Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 June 23

< June 22	June 24 >

June 23[edit]

File:Bailjewel.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, so blurry that I can't even tell what it is. —Bkell (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't imagine this can be used. --MGA73 (talk) 19:24, 23 June 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:Lobclasp.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo, so blurry that I can hardly tell what it is. —Bkell (talk) 01:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't imagine this can be used. --MGA73 (talk) 19:25, 23 June 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:Calvin Murphy on SI Cover.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Missing rationale for the articles in use, probably fails WP:NFCC#8 anyway. Mosmof (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No longer used in the article for which fair use was claimed. I can't think of a plausible FU rationale for its use in the article in which it is currently being used. AJ Cham 09:14, 30 June 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:PeterN1.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The photographer here is David Moore (photographer) (who died in 2003), so I'm assuming he is the owner of the copyright on this image; but the uploader here claims to own possession of the copyright by using the GFDL-self licencing tag. A previous image of this guy uploaded by the same user was recently deleted on commons as having insufficient licencing. Background info available at this AfD Them From Space 14:09, 23 June 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:Inscription on tombstone of Sol Hachuel in Morocco .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 as G7 by Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not fair use Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meets all and every Non-free content criteria

No free equivalent. The image was taken in Morocco. There are 2-3 images of the tombstone at the NET. None is free.
Respect for commercial opportunities. Only a portion of the image is used. The original image is merely informational, and rather bad quality, and low resolution. It is unlikely anybody would buy it in the first place, but using it on Wikipedia with the source to the original image provided will only increase their commercial opportunities.
a)Minimal usage Only one item is used b) Minimal extent of use low resolution is used
Previous publication. It is published outside Wikipedia (the source is provided)
Content highly encyclopedic.
Media-specific policy meets requirements.
One-article minimum is used in Sol Hachuel, and probably will be used in 1-2 more articles.
Contextual significance The description of the tombstone is used in the article, the image will help the readers to see what the article describes.
Restrictions on location The image is used only in the article.
Image description page Meets all requirements.

Strong keep--Mbz1 (talk) 15:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This fails several of the non-free content criteria. Its original source and author are not indicated. The author wrote "all rights reserved". The image can be replaced by making a new photograph of this monument. It is not really necessary in the article. And Mbz1 should not have removed the template from the file page. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 15:24, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update I emailed to the author and asked to release the image to be used in Wikipedia article. I got the response:

"...Thank you for contacting me for permission to use one of the Diarna Project's photos for your Wikipedia article on Soulika. The photo cannot be release under a free license, however, you may use one of them if we are properly credited and linked to (e.g., "Photo courtesy of Diarna: Mapping Mzirahi Heritage"). Did you see are video? Or read our article: http://www.myjewishlearning.com/history/Jewish_World_Today/Jews_Around_the_Globe/jewish-morocco/soulika.shtml. Perhaps you can link to -- and/or quote from -- these, too. "

The required link was added to the image. The request should be closed as "speedy kept".--Mbz1 (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can tag with {{Withpermission}}, but - strange as it may seem - permission hardly matters for wikipedia. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 17:06, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Mbz1 reasoning. Broccoli (talk) 15:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Strong delete "The image was taken in Morocco. There's none free image on the internet." That does not mean that it is not replacable. Just go to Morocco and take a photo! So how can it be fair use? --MGA73 (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional arguments: Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2 says in #12 that images of living people are "Unacceptable use" because "taking a new free picture as a replacement (which is almost always considered possible) would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image". So just because you do not have a free image or could not take one yourself does not give you the right to claim fair use because it IS possible to take new and free image. So unless inscription has been eliminated I do not think that it is impossible to replace this image. --MGA73 (talk) 19:40, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you by any chance noticed that the author gave me permission to use the image?--Mbz1 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep What's the big deal? The author gave permission. --Shuki (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Permission? It is a "for Wikipedia" and {{Withpermission}} says "This tag must be used in conjunction with another fair-use image tag. If no other tag is present on this page, and this image was uploaded after May 19, 2005, please speedily delete this image." I argued abowe that fair-use is NOT valid and then template says "speedy delete". That is the big deal. --MGA73 (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image is tagged with another "fair-use" image tag.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is but that tag is not valid and it has to go. --MGA73 (talk) 21:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:Mbz1's rather cogent argument. Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A free image is obtainable, so this is not fair use. Therefore {{Withpermission}} or any other permission without a free license release cannot be applied because the image is not fair use. --Zoo Fari 21:09, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could help to obtain free image? There are 2-3 images of that on whole NET, all taken by the same person.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look hard on Flickr. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It was helpful. The image is not free, but maybe they will agree to release it with the needed licence. Would you please mind telling me what search criteria did you use?--21:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No sadly license is not ok. We will try to ask Flickr user for a permission or a change of license. --MGA73 (talk) 21:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I used the French spelling of her name, which is on the tomb, and just kept looking. As stated, this image is CC-NC, so it is not really free for our purposes. The main thing I am telling you is that Flickr is always a good resource for images. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:44, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know that, and I always look on Flickr, but I did not find any image with my search criteria. After your found it I've done few more searches on Flickr, but so far I've only found the same you found.--Mbz1 (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a dubious excuse. I don't have time and money to go out right now and travel to this place but I'm sure it is possible, and I'm also sure you didn't search the whole Internet and dig out only 3 images you claim to be the only ones. Zscout370 dug one out and I'm sure there are others. It's NC unfortunately but permission might not be hard to obtain if you give it a try and email the Flickr user. This finding convinces me the above arguments about this image being fair-use are wrong. --Zoo Fari 21:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have done my best to get a free image, but finding the right one depends on search criteria. I did email flick user, but if he refuses to release it, I still cannot understand what is such a big deal of using the one I have now. The most concern with fair use images is protections the right of the copy right holders. The copy right holder gave his permission! So what is the problem?--Mbz1 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it loops back to my first comment. The author did not release it into a free license (which of course should be done using OTRS) so it can't be used on Wikipedia. It can't be used under a fair use claim even with permission to do so because it the image does not meet the fair use criteria: A free image is obtainable: The author could have released it freely instead of denying it, you can travel to the object since it still stands, ask the Flickr user, search more thoroughly on the web, etc. --Zoo Fari 22:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A free image might be obtainable and might be not. It is not an image of Golden Gate Bridge after all. What I am trying to say that I see no problem, if this image is used until a free one is obtained. Until a free image is not obtained, the image that is used now meets all the criteria for fair use + the permission given by the author. In any case I emailed Flickr user, and will see what response is going to be, if any. If response is "no", or there is no response at all, I believe that the current image should be allowed to stay under fair use.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- - Free image was obtained thanks to the kind help of User:Zscout370. This image should be deleted, and this request should be closed. --Mbz1 (talk) 02:37, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - FYI you are wrong in the above comment; fair use is a no-no for things that are existent. Please don't think this image would have been okay, and keep this in mind in the future. I'm glad that there is a free image available, however. --Zoo Fari 02:50, 25 June 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:Windows 7 XP Mode.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: Withdrawn without any objection from a third party. Necessary action will be taken to prevent the need of another such nomination. (Non-Admin Closure) Fleet Command (talk) 19:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file is uploaded under a fair-use claim entirely lacks source. Yes, I know this file should be speedy-deleted by tagging it with {{di-no source}}. However, administrator Fastily (talk · contribs) has already removed this tag, under the questionable pretext that the "source is good"! Fleet Command (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep With fair use, there is no need for a source link (saying which program it came from is fine), because the screenshot is owned by Microsoft as it details the Windows 7 UI as well as the IE UI which is also owned by Microsoft which means that it doesn't matter who made the screenshot as its rights default to Microsoft with us using Fair Use to display it thus negating the need to name a source link. Best, Mifter (talk) 19:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You make that up yourself, dear Mifter. How do you even know there is anything Microsoft in that screenshot, beside window chromes? Assumption is the mother of all blunders. Source is required for everything in Wikipedia so that given image can be reproduced if not revisited. What you say is even not generally correct, per WP:NFCC#4. Fleet Command (talk) 15:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The source is good. What do you mean questionable? o 0 -FASTILY ^(TALK) 19:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The source reads "Windows Virual PC". This screenshot is not even from Windows Virtual PC! What's questionable, you ask? There is nothing OK about specifying "Windows Virtual PC" as a source for an screenshot that is not even Windows Virtual PC. Fleet Command (talk) 15:56, 24 June 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:Unity Building Residential.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This file is NOT a crop from File:Liverpool Skyline.PNG so we do not have a good source. MGA73 (talk) 19:10, 23 June 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:Rainbow2ffe.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License unverifiable (Flickr page no longer available); not a significant image. --Zoo Fari 20:47, 23 June 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:Rainbow3ffe.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License unverifiable; not a significant image --Zoo Fari 21:02, 23 June 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:John Atta Mills.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 Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image, looks like edited photo from presidential campaign (file is available via Tineye search engine) Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 23:49, 23 June 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.