Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13[edit]

File:Ronald alexander wikipedia.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ronald alexander wikipedia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ajwwong (notify | contribs).
  • The photo has been taken from a website but there is no reason to believe the poster had authority to release under the CC license given. Ash (talk) 03:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm going to guess that the source page (which does not exist) once existed, and by its URL, I'd guess that it permitted this CC license. However, we don't have any solid evidence of that, so this can't be retained. Nyttend (talk) 22:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The page is still in the Google cache at [1]. Even if it wasn't, I think we can apply a bit of trust and avoid copyright paranoia. However the article where the image was used, Ronald A. Alexander, was deleted today. --Apoc2400 (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2010 (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.

File:Yuet Keung Kan.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Yuet Keung Kan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Clithering (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of a living public guy. Damiens.rf 03:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no available free images is an invalid reason to use a nonfree image of a living person, since it's possible to create a free image. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, replaceable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:25, 14 January 2010 (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.

File:1871sujagi.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 discussion was: Kept - Peripitus (Talk) 11:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:1871sujagi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bluelake (notify | contribs).
  • No verifiable source information. Damiens.rf 04:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Surely we could find the source eventually with enough looking. While policy would seek its deletion, this is a good situation for WP:IAR — the photo clearly demonstrates that it's from 1871, and (unless I'm misunderstanding something) all photos from the USA from that far back are public domain, regardless of their source and regardless of whether or not they were ever published. I don't see how deleting this image helps our encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is enough information to determine that it is in the public domain. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:52, 14 January 2010 (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.

File:SirTLYang.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SirTLYang.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Clithering (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of a living man. Also, we don't have to show him dressed-to-work in order to discuss his work. Damiens.rf 04:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, replaceable non-free image. --Apoc2400 (talk) 23:53, 14 January 2010 (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.

File:RedBull-Aerial-People copyright SM.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:RedBull-Aerial-People copyright SM.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Patso21 (notify | contribs).
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.

File:Haitiquake2.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by J Milburn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haitiquake2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Reenem (notify | contribs).
  • No freefair use rationale, obviously not irreplaceable as required by WP:NFCC, as the demolished palace is still around to take free images of.  Sandstein  07:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, copyvio. Abductive (reasoning) 07:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's so far the only wide-shot image of destruction caused by the earthquake in Haiti, so it does "convey essential information" and used as "commentary" on the aftermath of the quake. OptimumPx (talk) 08:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a better one becomes available. While not irreplaceable, I doubt any usable pictures will be coming out of Haiti for quite some time. Until then, we should use this one.
  • Keep This is the only picture i have yet seen of the damage done to the palace and i think its important for people to see whats going on.

--Hemlock Martinis (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete PD pics will turn up shortly.
Immediately after the earthquake, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the United States would provide civilian and military disaster relief and humanitarian assistance to Haiti.[43]
USAID is sending a disaster assistance response team to Haiti. The Fairfax County (Va.) Urban Search and Rescue Team and the Los Angeles County Search and Rescue Team were alerted and are going to Haiti as well to assist. [44] [45]
In the mean time useing a screenshot of a news video in an article about a current event is an absolute no no.©Geni 09:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In addition to the arguments made above, see item 6 under WP:NFC#UUI, which lists as an example of unacceptable non-free image use "A photo from a press agency (e.g., AP), unless the photo itself is the subject of sourced commentary in the article." —Bkell (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Sandstein, Bkell & Geni. Some people seem confused about policy, we don't allow replacable images until a better one becomes available. In fact as Geni has stated, there's a good chance we'd get free images very likely including of the palace fairly soon (within a few weeks), which is far sooner then for many other things we're waiting for. In fact, while Haiti is a very poor country and the situation there is fairly dire, anyone watching the news broadcasts or reading about it would know it's not completely out of contact of the outside world and there are tourists and people working for aide agencies and better off Haitians with satellite phones or internet access and some of these people have made contact including via twitter and other social network sites, VOIP and video contact with news organisations etc so there is a possibility of free images coming out even before help arives, perhaps even now it's daylight again. Edit: In fact, I see for example [2] has some pics while not of the palace, I don't see any evidence anyone here has tried to get these released under a free license. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2010 (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.

File:Haitiquake3.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haitiquake3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Reenem (notify | contribs).
  • No free fair use rationale, fails several elements of WP:NFCC (not used for commentary, does not convey essential information).  Sandstein  07:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, copyvio. Abductive (reasoning) 07:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Sandstein, abductive. Not even used in an article Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2010 (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.

File:Haitiquake.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Haitiquake.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Reenem (notify | contribs).
  • No free fair use rationale, fails several elements of WP:NFCC (not used for commentary, does not convey essential information).  Sandstein  07:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete, copyvio. Abductive (reasoning) 07:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per Sandstein, abductive. Not even used in an article Nil Einne (talk) 13:01, 13 January 2010 (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.

File:Ioquake3.svg[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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ioquake3.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Floam (notify | contribs).
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.

File:JimSkating2.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:JimSkating2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hockeyguru71 (notify | contribs).
  • Image originally uploaded with no license and the edit summary "I own the rights to this photo". Later changed to non-free. If it is non-free then it's a non-free image of a living person and surely replaceable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a free image and not usable under fair-use. Nyttend (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (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.

File:Liberalhtv.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 discussion was: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 09:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Liberalhtv.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adam Carr (notify | contribs).
  • Keep. Entirely reasonable fair use, on the article How-to-vote card, to show what one of the beasts actually looks like. Transformative use, and no possibility of commercial damage to the Australian Liberal party. So satisfies NFCC#2 and NFCC#8: showing this would indeed enhance reader understanding. It would also add to understanding at Australian_electoral_system#The_House_of_Representatives, which discusses how the parties use these how-to-vote cards to achieve a very low rate of ballot papers being ruled inadmissible by being wrongly filled in. Jheald (talk) 20:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it's quite acceptable to use nonfree images to identify subjects that are (by their very natures) nonfree objects. Not sure that it's valid for the other pages on which it's being used, but there's clearly at least one page on which this can be used properly, and that's all we care about in this discussion. Nyttend (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2010 (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.

File:DailyShowIndecision08.png[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: Delete; deleted by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 02:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:DailyShowIndecision08.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Shoemoney2night (notify | contribs).
  • Fails WP:NFCC#1 because it can be replaced with the functionally equivalent public domain (US government) photo at [3].  Sandstein  21:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; PD-USGov photo shows a significantly different context, but the specific context of DailyShowIndecision08.png is irrelevant to its usage, so there's no reason that the PD-USGov photo won't replace it well. Nyttend (talk) 21:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File now uploaded as File:Jon Stewart and Michael Mullen on The Daily Show.jpg. Nyttend (talk) 21:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I've uploaded the high-res version.  Sandstein  22:17, 13 January 2010 (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.

File:Buddy Holly - That'll Be the Day.ogg[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: Delete; deleted as G7 by MZMcBride (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Buddy Holly - That'll Be the Day.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gurch (notify | contribs).
  • Content of song is not significantly discussed in article; fails NFCC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not significantly discussed? The article is about the song. 14 seconds is quite reasonable too. --Apoc2400 (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2010 (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.

File:EnidBandPic.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 discussion was: keep - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 14:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:EnidBandPic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rodhullandemu (notify | contribs).
  • The single cover is used in the band's article without critical commentary against Wikipedia:Non-free content, the single is only listed in the discography section, and is being used to illustrate the band and not the album itself against "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question" from the licensing agreement. Aspects (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be totally wonderful if WP:NFCC was coherent and complete on this point, but it isn't. For a start, the image is used in the body of the article, not in a discography section, so that objection does not apply. There are other exceptions for non-free images, namely "iconic status or historical importance", per WP:NFCI#8, and that should be judged within the context of the article. The Fair-use rationale addresses this issue in that it explains that this is the only known image of this lineup of the band, and is therefore irreplaceable. The other issue is respect for commercial opportunity; in this case, the band would shortly break from EMI after the issue of this single, and would later regain their own master tapes back from them, and in the intervening 30 years or so, EMI have not sought to capitalise on their commercial rights- I have no knowledge of the arrangement between The Enid and EMI as to that, but I'd argue that EMI are now barred by estoppel and laches from asserting any rights over that image now. Sorry, but this is one of the very rare exceptions when the image polices need a little thought, and "absence of critical commentary" just is not a sufficient argument for deletion without regard to the surrounding circumstances. Rodhullandemu 23:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFCI#1: "Cover art from various items, for identification only in the context of critical commentary of that item (not for identification without critical commentary)." The point of mentioning the single is only listed in the discography section is to show there is no critical commentary of the single. Your keep reasoning does not claim there is critical commentary and as such the image should be deleted. Aspects (talk) 23:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not the purpose of the image, and the Fair-Use Rationale explains this; you are missing the point. It is utterly irrelevant that it is either in, or not in, a discography section. It is, I contend, irreplaceable. This is a common mistake made by those who cannot see beyond the simple wording of WP:NFCC#1 to realise that other justifications may exist independently of this criterion. I have mentioned WP:NFCI#8. To be clear, WP:FUR exists here as part of the Wikimedia Exemption Doctrine Policy to permit qualified exceptions, and it should be construed broadly with that purpose in mind, and mindlessly applying "the rules" as they are usually applied is contrary to that purpose. I don't want to be unduly lawyeristic, but this whole nomination is just missing the point completely, unless you know of a free image that performs the same function; I've been looking for one for 25 years, and I haven't found one. Let's close this and move on, please. Rodhullandemu 23:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The single cover is being used to illustrate the band and not the single against the licensing agreement "solely to illustrate the audio recording in question." and violates WP:NFCC#8 in that the image does not aid in readers' understanding of the band and not having it in the article is not detrimental to readers' understanding of the band. There is a free image being used in the infobox to represent the band and if this single cover really passed WP:NFCI#8 in that the image has "iconic status or historical importance", then there should be some commentary about this particular line-up of the band or the single to show how the image has "iconic status or historical importance." Aspects (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The free image, which I have donated to the world, illustrates only the most recent performing lineup of the band, and luckily, I was there to record it. However, I have far too much to do here otherwise (unless you want to take over my anti-vandalism and {{coords}} work from me), and if I must, I will reschedule my work to keep you happy. Meanwhile, other, far less defensible material, must wait. This image has a defensible WP:FUR. Sad. Rodhullandemu 01:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My understanding of WP:FUR permits the use of irreplaceable or otherwise unavailable images, regardless of the context in which they are sourced - the picture sleeve provides the only known representation of the definitive (commercially successful/artistically regarded) lineup of the band. Images of the current or most recent membership, although potentially available in in a free format, are not encyclopedic. Secondly, the image is not the only means under which the record was sold - some, likely most, would have been available under a plain or record company sleeve - unlike album covers, whose artwork is often solely devoted to that release and which may relate specifically to the content. This leads me to the last point (which is something of a big debating point, perhaps to be taken up elsewhere); the record sleeve advertises the band, and not the recording. This image of the band may have been applied to any advertising or publicity product of the era (gig posters, other records, press releases, etc,) since it does not refer to the subject matter of the recording, but only to the recording artists. For the above reasons, I think that the Fair Use Rationale is applicable and that WP:NFCC is a (good faith) misapplication in this context. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If this is indeed the definitive lineup of the band and if this is the only known represntation of that definite lineup, there needs to be some mention of it being the definitive lineup and this being the only known picture available. Aspects (talk) 01:34, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the image Fair-use rationale. Ideally, it would be in the article too, and once I recover fully, I will take some time to expand it. Meanwhile, the FUR is an adequate defence since it is wholly in the nature of NFCC that it permits, rather than prevents, use of irreplaceable images, and a credible assertion that this is the case will suffice to satisfy that policy for the time being. The shibboleth of "critical commentary" does not apply in such cases. Rodhullandemu 01:43, 21 January 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_January_13&oldid=1087611606"