Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 June 13

< June 12	June 14 >

June 13[edit]

File:SonyPlayStation4.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 F7 by Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Non-commercial = non-free, and we have a free image (+ the unit is out publically), so fails NFCC#1 MASEM (t) 04:57, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The free image is not of acceptable quality. This is under Wikipedia's fair use policy. You are here just to nag and insert your poorly cropped pic into the article to make it ugly. Shrine Maiden 05:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The unit is clear and identifiable, thus being an free replacement for the non-free. (And just as a point, that is not my image, I found that at Flickr). --MASEM (t) 05:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - Free image is NOT of acceptable quality and is not encyclopedic. The fair use image IS of acceptable quality and IS encyclopedic! Is this really going to be a case of keep an unencyclopedic and poor quality image in an article when a much better quality encyclopedic image is available all because of a minor technicality of the encyclopedic image qualifying for fair use and the unencyclopedic and low quality one being free when WP:NFCCclearly states that the non-free image can be used anyway? PantherLeapord (talk) 06:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I shall list why this image meets all ten criteria for use here:

1) There IS no free equivalent that would have the same or higher encyclopedic value and it cannot be created until the console is in the hands of the general public rather than being seen by the lucky few at E3!

2) If anything having this image on the article will be BETTER for everyone as it provides a much better representation of the console than any free media for it currently out there.

3a) The image is only being used in the infobox

3b) The image is only being used on Playstation 4.

4) This image was published here.

5) This image EASILY meets the content standards and is very much encyclopedic!

6) The image meets Wikipedia:Image use policy.

7) The image will be used on Playstation 4 once this whole kerfuffle is over and Masem stops reverting the addition of it.

8) The presence of the image DOES significantly increase the readers understanding of the product by providing a clear and UNOBSTRUCTED visual reference.

9) The image will only be used in the article namespace.

10a) The source is readily identified.

10b) The provision for fair use is listed in the description.

10c) The fair use rationale is unique, simple and easy to understand.

Thanks for reading! PantherLeapord (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) There is a free equivalent. It matters not that the free image is somewhat worse quality, the fact that a free equivalent showing all the information is available is enough per WP:NFCC #1.

2) This doesn't matter as per 1)

3a) This is irrelevant. That it is being used at all is the important thing.

3b) See 3a.

4) The full size flickr image is set to private implying no free use.

5) Agreed but irrelevant.

6) It doesn't as per 1)

7) Your own opinion.

8) There is a short bar through the middle, hardly completely obstructed.

9) See 3a.

10a) I don't understand.

10b) See 1.

10c) See 1. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete: I do understand the need for a free image, but the replacement image is really poor quality, and the console is obscured. I'd advise waiting for a better free image. SynergyBlades (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC) (Edit: there's a much better image in place now, no need to keep).[reply]

I already TRIED pointing that out to Masem several times but they won't even listen to reason because in their world shitty free > EXTREMELY HIGH QUALITY AND ENCYCLOPEDIC "non-free" (Even though it IS on a CC licence!) image. You can try to get them to listen to reason but I wouldn't count on it! PantherLeapord (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have listed this image at NFCR. This seems like a more appropriate place to discuss the percieved lack of merit to use the CC-NY-NC image than here. PantherLeapord (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is honestly why questions of free vs. not-free should not be left to the masses, as they tend to base opinions on being a fan of the subject rather than addressing actual Wikipedia policy. WP:NFCC #1, "No free equivalent" is the end of the discussion, it is not inconceivable that a better-quality free image could be taken tomorrow, or the next day, or the day after that. That one does not exist right now is not a valid reason to use non-free content, the point is that oen could reasonably be found at some point in time. The the current free pic isn't stellar, but it isn't horrible either. Tarc (talk) 12:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - ~~Is this image of the REAL PlayStation 4?~~ By the way, it fails to be irreplaceable because the actual release of the console would affect the usage of this non-free image. --George Ho (talk) 15:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This is OF the real PlayStation 4. Still, we must wait for the free-to-share image from this year's E3 Expo. Man, I can't wait. --George Ho (talk) 22:16, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Free image exists. Better free images will become available. Fails NFCC #1. Begoon ^talk 01:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Despite clearly being a fair use image it was just deleted per WP:CSD#F7 PantherLeapord (talk) 06:59, 17 June 2013 (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:Gulf Medical University Foundation Stone Laying.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a historically significant image, not the subject of commentary in the article. The rationale for the inclusion of this image in the article is insufficient. (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:31, 13 June 2013 (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:File name.ext[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: Erroneous Nomination. When following the listing instructions (step 2), you need to replace "File_name.ext" with the actual name of the file. You'll also want to put the name of the uploader just after "Uploader=", and your reason for deletion just after "Reason=". Feel free to just replace this entire section with the corrected template. If you are still having trouble, ask for help at WT:FFD or at my talk page. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:05, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

217.108.170.8 (talk) 09:29, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File to suppress since this is an obsolete information. the person on the picture doesn't exist any more

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:Long Hertzsprung Russell Diagram.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Planets are not added to the Hertzsprung Russell Diagram. This original research addition of the planets is done so as to advance the fringe theory that stars turn into planets. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:17, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pure OR and fringe. No reliable sources will ever be found for this. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 10:33, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Original research , WP:Unsourced , WP:Fringe , WP:Synthesis -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- complete and utter bullshit. This image presents an astrophysical theory that is demonstrably false, and is used only in an article promoting same zany idea. Reyk _YO! 07:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reyk. Begoon ^talk 08:41, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, along with the article.Gaba ^(talk) 11:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mirror whatever happens to the article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stellar metamorphosis. Modest Genius ^talk 12:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The associated article has been deleted -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 00:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; this "theory" is pure garbage. StringTheory11 (t • c) 17:17, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per comments above. This would be fringe garbage a 100 years ago. -- Kheider (talk) 23:22, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clearly demonstrated pseudoscience. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 13:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per comments above. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:37, 18 June 2013 (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:People's United Party (PUP) flag.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:Flag of the Belize People's United Party.svg. Ineligible for F8 because coloring is slightly different. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 10:54, 13 June 2013 (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:PUP's Flag.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Superseded by File:Flag of the Belize People's United Party.svg. Unused, simple enough that it needn't be kept around for attribution reasons. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 10:58, 13 June 2013 (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 Odyssey logo and wordmark.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This logo is from a fan-made project. It is not an actual official logo for Odyssey. See http://www.betaarchive.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12651 where the creator of it says "In reality, this is just Win2k Server with a couple changed banners, but this at least shows I'm making progress." Other users on the forum even suggest alternate logos that he could have used for his project. B (talk) 11:44, 13 June 2013 (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:DualShock 4.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable with free media (see here: File:Dualshock_4_controller.jpg), fails NFCC #1 MASEM (t) 14:52, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but the one I put up is a better quality, we should have somebody improve the one you suggested or find a better one so it's close to the same quality, it's your choice, I don't mind. JackWilfred (talk) 07:31, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:Playstation 4 Controller.png is preferred on many wikipedias. --LukeSurl^{t c} 09:11, 18 June 2013 (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:Format dialog box in Windows.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. Image is out of context and subject could be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content. Nv8200p talk 23:25, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This image violates WP:NFCC#1 and WP:NFCC#8 because it lacks contextual significance. It is primarily used in MS-DOS article to say "The option to create an MS-DOS boot disk is still present in this 64-bit edition of Windows 8." Unfortunately, no 64-bitness is visible in this shot. Same information can be conveyed with text alone. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does this meet the threshold of originality? --Stefan2 (talk) 09:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would certainly think so. (Keep in mind that this is an academic exercise, not a practical one - since something like this would never ever be litigated, we're not going to find an on point case to go by.) Commons:Commons:Threshold_of_originality#United_States has some examples of case studies. This would seem to be most analogous to the no soliciting signs. They are a bunch of PD-ineligible elements combined together. I know that we've had the debate before about what Windows interface elements are copyrightable, but I would not feel comfortable with calling this PD-ineligible. --B (talk) 23:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that the "no soliciting" signs actually are bad examples. If you look them up at www.copyright.gov, you will find that they are registered as "no-soliciting-sign.jpg" and "No Soliciting Sign-2.jpg" so the copyright holder registered the JPG files and not any real signs. The JPG files have somewhat artistic brown frames, and there's little question that the frames are copyrightable. As the frames clearly are copyrightable, the copyright registrations don't tell us anything about the rest of the signs. Meanwhile, we've got Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Borland Int'l, Inc. (sadly without any useful examples) which tells that the order of the labels and the text on them isn't copyrightable. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:35, 14 June 2013 (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:Map of the Carolina upstates.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 INeverCry (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Obsoleted , (and now unused), by PNG version. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2013 (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.