Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 May 1

< April 30	May 2 >

May 1[edit]

File:Lisa Lopes 1999 Source.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 RHaworth (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we already have two non-free images of her, and another is unjustifiable. Image fails WP:NFCC#3a Peripitus (Talk) 03:22, 1 May 2014 (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:Parasakthi LP.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I found nothing to do with this file that I accidentally uploaded. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2014 (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:The Ultimate Warrior.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

we already have free images of him, and other non-free images of him in the same article. This extra image is unnecessary and fails WP:NFCC#3a at least and possible WP:NFCC#1 given we have a freely licenced image Peripitus (Talk) 06:34, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The images are of Warrior the person, or without the paint. They don't convey equivalent significant information. This is the only one that illustrates the essentials of the Ultimate Warrior gimmick (facepaint, hair, bright colours, tassels, muscles, crazy eyes, custom belt). The gimmick is fundamental to the subject's notability. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Or "the inherently distinctive marks associated with Warrior", as an Arizona court put it in 1998 (my emphasis), while deciding who owned the gimmick (he did). The name was another matter. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was the problem? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:55, 9 May 2014 (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:Enarharkness3.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo of an unidentified rose. (There is a dead link to Flicker so we can't verify license but it is probably own work by the uploader on en-wiki.) Probably better images on Commons. MGA73 (talk) 11:00, 1 May 2014 (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:Starvcrk.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 TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:04, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo of an unidentified forrest. (There is a dead link to Flicker so we can't verify license but it is probably own work by the uploader on en-wiki.) Probably better images on Commons. MGA73 (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2014 (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:Xyleborus glabratus-dorsal+lateral.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The image is sourced as being from the Florida Department of Agriculture, even though the image includes the Univeristy of Georgia's cataloging code, but there is no evidence that they have released this umage under the CC-by-SA-3.0 license. Additionally, the image lists bugwood.org as a source. Clicking their insect image resource, you get to http://www.insectimages.org/about/imageusage.cfm which sometimes allows free images, but there is no evidence of where this is from. Lastly, the orignal uploader included the line: "You may not use this work for commercial purposes unless permission is granted by the photographer or copyright owner." This is in direct conflict with our mission and the license attached. TLSuda (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there seems to be some confusion. I modified [two] [images] that Mike Thomas, our recently retired FDACS curator of Coleoptera took of Xyleborus glabratus so as to crop and glue the two together as a single image. As images taken by a government organization for the purpose of educating the public, both are considered public domain - but not to be used for commercial purposes without exclusive license from the Florida Department of Agriculture, and the images must be cited to Mike Thomas. We used the UGA forestry website as a resource to distribute the images to the public at large. If you'd like me to call Mike up on Monday and ask him permission (again) to use his images on wikipedia, that would be fine. If you would like me to call up Paul Skelley, the current curator of Coleoptera for FDACS, and ask him permission to use his predecessor's images for public education, that would be fine, too. If you would like me to ask myself as a representative of the Florida Department of Agriculture who at one time was involved with the outreach portion of the Xyleborus project permission to upload one of our public images that I modified for use in a public location in order to educate the public - please let me know what sort of license I need to demonstrate that I have the authority to do so. Aderksen (talk) 21:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that I could probably also call up Jeff Lotz, our digital assets archivist (who I believe I have as contact in the image reference section?), and ask him permission to use one of our public images for educational use on a public site. Just let me know which of us can grant ourselves permission to upload our material (which by Florida state law is to be accessible to the public) to a public site, and I'll be happy to comply. Aderksen (talk) 21:50, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Aderksen: We would need evidence of permission from the original copyright holder: either Mike Thomas or the organization (FDACS). We would need this evidence sent to the email address listed at WP:CONSENT with an appropriate free license that includes full use for commercial purposes. I think you may be confused on licensing. Public domain means that an image can be used for any reason, including commercial purposes and also may be modified and does not require attribution. There are other free licenses (see the above link), but allowing commercial use is a requirement. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That can certainly be arranged sometime in the near future, but I'd like to seek a little clarity on licenses. All images produced by FDACS are public property, and while they can be used by commercial entities, that entity must acknowledge and cite the image to FDACS and the year the image was collected. I will speak with Jeff about the license we use for all other media organizations; presumably it will be sufficient for wikipedia. Aderksen (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2014 (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.