Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 January 16

< January 15	January 17 >

January 16[edit]

Image:Large-nobel-chemistry-medal.jpg[edit]

Image:Large-nobel-chemistry-medal.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - Uploaded by Hassmukh (notify | contribs).

Lacks necessary fair-use rationale. (Without such a fair-use rationale would appear to be a copyright violation.) [Temporarily removed it from Linus Pauling while this potential copyright violation is being resolved; user has a history of uploading images with potential copyright violations in Wikipedia; removed it from beneath the infobox in Nobel Prize, where it does not belong, given Wikipedia image policies and guidelines.] --NYScholar (talk) 09:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC) [The article Nobel Prize already has a section on the medals, which features two images [already subject of previous Wikepedia policy controversies] of the medals as illustrations: see Nobel Prize#The Nobel Prize medals. --] [Updated. --NYScholar (talk) 09:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)] [Updated further. --NYScholar (talk) 00:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)][reply]
No source and copyright information given on the image page as required for such copyrighted and trademarked materials taken from other websites. This image [comes] [was taken] from an official website dedicated to the achievements of Linus Pauling (see the article sources) at Oregon State University and that site features clear copyright notices. The uploader appears to have lifted the images from that site without crediting it or gaining permission to do so. --NYScholar (talk) 09:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC) [updated. --NYScholar (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)] [ditto. --NYScholar (talk) 00:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Here is the URL from which the images have been taken without authorization or permission or even credit given: <http://digitalcollections.library.oregonstate.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/pawardsmedals&CISOPTR=28> (the link is part of an images page on the site for Pauling's awards and honors). --NYScholar (talk) 09:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That webpage cited above clearly states that "Copyright Permission to use must be obtained from OSU Special Collections:[giving the following URL/link] <http://osulibrary.oregonstate.edu/specialcollections/copyright.html>." --NYScholar (talk) 09:57, 16 January 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:

Image:Assante2.jpg[edit]

Image:Assante2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Benjamin So (notify | contribs).

picture is very useless

That's merely your opinion.--71.232.156.181 (talk) 05:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Nomination was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -Nv8200p talk 03:49, 24 January 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:

Image:G-14.jpg[edit]

Image:G-14.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Migdejong (notify | contribs).

Copyright Violation. Claims to be the logo of the G-14, when it is not (an example can be instead found here. Furthermore it is claimed it is fair use of an existing logo, when it is in fact an original composition by the uploader, partly composed of copyrighted football club logos (all of which are only allowed under fair use in the articles about the specific clubs here), and presumably a copyrighted map of Europe (having sleuthed on Wikimedia Commons I couldn't find an obvious candidate for its source). --Qwghlm (talk) 01:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio. – Pee Jay 01:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Qwghlm, I think you've taken the logo licensing too literally. Perhaps you should leave a message with the author to ask him/her about his'/her's original intentions. Looking at the image, the description and the licence it seems the author intended for the work to be released into the public domain (thus as a GDFL) but the work itself contains copyrighted logos. Since the logos were used to depict the location of the clubs, it would the author used the logo licence to try and comply with copyright regulations. As the map depicts the location of the clubs which are in the G-14 group (or were since the group is due to be disbanded) and the map can only be properly used in G-14 article (which of necessity is also an article relating to all the clubs that compose it) then the map doesn't seem to violate fair-use. I wouldn't guess on the copyright status of the map since there are almost countless maps of Europe on Wikimedia and it isn't a map of a fantasy world, so it isn't obviously a copyright vio. Why not point the author to the correct licencing after learning the original intent or perhaps encourage the original author to simply change the map and replace the club logos with markers for the locations and with the club names beside the location markers? Is there really need to delete images that could simply be corrected? 208.131.184.163 (talk) 04:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in it's current form. Long standing practice is that logos of football clubs can only be "fair use" in the main articles about the clubs themselves. On this map, they're decoration. A simple labelled point on the map would be OK (assuming the basic map design used isn't copyrighted), this isn't. - fchd (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep G-14 would be disbanded. The image maybe abolished after they disbanded. I think this image could be one of the logos. Raymond Giggs 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This image is not a logo of the G-14. Furthermore, even though the G-14 will be disbanded, the clubs that were a part of it will not be disbanded, so their logos are still subject to Fair Use criteria. Their use in this image is not covered by these criteria, therefore the image should be deleted, or at least edited to remove the club logos. – Pee Jay 23:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep - No one ever said that this is an actual logo of the G-14. Rather it uses logo's from the partners of the G-14. These logos are all available on the English wikipedia, and therefore why not have them on a map of the G-14? Migdejong (talk) 12:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note - The above member (User:Migdejong) is the original uploader of the image being nominated. – Pee Jay 07:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the "fair use" protocols only allow us to display the logos on the primary articles about the clubs themselves. - fchd (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - No it does not. It allows us to use the logo's for "certain uses involving identification and critical commentary". That is what this image does. Migdejong (talk) 15:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you'll find that the Fair Use criteria do not cover the use of these logos in this image. Basically, the images are replaceable by text in this case, and are therefore decorative. If this image can be modified so that it doesn't use the non-free logos, then I will vote to keep it, but as it stands, this image is violating multiple copyrights. – Pee Jay 23:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - The image is useful in showing users which countries the clubs belong to. It should stay!(talk) 10:56pm, 17 January 2008 (GMT)
Delete and replace with an actual logo, clear copyright violation BanRay 11:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nowhere in the description does the author make any claim that this image is a logo of the G-14. The licensing template is clearly in reference to the individual logos themselves - "The clubs are depicted with their logo, on the aproximate location." Now, it's true there is no detailed rationale as is necessary for these images, but I think it's fair to say it would fall under the "certain uses involving identification and critical commentary" clause of the fair use law. ugen64 (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all positive reasons given above, and for "historical" purposes. Tsum60 (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per all positive reasons given above. 193.67.235.58 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch IP eh? BanRay 11:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #1. Use of the copyrighted logos could be replaced with text. -Nv8200p talk 19:24, 26 January 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:

Image:Moonrise over the William Herschel Telescope.jpg[edit]

Image:Moonrise over the William Herschel Telescope.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Worldtraveller (notify | contribs).

From www.world-traveller.org. Why GFDL? --Shizhao (talk) 03:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[1] notes that a couple of images are licensed under the GFDL, but that the only site-wide license is cc-by-nc-sa which is not permitted here last time I checked. I can't find the individual image on that site to verify whether it's GFDL or not, though. ugen64 (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if you look at the uploader's username, I think we could assume he is the actual copyright holder... ugen64 (talk) 01:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. I have strong doubts that the uploader was affiliated with the website this image was taken from. When the image was first upload, the summary was ". . . used with permission." The summary did not specify GFDL and no evidence of permission of any type was presented. -Nv8200p talk 19:38, 26 January 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:NewMacAir.jpg[edit]

Image:NewMacAir.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Masterskill (notify | contribs).

Patent Nonsense. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 03:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:TheBig_Tree.jpg[edit]

Image:TheBig_Tree.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shan.schaefer (notify | contribs).

Orphaned. Image:Big tree.jpg is a better quality image of the same subject. howcheng {chat} 03:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Solomon3.jpg[edit]

Image:Solomon3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hoes4bros (notify | contribs).

The image description says it all, really. "this is an article i wrote for my best friend =p" Need I say more? And the text has been put in Solomon sasa as well, which is up for CSD. Tuvok[^T@lk/_Improve] 05:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Greater than god.jpg[edit]

Image:Greater than god.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wowest (notify | contribs).

"Over 30 years old" is not public domain. Wafulz (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Thehills conrad l.jpg[edit]

Image:Thehills conrad l.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Evilcookiekkk (notify | contribs).

probable CV, licensed as "self" for apparent publicity shot; uploader SPA SkierRMH (talk) 05:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Epoch.jpg[edit]

Image:Epoch.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Coolflashboy (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic image; just a company logo used on their page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:16, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Epoch logo.jpg[edit]

Image:Epoch logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Coolflashboy (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic image, used by company for self-promotion; near direct copy of Image:Epoch.jpg — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 06:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Blair_Witch_Project_location.JPG[edit]

Image:Blair_Witch_Project_location.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Judgesurreal777 (notify | contribs).

this picture could be replaced with a free photo of the town, and does not add significantly to the article Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chasseurs_alpins.jpg[edit]

Image:Chasseurs_alpins.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David.Monniaux (notify | contribs).

nonfree image, does not significantly increase readers understanding (used in gallery) Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Staff_of_1974.jpg[edit]

Image:Staff_of_1974.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bev_the_great (notify | contribs).

no evidence that owner is copyright holder Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Reeve 1.JPG[edit]

Image:Reeve 1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Firman08 (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic image of nn person whose article has been deleted Mayalld (talk) 12:57, 16 January 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:

Image:AB_Frost_stamp.jpg[edit]

Image:AB_Frost_stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bantman (notify | contribs).

it's possible this is actually a PD work of art featured on a later stamp (the artist died in 1928) but it's unnecessary to have nonfree examples of his work when so much of his career was before 1923 Calliopejen1 (talk) 12:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Don't be fooled, at the present day the USPS issues a great many stamps primarily to sell to collectors, and it's not necessarily the case that the person is being honored, so much as it is a sales opportunity. For instance, in this case, they needed a bunch of designs to fill out a miniature sheet. Many of the following stamps fall into the same boat - for many 1 out of 10 is there anything significant about the stamp appearance (such as alteration of a photo for political reasons, etc). Stan (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

for that matter, the oscars is little more than a means to boost box office and the future saleability of actors. honour or not, neither has any bearing on the license permitting their inclusion in wikipaedia articles. --emerson7 22:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. --evrik ^(talk) 19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. There image is not significant to the article. There is no commentary on the stamp or the stamp's artwork in the article. -Nv8200p talk 22:53, 24 January 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:

Image:AmSciStampsReverse_cropped.jpg[edit]

Image:AmSciStampsReverse_cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dicklyon (notify | contribs).

nonfree image used to decorate a list Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. --evrik ^(talk) 19:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. Image is not significant in a list. -Nv8200p talk 22:58, 24 January 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:

Image:AmericanScientistStamps_cropped.jpg[edit]

Image:AmericanScientistStamps_cropped.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dicklyon (notify | contribs).

nonfree image used to decorate a list Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is a list of stamps; many are illustrated by pictures of the stamps; I believe this is normal fair use for images of stamps. Dicklyon (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But there are plenty of PD images that can be used to illustrate this list (if any pictures are indeed needed). Stamps pre-1978 are PD. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. --evrik ^(talk) 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. Image is not significant in a list. -Nv8200p talk 22:58, 24 January 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:

Image:Billie_holiday1994.jpg[edit]

Image:Billie_holiday1994.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wysinger (notify | contribs).

nonfree image, omission would not harm readers' understanding Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 15:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is not within WP:NFCC, which applies to every image. Surely there are tributes to Fitzgerald such as buildings and street names that can have free photographs taken of them. Readers also would not understand Fitzgerald's impact any less if this stamp were gone. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again, i need only restate my opposition to your nominations as subjective and overreaching --emerson7 15:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. --evrik ^(talk) 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "In 1994, the United States Postal Service introduced a Billie Holiday postage stamp" is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. -Nv8200p talk 23:05, 24 January 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:

Image:Cesar-chavez-USPS.jpg[edit]

Image:Cesar-chavez-USPS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jengod (notify | contribs).

does not significantly increase reader understanding, and there are a million things done in honor of chavez (street signs, buildings) that could be photographed freely Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. --evrik ^(talk) 19:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "In 2003, the United States Postal Service honored him with a postage stamp." is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Nv8200p talk 22:31, 25 January 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:

Image:Charles_Mingus_stamp.jpg[edit]

Image:Charles_Mingus_stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wysinger (notify | contribs).

does not contribute significantly to readers' understanding - stamp is mentioned briefly but we don't need to see it to understand the honor Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. --evrik ^(talk) 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "1995: The United States Postal Service issued a stamp in his honor." is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 18:55, 26 January 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:

Image:Chavezstamp.jpg[edit]

Image:Chavezstamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Abqnm (notify | contribs).

nonfree image, does not significantly increase readers' understanding Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. --evrik ^(talk) 19:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. There is no text in the article about the stamp. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 18:55, 26 January 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:Corton Team Picture1.jpg[edit]

Image:Corton Team Picture1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Firman08 (notify | contribs).

Unencyclopedic image of nn football team whose article has been deleted Mayalld (talk) 13:26, 16 January 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:

Image:Count_basie_stamp.jpg[edit]

Image:Count_basie_stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wysinger (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding... we don't need to put a non-free stamp in every biography of someone who's been honored with a stamp. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "On September 11, 1996 the U.S. Post Office issued a Count Basie 32 cents postage stamp." is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 18:55, 26 January 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:

Image:Dinah_Washington_stamp.jpg[edit]

Image:Dinah_Washington_stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wysinger (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding... we don't need to put a non-free stamp in every biography of someone who's been honored with a stamp. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "In 1993, the U.S. Post Office issues a Dinah Washington 29 cent commemorative postage stamp." is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 01:23, 27 January 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:

Image:EllaFitzgeraldStamp.png[edit]

Image:EllaFitzgeraldStamp.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Emerson7 (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding... we don't need to put a non-free stamp in every biography of someone who's been honored with a stamp. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:38, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 15:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, it is not within WP:NFCC, which applies to every image. Surely there are tributes to Fitzgerald such as buildings and street names that can have free photographs taken of them. Readers also would not understand Fitzgerald's impact any less if this stamp were gone. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

again, i need only to restate my opposition to your nominations as subjective and overreaching --emerson7 15:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I completely agree with Emerson7. The fact that a stamp has been issued is a significant event. Frankly, that goes for the whole list of stamp images here. And I think the nominator is completely out of line here, pushing her interpretation of WP:NFCC, which is policy that needs to be re-examined anyway. - Mafia Expert (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "On January 10 2007, the United States Postal Service announced that Fitzgerald would be honored with her own 39 cent postage stamp." is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 14:11, 27 January 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:

Image:Elvisstamp.jpg[edit]

Image:Elvisstamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pcj (notify | contribs).

does not contribute significantly to readers' understanding (more than text alone) in either of the articles in which it is used Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It is being used in articles that specifically discuss this stamp. There is no free equivalent to illustrate the topic being discussed. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is one modern stamp with a story to go with the stamp specifically, and for which the visual appearance of the stamp matters. Stan (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This picture of young Elvis was chosen against another design (older in the white glittering jacket) by a vote of the public the USPS organized (US-philatelist wikipedians may have archives of these facts in their philatelic magazines of the time). In Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley, this picture may illustrate how people remember him if press articles commented the choice. Sebjarod (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted Fails WP:NFCC #8. Neither of the two articles (Cultural depictions of Elvis Presley‎ and Return to Sender (song)) this image was in when I reviewed this IFD discussed the visual appearance of the stamp or the story behind the selection of the image, making the image insignificant to the articles. -Nv8200p talk 14:21, 27 January 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:

Image:Eubie_Blake_stamp_1995.png[edit]

Image:Eubie_Blake_stamp_1995.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wysinger (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding... we don't need to put a non-free stamp in every biography of someone who's been honored with a stamp. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "1995: The United States Postal Service issued a stamp in his honor." is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 14:11, 27 January 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:

Image:George_Washington_Carver_1998_stamp.jpg[edit]

Image:George_Washington_Carver_1998_stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cburnett (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding... we don't need to put a non-free stamp in every biography of someone who's been honored with a stamp. plus we already have a public domain stamp from 1948 in the article Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "Carver appeared on U.S. commemorative stamps in 1948 and 1998" is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 14:55, 27 January 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:

Image:Hanukkah_menorah_stamp_1999.jpg[edit]

Image:Hanukkah_menorah_stamp_1999.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by IZAK (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding, no discussion in-text as far as i can tell Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a unique historical postage stamp that was issued by the US Postal service in honor of the Jewish holiday of Hanukah. It depicts a menorah with lit candles in accurate form. The nominator seems far too casual and does not display a grasp of the subject matter of obe of Judaisms' hey holidays nor an appreciation for the historical significance of this postage stamp that honors an important festival of the Jewish people in the USA and worldwide. IZAK (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. IZAK (talk) 13:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the stamp is historically significant please provide a reference so stating. Also, it is used in the article to illustrate "Blessings over the candles", and not near any discussion of the stamp itself. Calliopejen1 (talk) 14:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calliopejen1: Wikipedia itself has an entry about the notability of this stamp: Holiday stamp#Hanukkah stamp: "United States & Israel: The U.S. Postal Service issued a 32 cent stamp in 1996 as a joint issue with Israel.Israeli-American Hanukkah Stamp Hanukkah commemorates the revolt led by Judah Maccabee against the government of Antiochus IV in 165 BC. This initial printing produced 103.5 million stamps and in 1997 there was a re-issue." It is regarded as the first Jewish stamp issued by the US Postal service (1996) and noted by most experts and dealers in these kind of stamps, see The Chanukah Stamp: The First US Jewish Stamp : "The U.S. Postal Service unveiled a new series of "Holiday Celebration" stamps in 1996 with the debut of the first stamp commemorating the Jewish holiday of Chanukah, the Jewish Festival of Lights. The Chanukah stamp is the first U.S. stamp to recognize a Jewish holiday. Jointly issued with Israel, both countries feature the same design. The U.S. version contains the English spelling of "Hanukkah" and the Israeli stamp features the Hebrew spelling. The Chanukah stamp was designed by Hannah Smotrich, a graphic designer and instructor at the Corcoran School of Art in Washington, D.C., and Board Member of the Washington Chapter - American Institute of Graphic Arts. Smotrich created the stamp design using pieces of cut colored paper, a medium she has used to create cards for family and friends. Smotrich paid particular attention to the choice of colors for the candles and background "to emphasize the upbeat nature of a playful, joyous holiday." The U.S. Postal Service will issue a new Holiday Celebrations series stamp each year reflecting a different cultural or ethnic holiday. The Postal Service will print 142 million of the Chanukah stamps." Thus, that stamp and the year it was first issued, 1996, was historic, and was part of a turnaround, as explained here[2] :"...In 1962 the United States Postal Service issued Its first Christmas Stamp and has been issuing new and different Christmas stamps every year since then. Beginning in 1965 and every year (with 3 exceptions) since then the USPS has issued a Christmas stamp with a religious theme (predominately the "Madonna & Child"). After years of refusing to issue a Hanukkah stamp, citing specific religious reference as the reason (while claiming the "Madonna & Child" stamps were merely art masterpiece reproductions), the United States Postal Service issued its first Hanukkah stamp in 1996. This only after, in November of 1994, the USPS announced it would discontinue the "Madonna & Child" Christmas because of its specific religious theme. And, within a week "Bowing to public pressure" reversed that decision. I'm sure the "pressure" came from Catholic organizations. Although a U.S. Hanukkah stamp has been "available" every year since 1996 it had been the same design through 2003. It was recycled leftovers from the previous year, or a revalued version as postal rates increased. During the same period of time there was a new "Madonna & Child" stamp almost every year (the exceptions being 2000 just before a rate increase in January 2001, and in 2003 supposedly to reduce stamp production costs). In 2004 the United States Postal Service issued the first new Hanukkah stamp design since1996. During the same period of time the USPS issued seven new "Madonna & Child" Christmas stamps and eight new Chinese New Year stamps..." See also, THE QUEST FOR ANNUAL HANUKKAH STAMPS : "This site is devoted to the effort of having the United States Postal Service issue a new and different Hanukkah stamp every year it issues a new one for Christmas. BACKGROUND will give you a little history of the fight for the Hanukkah stamp. CONSIDER THIS some facts to ponder. Is it bias and discrimination? CRITERIA shows that the USPS follows or ignores its own guidelines to suit their own purpose. FUTURE STAMPS gives you the information the USPS has told me as to whether or not there will be a new Hanukkah stamp in the near future. It also gives you the Postmaster General's address if you wish to write him and tell him you want a new Hanukkah stamp every year..." and this from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs : "Israeli-American Hanukkah Stamp: ISRAEL POSTAL AUTHORITY PHILATELIC SERVICE: October 22, 1996: The "Hanukkah Stamp", the first stamp to be jointly issued by Israel and the United States, was launched on Tuesday, October 22, 1996. Communications Minister Limor Livnat said: 'For the first time, a stamp has been jointly issed with the State of Israel's greatest friend - the United States. This is an additional expression of our special relationship, the American people's esteem and appreciation for the Jewish religion and culture, and the two countries' shared commitment to each other. There is no holiday more deserving than Hanukkah to be commemorated in a stamp by two great democracies. It symbolizes the freedom of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel, which is the same freedom which provides the basis for American democracy.' The stamp has a drawing of a colorful menorah (special Hanukkah candelabra) with the Hebrew phrase - "A great miracle happened here" - on the tab. The Souvenir Leaf shows two stamps, one American and the other Israeli. The stamp is unique in that it is the first Israeli self-adhesive stamp. The Designer - Hannah Smotrich: Hannah Smotrich is an American graphic designer with her own studio in Washington, DC. A graduate of Harvard University and the masters program in Design at Yale School of Art, she is also an adjunct faculty member at the Corcoran School of Art. She has also lived and worked in Israel. The Hanukkah Holiday: The Hanukkah holiday and the lighting of the candles serve as a reminder to us, symbolizing the dedication of the Holy Temple following the victory of the Jews over the Greek Syrian forces, led by Antiochus Epiphanes, in the year 164 BCE. The Jewish rebellion against Greek rule broke out after Antiochus enforced edicts nullifying the religious beliefs of the peoples under his rule. Jews were forbidden to keep the Sabbath and conduct circumcisions, the Holy Temple was desecrated by idol worship, and the Jewish rituals previously conducted there were halted. The rebellion was lead by Matityahu the Hasmonean, a priest from Modi'in, and his five sons. After a number of battles led by Judah the Maccabee, the City of Jerusalem was liberated from the Greeks. The Hasmoneans purified the Temple so that the worship of God could resume. They purified the seven-branched oil lamp in which the priests burned oil candles, and found one cruse of oil which had not been rendered impure by the Greeks. Tradition tells that the oil in this single small cruse lasted foreight days. This is the Miracle of Hanukkah. The Hanukkah holiday falls on the 25th day of Kislev. Since ancient times, it is customary to light candles in an eight-branched menorah (or Hanukkia). One candle is added for each day of the feast, until eight candles are lit on the last day of the holiday. The menorah is placed in a prominent spot or near a window so as to publicize the miracle. The eight candles are lit with a special candle, called the shamash. The candles in the menorah are not to serve any purpose other than being seen. Special holiday songs accompany the candle lighting, the best known of them being "Maoz Tzur". Hanukkah is also known as the Festival of Lights and the Maccabee Holiday. Children particularly enjoy Hanukkah because of the holiday custom of eating doughnuts and potato latkes, fried in oil, to commemorate the miracle of the oil that lasted for eight days. The children also play games with a special Hanukkah spinning top and receive Hanukkah gifts. The lighting of the Hanukkah candles has become a symbol of the victory of light over darkness, of bravery and the struggle for freedom of faith and national liberty of a people in their homeland, the few battling against the myriad. The seven branched lamp has become part of the national symbol of the State of Israel." I hope this satisfies your need to "provide a reference so stating." as for your observation that " it is used in the article to illustrate "Blessings over the candles", and not near any discussion of the stamp itself" you will notice that the stamp depicts lit candles in a Hanukkah menorah (do you know anything about this holiday at all) and your observations about where the stamp is or should be placed in the article are totally ludicrous and it is hard to imagine that that is the reason you wish to have this stamp deleted. IZAK (talk) 14:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't object to this image appearing at Holiday stamp, where you just added it, so I withdraw my nomination if this image is removed from the Hanukkah article (because it does not significantly increase readers' understanding of Hanukkah). By the way, you need to ease up and assume good faith. You'll notice that I'm nominating lots of stamps for deletion where they appear in non-stamp articles, and I'm in no way picking on Jewish holidays or Hanukkah. I am perfectly aware of the significance of the holiday and what this stamp depicts. Calliopejen1 (talk) 15:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Calliopejen1: At first I thought you may have been picking on this stamp, but I did later notice that you are nomination lots of others for deletion. At any rate the withdrawal of your nomination is appreciated but it makes no sense for you to condition it on it's removal from the Hanukkah article, when that is what the stamp is about, besides the Moenorah that it depicts, it declares "Hanukkah" so it's part of the Hanukkah article no matter which way you slice it. At any rate, after I found the above sources, it will now also be part of a Hanukkah stamps article. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 10:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 15:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't see the logic behind the nomination. You're being too overzealous. Sh76us (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep', I too do not see the basis of this nomination. --MPerel 17:57, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. My interpretation is the nomination was withdrawn when the image was removed from the Hanukkah article. The other usage of the image is in philately related articles, which is generally considered appropriate fair use for copyrighted stamp images. -Nv8200p talk 19:17, 26 January 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:

Image:HapArnoldStamp.jpg[edit]

Image:HapArnoldStamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alkivar (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding... we don't need to put a non-free stamp in every biography of someone who's been honored with a stamp. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "On November 7, 1988, the United States Postal Service released the H. H. 'Hap' Arnold 65 cent stamp bearing the likeness of Arnold." is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 18:28, 27 January 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:

Image:Hattie33.jpg[edit]

Image:Hattie33.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wysinger (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding... we don't need to put a non-free stamp in every biography of someone who's been honored with a stamp. other free images such as one of the star on the walk of hollywood could illustrate her legacy. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted Fails WP:NFCC #8. The image is not necessary to understand the text. -Nv8200p talk 15:24, 31 January 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:

Image:Howlin_wolf_stamp.jpg[edit]

Image:Howlin_wolf_stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wysinger (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding... we don't need to put a non-free stamp in every biography of someone who's been honored with a stamp. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there must be better ways of illustrating this article than a copyrighted image. - fchd (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "On September 17, 1994 the U.S. Post Office issues a Howlin' Wolf 29 cents commemorative postage stamp." is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 04:16, 28 January 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:

Image:Hughes_stamp.jpg[edit]

Image:Hughes_stamp.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TonyCrew (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding... we don't need to put a non-free stamp in every biography of someone who's been honored with a stamp. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "On February 1, 2002, The United States Postal Service added the image of Langston Hughes to its Black Heritage series of postage stamps to commemorate both the centennial of Hughes' birth and the 25th anniversary of the Black Heritage series." is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 04:15, 28 January 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:

Image:Jim_Thorpe_stamp.png[edit]

Image:Jim_Thorpe_stamp.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jheijmans (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding... we don't need to put a non-free stamp in every biography of someone who's been honored with a stamp. not discussed in-text as far as i can see Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. There is no text in the article about the stamp. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 01:13, 29 January 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:

Image:John_Henry_stamp_1996.jpg[edit]

Image:John_Henry_stamp_1996.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Wysinger (notify | contribs).

i'm sure there are fifty million free depictions of john henry, a folklore character. there is no need to use a copyrighted stamp Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "In 1996, the U.S. Post Office issued a John Henry 32 cent postage stamp." is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 04:15, 28 January 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:

Image:John_von_Neumann.JPG[edit]

Image:John_von_Neumann.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PDH (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding... we don't need to put a non-free stamp in every biography of someone who's been honored with a stamp. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "On May 4, 2005 the United States Postal Service issued the American Scientists commemorative postage stamp series, a set of four 37-cent self-adhesive stamps in several configurations. The scientists depicted were John von Neumann, Barbara McClintock, Josiah Willard Gibbs, and Richard Feynman." is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 16:13, 29 January 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:

Image:JolsonStamp.gif[edit]

Image:JolsonStamp.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PFHLai (notify | contribs).

does not significantly add to readers' understanding... we don't need to put a non-free stamp in every biography of someone who's been honored with a stamp. Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The fact that a stamp has been issued to honour someone, something or an historical event is significant and should be illustrated with the image of the stamp. This overzealous drive to delete images is getting out of hand. The deliberately narrow interpretation of WP:NFCC is hurting the policy guideline, because on the long run nobody will take it serious anymore. Mafia Expert (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: nomination is subjective and overreaching. the use of this image is well within the parameters of licensing. --emerson7 16:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Image of the stamp goes well with the paragraph about the stamp, IMHO. --PFHLai (talk) 03:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image deleted. Fails WP:NFCC #8. "Forty-four years after Jolson's death, the United States Postal Service acknowledged his contribution by issuing a postage stamp in his honor. The 29-cent stamp was unveiled by Erle Jolson Krasna, Jolson's fourth wife, at a ceremony in New York City's Lincoln Center on September 1, 1994. This stamp was one of a series honoring popular American singers, which included Bing Crosby, Nat King Cole, Ethel Merman, and Ethel Waters." is understandable text without the image and is not enough commentary to warrant use of the image. Also, Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images item 3. Copyrighted stamp images can be used for identification of the stamp (For example Five cents John Kennedy), not its subject. -Nv8200p talk 17:17, 29 January 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:Marcela_and_family.png[edit]

Image:Marcela_and_family.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BritandBeyonce (notify | contribs).

fair use image, does not contribute significantly to either article it's in Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Marcela_Agoncillo_PDI.png[edit]

Image:Marcela_Agoncillo_PDI.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BritandBeyonce (notify | contribs).

nonfree image, does not contribute significantly to readers' understanding Calliopejen1 (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:NeoOffice-2.2.2-Patch-5-PowerPC Tiger.png[edit]

Image:NeoOffice-2.2.2-Patch-5-PowerPC Tiger.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:User:Yoasif#Image:NeoOffice-2.2.2-Patch-5-PowerPC Tiger.png listed for deletion|User:Yoasif]] ([{{fullurl:User_talk:User:Yoasif|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | [[Special:Contributions/User:Yoasif|contribs]]).

obsoleted by Image:NeoOffice 2.2.2 patch 7.png on Commons, contains possibly non-free NeoOffice webpage. -- The Last User Name Ever (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:The Merv Griffin Show.jpg[edit]

Image:The Merv Griffin Show.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Happyme22 (notify | contribs).

image is not licensed for use in infobox. emerson7 15:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and replace with screenshot, for which a fair use claim is stronger. There appear to be no photos of Merv Griffin on government websites or on flickr, our best shot for freely-licensed images. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ella_in_Yonkers.jpg[edit]

Image:Ella_in_Yonkers.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dyfsunctional (notify | contribs).

derivative work of copyrighted statue Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Comet tails animation.gif[edit]

Image:Comet tails animation.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Anarchemitis (notify | contribs).

Incorrect image. For details, see the image talk page. — Chesnok (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although a derivative work, it is a donated piece of artwork belonging to the city of Yonkers. Deleting the image for this reason, would be like removing all images of the Statue of Liberty for "derivative" reasons. Ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.122.66.225 (talk) 18:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cassie Campbell bramptonsports.jpg[edit]

Image:Cassie Campbell bramptonsports.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tabercil (notify | contribs).

nonfree image, OB by Image:Cassiecampbell2.jpg (a free image). Original uploader was notified and has no objections [3]. Deathphoenix ʕ 21:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]