Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 September 19

< September 18	September 20 >

September 19

File:Sifuvers.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, low-resolution promotional image. No context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 00:57, 19 September 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:Teddy.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are three version of this file, all different, all unused. Latest version looks like an unidentified self-portrait. Second version is an album cover. First version is a teddy bear. PD release is for first version. Origin of latest version is unknown. Geraldo Perez (talk) 01:30, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not a Teddy Pendergrass fan, but I'd say it's a good idea to restore the album cover version. I don't know if I want to revert it to that version and change the license so it can be added to the Heaven Only Knows (album) article, or get a whole new version of it and split it off. I remember a similar issue a while back which partially involved a Janice Vidal album cover(see details in File:Janice Vidal - Morning.jpg). ----DanTD (talk) 04:13, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE - I split off the Teddy Pendergrass album cover here, and reverted the original image to it's intended purpose. I don't know if it'll make it less worthy of orphan status, but it removed one version. ----DanTD (talk) 21:14, 19 September 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:NYT Sago Headline.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of the front page of the New York Times, used in the Sago Mine disaster article because of the headline that incorrectly stated that 12 miners were found alive. But we can just cite this article—we don't have to reproduce this copyrighted content to discuss it. (This particular article is available online, with the original incorrect headline: [1].) The use of this image in this way violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8, because the information conveyed to the reader by this image (namely, that the New York Times ran the incorrect headline "12 Miners Found Alive 41 Hours After Explosion") is easily conveyed with free text and a citation to that news article, and the image does not add to readers' comprehension of this fact. —Bkell (talk) 01:59, 19 September 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:Seattle-pi.sago-mine.png

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See previous listing. This is a non-free screenshot of the Web page of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, used in the Sago Mine disaster article because it shows an incorrect headline, "Families say 12 W.Va. miners found alive". But we can easily convey the information that the newspaper ran this incorrect headline with free text and a citation to the news article; a non-free screenshot is unnecessary and does not add to readers' comprehension. So this use violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. In fact, we should cite reliable sources that discuss this mixup, rather than using our own screenshots as evidence that these headlines were run—that borders on original research. —Bkell (talk) 02:13, 19 September 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:AdamRichman.jpeg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, the image is licensed saying the uploader holds the copyright AND links to a flickr image attributed what looks to be a different person, which is contradictory. Second, if you click on the flickr link to see the original photo, you'll see it is a photo of a photo which I believe would not be okay even if was uploaded to commons with the right flickr license CutOffTies (talk) 02:26, 19 September 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:Clutterbuck, Henry (1767-1856), by John Cochran, pubd 1840 (after Henry Room).jpg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by higher resolution (but differently tinted) File:Henry Clutterbuck.jpg Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:21, 19 September 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:Titian laocoon.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by higher resolution (but differently tinted) File:Caricature of the Laocoon group as apes.jpg. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:22, 19 September 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:Ragnar Nurkse.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This memorial was erected on 5 October 2007 under the sponsorship of the Bank of Estonia (p. 42 of Kattel, Kregel, and Reinert, Ragnar Nurkse {2009}). Hence, it is copyrighted for a long time (70 years after the death of its sculptor). Estonia does not allow commercial freedom of panorama (commons:Commons:Freedom of panorama); i.e. photographs taken of copyrighted works installed in the public cannot be used for commercial purposes. Hence, this derivative of the copyrighted work is not truly free; no one can use the photograph for commercial purposes. The articles that use this photograph also do not contain any critical commentary about this memorial (no discussion of its design at all); hence it would also not qualify for fair use in this project (failing WP:NFCC #8). Jappalang (talk) 05:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I got the photo of Ragnar Nurkse's memorial stone from the Estonian version of Wikipedia. You can check it out: http://et.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ragnar_Nurkse The original uploader has given it a CC 3.0 license, as usual. So I don't think any copyright has been violated. The photo is being used on Ragnar Nurkse's Balanced Growth Theory article since it is appropriate to honour Nurkse's pioneering work in Economics. Please do not delete this photo. The article is a part of the Wikipedia India Education Program, supported by Wikipedia Ambassadors. You can see the course page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Courses/Fall_2011/Development_Economics_Year_3_Group_B Regards Abhilasha369 (talk) 13:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It does not matter. There are two copyrights at play here: the photograph and the memorial. The photograph's is okay, but the memorial is not. In case you missed the "derivative" link above, let me make it clear here, please read commons:Commons:Derivative works#If I take a picture of an object with my own camera, I hold the copyright to the picture. Can't I license it any way I choose? Why do I have to worry about other copyright holders?. This photograph requires the release permission of the sculptor to be truly "free" by the project's rules. Jappalang (talk) 21:37, 19 September 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:Cityview.JPG

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unusable and non-encyclopedic. A photo of some road and some roadside trees but it is so low resolution that nothing in it can be distinguished. Also useless for desktop decoration. Fleet Command (talk) 07:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This edit of Barstow, California identifies the general location of this road. ----DanTD (talk) 21:20, 19 September 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:CIMG2109.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned. Has no description as to what it is showing and therefore unusable. What is it, really? Fleet Command (talk) 07:26, 19 September 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:Safdar hashmi.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free photograph of the funeral procession of Safdar Hashmi. The rationale says that this is a "Historic and political event with iconic status", but the funeral procession isn't mentioned in the article at all (apart from the image caption), and there is no commentary about this photograph. The information this image provides could easily be conveyed by free text, and the use of this photo does not significantly increase readers' understanding of Mr. Hashmi. The use of this image fails WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 07:31, 19 September 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:Church 1.jpg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned with no foreseeable use, it is a low resolution image of some building that has no identification data. (I'm sure I have seen this place before, but I don't remember where.) Fleet Command (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Likely Beacon Baptist Church, which was speedily deleted under WP:CSD#A7 for not asserting significance. —Bkell (talk) 08:00, 19 September 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:Raffles.jpg

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) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. No context for encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 07:57, 19 September 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:63Recruit.jpg

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 Skier Dude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:02, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Logo of some sort. Likely copyrighted. No reason given to suggest that uploader is copyright holder FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:46, 19 September 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:JusticeATL.jpeg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball card should have a fair use for an article about the card, not the subject. Regardless, this is an improperly attributed to a flickr image with the wrong copyright license CutOffTies (talk) 12:09, 19 September 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:Drsicburg.jpg

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 ⚡ 02:00, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is the cover of the French edition of The Doctor Is Sick. We already have an image of the first edition cover (File:DoctorIsSick.jpg), which is being used in the infobox. The rationale for this image is boilerplate that does not apply to its actual use ("The image serves as the primary means of visual identification of the subject"—no, it doesn't, the first-edition cover in the infobox does). This French-edition cover is superfluous and does not significantly increase readers' understanding of the novel. Fails WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8. —Bkell (talk) 16:30, 19 September 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.