at age 2 to illustrate the article about the crime that befell her ~13 (or whatever) years later in no way increase the readers understanding of that article. By all means cite the ID card as a source for her date of birth, but using the image inline in the article quite clearly fail the non-free content criteria. --Sherool (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Abeerh.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bleh999 (notify | contribs).

• The rationale for this non-free image's use is that it "illustrates main subject of article" [sic]. Abeer Qassim Hamza is not the principal subject of the article Mahmudiyah killings, she is but one of four victims identified. The article provides requisite critical commentary on neither Ms. Hamza's appearance, nor her state-issued ID card (especially as both are dated thirteen years prior to the incident which is the actual subject of the article). — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - the not perfect rational is just the result of the merge of this article. The copyright information need to be updated but there is no problem. Abeer Qassim Hamza al-Janabi shown in the image is the victim that was targeted, gang-raped, killed and her dead body was then burned by us-soldiers during the war in Iraq. Abeer was 14 years old what makes it the gang-rape of a child. The fact that she was a child was first denied by the soldiers in their early testimonies and there was confusion about her age in the early days after the crime had become public. News agencies then obtained the death and birth certificate of Abeer and widely published it with the statement that she was 14. The image of the birth certificate is used by the media to illustrate her age. This is also one reason why it is used in the article Mahmudiyah killings. There is no problem with fair use and the image is imported for this encyclopedic article. IQinn (talk) 02:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  There is absolutely zero critical commentary in the article on the ID card itself or the photo of 2-years-old Ms. Hamza in the article. In fact, there is no reference (sourced or unsourced) to the image at all, it's simply there providing decoration for the article. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It simply provides decoration? Please read my statement again. The copyright issue here can be fixed by updating the information that is needed after the merge. The picture is an imported part of this story as i have explained above and i would like to ask you to help me in updating the article and copyright information so that we not unnecessarily lose content. IQinn (talk) 06:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You're saying that the image is important because it was the source of consternation and clarification with regards to one of the victims' age. First of all, seeing the image wouldn't be necessary to make that claim, and as such would be equally unnecessary. Secondly, the article makes no such claims with regards to the ID card at all; even if you were to make the first argument, you would need reliable sources in the article to back up that claim in the first place. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as mentioned - the article used to be about Abeer; then it was merged into the MK article. The image is no less relevant however. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 13:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  The article says nothing about this image, it's simply illustrating what one of the four victims looked like twelve years prior to the incident which is the subject of the article. I don't understand how the image is relevant to the crime at all, as there is nothing in the article indicating so. Biographical articles can sometimes warrant NFC to depict their subjects, but this article's subject is a crime, not a person. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 19:19, 12 September 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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 10:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sara Zarr.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gag01001 (notify | contribs).

• No evidence of permission from copyright holder Nv8200p talk 22:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but images like this should be tagged ((subst:npd)) in future. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 6 September 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.