Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 June 7

< June 6	June 8 >

June 7[edit]

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 for use on User page only. -Nv8200p talk 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ben-Seamus Project.jpg[edit]

Image:Ben-Seamus Project.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dudemeister1234 (notify | contribs).

Tagged for speedy deletion with the rationale "The article that this was used in has been deleted and salted. The image has no encyclopaedic use." Sent to IfD for consideration. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I am the person who put speedy on it. It is a pencil drawing done by the person who uploaded it. It illustrates no encyclopaedic subject. The image rationale talks about sharing the copyright which suggests that the author does not understand the implications of putting it under the GFDL, although it is tagged as such. The backstory here is that there are two kids who are trying to write a web comic called Haven and are trying to use Wikipedia as a base for it. I don't think they are intentionally doing anything wrong but they completely fail to understand what Wikipedia is for. Their main article was deleted 4 times before being salted. If we let this stuff hang around then they may keep trying to recreate their article, confused as to why some but not all of their stuff gets deleted. If we get rid of it they are more likely to move their web comic to a more appropriate place to host the venture, which would be better for everybody. I have offered the author some advice on his talk page. --DanielRigal (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dudemeister1234

Sorry...

I changed it a bit so that hopefully it will be acceptable. I intend to use this image only for my user page, and I will not attempt to make any encyclopedia articles about it. And yes, I will find another hosting site. Thank you for responding rather than simply punishing me for reasons I don't understand like those bots.

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:Eckharttwoface.jpg[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as a recreation of previously deleted material.

Image:Eckharttwoface.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Quinlanfan2 (notify | contribs).

previously deleted faked fan image, see File:Two-FaceEckhart.jpg for previous case. ThuranX (talk) 01:10, 7 June 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:CruelBritanni.jpg[edit]

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

Book cover being used decoratively in author's article. Kelly ^hi! 02:52, 7 June 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: delete. Letter is still under Crown Copyright as far as I can tell. The text adequately coveys the information without the image. Any impact the image of the letter might have is subjective and unsupported. We ignore all rules but we don't ignore laws. On a side not - As the KJV was first published in 1611, I'm pretty sure it is no longer under Crown Copyright. -Nv8200p talk 02:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dresden,Churchillletter.jpg[edit]

Image:Dresden,Churchillletter.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | contribs).

Decorative image, text from letter already quoted in article. Kelly ^hi! 02:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is this really copyrighted? It came from the British government. I contend public domain. Guroadrunner (talk) 08:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The British government doesn't release their work into the public domain, it's under Crown Copyright. Kelly ^hi! 16:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not fully honouring Crown Copyright, otherwise the KJV would also be off-limits. But this would be under copyright under most reasonable interpretations of copyright law.

Keep. It's a unique historic document. The transcript cannot convey the full impact of the original, including the handwritten withdrawal note, and the form. Moreover, the use on Wikipedia is within the publications requirements, so for such an important document I would claim WP:IAR. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:34, 8 June 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:Peter King book.jpg[edit]

Image:Peter King book.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SlimVirgin (notify | contribs).

Book cover being used decoratively in author's article. Kelly ^hi! 02:52, 7 June 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: delete per WP:NFCC#1, #2 and I would throw in #8 also. -Nv8200p talk 02:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ZAKA.jpg[edit]

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

Competes with copyright holder WP:NFCC#2. Can be replaced with free image of people from this organization per WP:NFCC#1. Kelly ^hi! 02:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any competition. Also, the image may be replaceable for illustrating ZAKA, but not for illustrating the unique event it depicts. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as replaceable fair use; it's being used in a way that identifies KAZA (check the article), and is thus replaceable. giggy _(:O) 07:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, replaceable. The argument about the "unique historic event" is bogus, as the specific scene shown in the image is not discussed, in fact not even identified, in the article. It's being used purely as a generic illustration of what the organisation regularly does, not of anything special to that specific incident. NFCC #1 is also arguable - a picture of the back of a man bending over a body doesn't really further my understanding of who that man is and what his organisation does all that much. Finally, commercial competition might be an issue. The copyright holder (cropped out in our image and not currently identified on the description page) is "Bernard Lallzou, Rosenpress Agency" [1]; I haven't found out more about them, but if that is a commercial news agency, the image is taboo for us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's an argument against the use of the image in the ZAKA article, not against the use in another article. I agree that if we do not cover the event in question, fair use is not a good argument. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Even if we did cover the event, we absolutely could not use a news agency photo per WP:NFCC#2. Kelly ^hi! 16:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Talking about coverage of the event is moot – we don't even know what event it's supposed to be, and it's never been claimed for any other article except the ZAKA one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image isn't properly sourced; we have no idea where it came from. It's not even dated. It looks like a news photograph, but it might be from a movie or TV show; the angle looks like it was a crane shot, taken from about ten feet up on a street. --John Nagle (talk) 17:08, 8 June 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.

Book cover being used decoratively in author's article. Kelly ^hi! 02:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyc. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:79849203.jpg[edit]

Image:Image:79849203.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Clara Schumann (notify | contribs).

I believe this Non-free promotional image is unnecesary for the Vanessa Carlton page as other free images are already populated on that wikipage. Guroadrunner (talk) 03:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a general way, I agree with the above. In this specific context, my argument would be that the free images that exist are not of sufficiently good quality - (I've read some negative comments on a blog specifically refering to the wikipedia infobox photo) - hence I believe that images that are free but cast the artist in an unfavorable light and generate negative public feedback are less preferable to validly justified copyrighted ones that don't.

--Clara Schumann (talk) 01:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a photo that needs to be approved of higher quality from the publicity company. I do now know how to upload it properly. if someone could help that would be great.

CatherineMarcasciano@gmail.com

I agree that an official promo photo from the artist is preferable to Image:79849203.jpg - and one has been placed in the article infobox - so I don't object to this image's speedy deletion.

--Clara Schumann (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aika R-16 promo.png (retracted)[edit]

Image:Aika R-16 promo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Iron2000 (notify | contribs).

There already is a screencap from this show on the Wikipedia page for this, so two's a crowd. Too many non-free images, and this one is newer. Guroadrunner (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Retracted - decision appears to be to kill the other image. The point is that two nonfree images are too many. Guroadrunner (talk) 15:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible to put infobox images at a higher priority and remove the screencap? The infobox image also has the appearnce of another character the screencap lacks. - Iron2000 (talk) 05:36, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not get rid of the screenshot instead of this? The promo shot seems to illustrate more of the content. 70.51.9.251 (talk) 06:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Solution: Well, I don't know anything about this anime series, but here's what I'll do: I'll retract this and pull the screenshot ( right|thumb|200px|The three protagonists (from left to right): Karen, Aika and Eri. ) off of the wikipage. OrphanBot will pick that one up later... -- Guroadrunner (talk) 15:07, 7 June 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: delete. There is no evidence at the source that this image is copyright free use. -Nv8200p talk 02:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:BuffySainteMarie.jpg[edit]

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

Copyvio per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob (talk)
- Keep This appears to be free content in the vein of CC-BY : Terms of copyright on Wikipedia read as: "This image is copyrighted. The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the original image author and image description are credited" -- Guroadrunner (talk) 09:01, 8 June 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:Joe Clark at Progressive Conservative Convention 1976 small.jpg[edit]

Image:Joe Clark at Progressive Conservative Convention 1976 small.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arctic.gnome (notify | contribs).

Copyvio per Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Library and Archives Canada non-PD images Rob (talk) 06:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MichaelBennettBio.JPG[edit]

Image:MichaelBennettBio.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SFTVLGUY2 (notify | contribs).

Fails WP:NFCC#8. No discussion of the book in article. Papa November (talk) 08:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:03, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The book is the main reference for the article and is cited as such. 209.247.22.164 (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment That's not an acceptable use of a non-free image. Book covers may be used to identify the book, not the person whose picture is on the cover. If there was a large amount of discussion about the book in the article, then it might be fair to use the image, but here it's only mentioned as a reference, and only once at that! Papa November (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Garrybarry6.jpg[edit]

Image:Garrybarry6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Everlast1910 (notify | contribs).

The Flickr source says © all rights reserved, there is no proof of a free license. See also Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#No_permission_template Kjetil r (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Quetem.PNG[edit]

Image:Quetem.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gordalmighty (notify | contribs).

Was copied to commons but deleted there as redundant to commons:Image:Qc Temiscamingue.png, redundant here too? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Quemat.PNG[edit]

Image:Quemat.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Earl Andrew (notify | contribs).

Was uploaded to commons. Deleted as redundant to commons:Image:Qc Matane.png. Redundant here too? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Quelmt.PNG[edit]

Image:Quelmt.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Earl Andrew (notify | contribs).

Was copied to commons. Deleted there as redundant to commons:Image:Qc Matapedia.png. Is this just as redundant here? Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Quekam.PNG[edit]

Image:Quekam.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Earl Andrew (notify | contribs).

Was moved to commons but has been deleted there as superfluous to commons:Image:Qc Kamouraska.png. Redundant? Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:00, 7 June 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: delete BSD Deamon being used in a non fair use manner. - Nv8200p talk 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Free_Software_Portal_Logo.svg[edit]

Image:Free_Software_Portal_Logo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kl4m (notify | contribs).

Copyvio. The BSD Daemon is fully copyrighted and even if you claimed fair use on it, this would clash with the FAL for the GNU head, which requires the entire work to be sharealike. So you cannot legally put the gnu head with the BSD daemon. -Nard 20:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Alerted that portal of IFD. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:09, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Modify if needed This image is referenced on a lot of pages [2]. disclaimer: I'm the uploader. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 21:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This image needs deleting as the copy of it on commons has been already done so. And I think it's good idea to replace another image which, for example, excludes only the BSD Daemon. --82.149.79.21 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- oppose - If the GNU logo, like the BSD logo, is used under fair use terms, then the sharealike requirements don't apply. Thus no copyvio. It should also be noted that both the BSD and GNU projects are well aware of Wikipedia and have never made any complaints. Further, the GNU project endorses Wikipedia and members of FSF contribute to Wikipedia. (The same might be true for the BSD developers, I just haven't checked.) Gronky (talk) 09:55, 17 June 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:Wingsofbutterfly.jpg[edit]

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

Orphan, obsolete. Higher quality version now in use (Image:Planetary Nebula M2-9.jpg). BlueAzure (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Uss boston cruiser.jpg[edit]

Image:Uss boston cruiser.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RadicalBender (notify | contribs).

Orphan, higher quality version of photo is now on commons (Image:USS Boston Cruiser.jpg). BlueAzure (talk) 21:41, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Giggles HTF.jpg[edit]

Reason:Replacement of the image

Image:JBK_performing_baCKFLIP.JPG[edit]

Image:JBK_performing_baCKFLIP.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Planetjosh673 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 22:01, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JBPhilaPitch.jpg[edit]

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nobama08.jpg[edit]

Image:Nobama08.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ozzie425er (notify | contribs).

Image is not used in any articles.Correct me if I'm wrong. Xp54321^{(Hello!,Contribs)} 22:02, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No terms licensing either. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JCHS07.jpg[edit]

Image:JCHS07.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JOHNCARROLLHIGH (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 22:03, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyc. What article was this connected to?? Guroadrunner (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JEFO-aerial.jpg[edit]

Image:JEFO-aerial.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jdbunod (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JEFO-Booth.jpg[edit]

Image:JEFO-Booth.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jdbunod (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 22:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JEFO-Chicken.jpg[edit]

Image:JEFO-Chicken.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jdbunod (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Potentially encyclopedic. I've put it at Talk:Bird feeder. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Nomination withdrawn -Nv8200p talk 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JEFO-Warehouse.jpg[edit]

Image:JEFO-Warehouse.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jdbunod (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyc. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JEFO-Jean-FONTAINE.jpg[edit]

Image:JEFO-Jean-FONTAINE.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jdbunod (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 22:07, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - unencyc. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JEFO-africa.jpg[edit]

Image:JEFO-africa.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jdbunod (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 22:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are almost no images of Togoese agriculture OR retail trade, and, as according to Economy of Togo Subsistence agriculture is the main economic activity in Togo; the majority of the population depends on subsistence agriculture. Food and cash crop production employs the majority of the labor force and contributes about 42% to the gross domestic product (GDP). It would be desirable for Economy of Togo to expand to something like Economy of Senegal or Economy of Niger (which are tiny compared to Economy of the Republic of Ireland, a nation almost 1.5 million people smaller than Togo. Thus PD images applying to this are quite valuable, and encyclopedic. The rest of these "JEFO-" seem pretty useless. I would suggest this be moved to Commons. T L Miles (talk) 03:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note - added to Economy of Togo article. No longer Orphaned. Guroadrunner (talk) 09:17, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination withdrawn -Nv8200p talk 02:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]