Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 11

< January 10	January 12 >

January 11[edit]

File:Radio Tower atop Roanoke Building (old DeSoto Building location).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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted image, I'm not seeing how it adds irreplaceable value to the article. Kelly ^hi! 02:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find mention of the radio tower in the article. Also the radio tower is short and doesn't seem unique or special. If so, a photo doesn't add much. Could a picture be taken now (probably) unless the tower is no longer there. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2011 (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:AConspiracyOfHopeTourBooklet.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The non-free image appears present merely to illustrate the article - I'm not seeing anything in the accompanying text which would require this image for understanding. Kelly ^hi! 02:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. The fair-use rationale says what the reason is: to show the emphasis on the Amnesty logo and the absence of any of the participating artists' names (even though some big names were involved). This recent purge of images on the 'it merely illustrates the article' grounds has gone a bit far, in my view. Of course images are used to illustrate an article, what else would they be there for? If article bodies have to start artificially including stilted text touting an image's importance, that's going to degrade the quality of articles. And do you really think Amnesty International would object to their 'non-free' booklet cover being used in this article? The whole purpose of the tour was to raise awareness of Amnesty. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:41, 11 January 2011 (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:Said-akl.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete non-free use rationale information. No author/copyright holder, no date/place of publication, no explanation for necessity/irreplaceability, etc. etc. Kelly ^hi! 03:01, 11 January 2011 (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:Coanda propeller - reconstruction.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. The standard for whether an image is replaceable is not whether a free replacement is readily available now, but rather whether the possibility exists that a free equivalent can be created. Amatulic proved that point when they said, "Recreation of this would require both technical knowledge on the subject and also skills with rendering." That was confirmation right there that the image is replaceable. In addition, the presence of File:Coanda 1911 patent.jpg in the article appears to convey similar information, and that image is already free. For all of those, there's no reason to keep a non-free image around. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free technical drawing of an historic machine, as such replaceable with a free creation. Di-replaceable was removed on the argument that "Recreation of this would require both technical knowledge on the subject and also skills with rendering". This is a bogus argument: Lack of skill is not grounds for resorting to non-free content. Free photos, maps, or music recordings also require skills that many contributors lack; still, we rely on those who have the required talents. If you look at some of the featured free technical drawings on Commons, it is clear that we in fact do have Wikipedians with the required skill of creating such items. Fair use might arguably be justified if the specific reconstruction in this drawing was a notable creative act that was critically discussed as such in the article, but I don't see that it is. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The full explanation provided was: "A technically complex diagram on a highly obscure topic that is essential to the meaning of the image. Recreation of this would require both technical knowledge on the subject and also skills with rendering. Such a rare combination is an impractical requirement for its replaceability." The fact remains that no free replacement exists for this image. Fair use is a valid justification for keeping. A primary controversy around the Coandă-1910 article, mentioned in the lead and elsewhere, is whether the Coandă-1910 qualifies as the first jet-propelled aircraft. The propulsion system is obviously critical to that controversy. An illustration of the propulsion system is therefore necessary for that article, and should be usable on fair use grounds. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Excuse me, but you seem to overlook the essential criterion of replaceability: whether a suitable replacement "exists" is immaterial. The question is whether one could be created. And the threshold for the question of "practicability" in such matters is high. For instance, I would dearly love to have a sound recording of a certain piano concerto by Beethoven, which would be absolutely crucial for understanding the article about the concerto. There are probably fewer people in the world who have the required technical skill and knowledge to competently perform that concerto than there are people who would be competent to make such a technical drawing. Still, I can't just take a non-free recording, I have to wait until someone volunteers a free one. The only exception, as I hinted above, would be if the reconstruction illustrated by the present drawing was such an individual creative act that any other illustration making the same point would automatically be a derivative work of it. But I don't see the image discussed in such terms in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The image need not be discussed "in such terms" in the article. The topic of jet propulsion is discussed, and the image serves to illustrate the controversy. The controversy is mentioned in multiple places, including the place where the image is currently positioned. If a more suitable position exists, then it should be repositioned. The fact remains that this image is necessary for enhancing a reader's understanding of the controversy described, and therefore fair use is a fair rationale for keeping. 17:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    - Sorry for being blunt, but from a fellow administrator I expect better knowledge of policy than this. Please read WP:NFC, it is very clear on the subject of replaceability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree the image is hypothetically replaceable. You seem to be missing the point that I am arguing fair use — and I'm well aware that such an argument may not fly. In any case, I trust the folks editing the article will do something appropriate if the image is deleted. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, if you agree it is hypothetically replaceable, then you cannot logically vote keep. Replaceability is by itself a sufficient criterion for obligatoy deletion. There is no sense of "fair use" that could override this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Just to note that this image is a modern creation but with no evidence that it is accurate and faithfull reproduction rather than original research. If it is a modern reproduction then the source material from 1910 must exist which makes it replaceable! MilborneOne (talk) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The archival source material for this image still exists, but it's in a mixture of French and Romanian, and is only available through limited access to archives in Romania itself. The only people, probably worldwide, who have any practical ability to re-generate this image are the people already working with Antoniu on the recent new book from which this image was taken. If the nominator has a way of accessing resources written in technical Romanian, I'd love to hear it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: an image that's "reproducible" is one of a still standing building in an open country, or a map that can easily be recreated from other sources. This image is, for all practical purposes, irreplaceable by any free alternative. If anyone can prove to the contrary, I would love to have a free image depicting this. Buddy432 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2011 (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:J-20 takeoff.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Overuse of several non-free images of a recently released aircraft prototype. For the fundamental debate about the justification see the nomination of a previous image at Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_January_6#File:Chengdu_J-20.jpg. Having several such items in the same article is certainly not on. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I would hate to violate copyright policy.-- Novus Orator 02:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_January_6#File:Chengdu_J-20.jpg. The deleting administrator carefully considered the matter and wrote a lengthy explanation. Wikipedia can't look like fools to the world changing its mind left and right. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:39, 14 January 2011 (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:J-20 Front.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

see entry for File:J-20 takeoff.jpg above. Also no substantial FU rationale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete if it does not fulfill policy.-- Novus Orator 02:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete this file. It provides the sole illustration of this item.-- Novus Orator 03:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_January_6#File:Chengdu_J-20.jpg. The deleting administrator carefully considered the matter and wrote a lengthy explanation. Wikipedia can't look like fools to the world changing its mind left and right. Ryan White Jr. (talk) 05:40, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_January_6#File:Chengdu_J-20.jpg. As User:SchuminWeb wrote, there is a possibility to create a free image and therefore, it fails the NFCC criteria. Besides, even if a picture is not readily available, the item can clearly be illustrated by a sketch or CG model. --King Zebu (talk) 15:38, 14 January 2011 (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:Image graphic from the War Remnants Museum in HCMC.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 15:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph of a (presumably copyrighted) textual display item in a museum, but not the object of any substantial discussion; the information that's intended to be conveyed appears to be mostly the textual content of the display, which could easily (and better) be conveyed in text. No comprehensible FU rationale. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to use the information provided by this display in articles. So to reference the graphic I uploaded the image so that users could confirm the information. See 1972 in the Vietnam War as an example. -- Esemono (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We cite references here—we don't upload copies of them. I don't know exactly how you cite a museum display (it might not qualify as a reliable source), but if this is a copyrighted display then uploading a copy of it here is a copyright violation. —Bkell (talk) 22:30, 11 January 2011 (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:User-lahroo signature.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused userpage image. No license selected but PD-ineligible would apply in case. MGA73 (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2011 (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:Gertrude Kasebier-Joseph-Keileyjpg.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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:14, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After 2 years it has still not been proven that this is PD US. I think it is time to delete or fix the problem. MGA73 (talk) 12:08, 11 January 2011 (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:MPlaygroundGoodTimes.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 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly not owned by the uploader, so GFDL is wrong. Also, the content of the song isn't discussed in the article to a point that a sound clip is needed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:17, 11 January 2011 (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:ACDC NightProwler.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 by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't add to listener's understanding. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:49, 11 January 2011 (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:TV Guide - Today, August 1967.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free magazine cover included in two articles, neither of which contain discussion for this cover whatsoever. howcheng {chat} 22:12, 11 January 2011 (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:Portendo Chip.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Photo of a computer chip, apparently "the NES-on-a-chip integrated circuit used in Kevin Horton's homebrewn Portendo project," and apparently "used with permission of Mr. Horton". Used in the Nintendo Entertainment System hardware clone article. The article does not mention Mr. Horton or the Portendo project at all; the caption to this image just says, "The NES is replicated in a small chip underneath the black epoxy glop", and that's it. No explanation is provided for why we need to show Mr. Horton's project in this article or why this image significantly increases readers' understanding of the topic—it just looks like an electronic component (sure, it's a homemade electronic component, but it's just a bunch of wires and things, pretty much how I would expect something like this to look). So the use of this image fails WP:NFCC#8. Furthermore, if the purpose of this image is just to show an example of an NES hardware clone, we should be able to get a freely licensed photo of one, since the article claims the NES has become "one of the world's most cloned video game consoles." If for some reason it is important to show this particular chip, then first of all we will need a good rationale explaining why, and second there needs to be a convincing explanation for why it is not possible to get a freely licensed photo from Mr. Horton. As it stands now, this image also seems to fail WP:NFCC#1. —Bkell (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The Portendo article, which was about the project shown in this photo, was deleted because of a lack of an assertion of notability. —Bkell (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Replaced with a free image. In any case it isn't a particularly good depiction of a NES clone, since it's a homebrew project when the vast majority of clones are mass produced. Might be a case for keeping it to illustrate an article/section specifically about homebrew NES clones - they tend to be one-offs so you'd most likely be unable to replace it with a free equivalent - but, well, there isn't one, as far as I can tell. Sengokucannon (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2011 (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.