Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 September 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 18 September 20 >

September 19[edit]

File:Pembroke.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 Nyttend (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC) A file with the same name exists in Wiki-Common, but shows William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke and is used in several articles of different languages —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lascy (talk • contribs) 14:44, 19 September 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:Pondus-1-2007SMcover.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 Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pondus-1-2007SMcover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Murgh (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • WP:NFCC#3/#8. We already have another magazine cover in the same article. While this was the first with a new publisher there is no sourced discussion about changes in design etc that would justify another image. Rettetast (talk) 12:00, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Such a discussion could be sourced, but it's insufficiantly important to endeavour the effort and endure the anticipated resistance. Go ahead. MURGH talk 15:05, 19 September 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:SSTipton.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 Skier Dude (talk 01:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:SSTipton.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Dolphinbub19 (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • File is a non-free image of the S.S. Tipton from The Suite Life on Deck. Its use in that article is gratuitous and fails to meet requirements of WP:NFCC#8 as the file does not add significantly to readers' understanding of the article and its omission would not be detrimental to that understanding. AussieLegend (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it meets the deletion policy, as this would attribute to the understanding of the reader. But if we must take our own paths, maybe there is something to do. Of course, the image is a greenlight of the section it represents, and if the reader does not watch the show, they would know what the ship looks like. If you think it is in accordance with the FfD, then go ahead and take your route, user. I do not care, for the future awaits and there are new things to be said. Hope you read this message, – Your old friend, Dolphinbub19 (talk) 13:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does this image add to the understanding of the reader? Its use is purely decorative. It doesn't identify any of the locations on the ship and provides no greater understanding than what is presented in the prose. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:51, 21 September 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:Acecaferivergig1.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Acecaferivergig1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Hallow's victim (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Unused low rez, blurry, image of a band. For some reason it was tagged when it uploaded with a {{Image copyright}} tah attached in 2007. Soundvisions1 (talk) 13:45, 19 September 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:Aceki.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Aceki.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Whiteywhite (notify | contribs | uploads).
File:Rns01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Whiteywhite (notify | contribs | uploads)
File:Rns1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Whiteywhite (notify | contribs | uploads)
File:Lluvia.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Whiteywhite (notify | contribs | uploads)
File:Mail-2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Whiteywhite (notify | contribs | uploads)
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:Jim Morrisonsinging.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: No consensus. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:55, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jim Morrisonsinging.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Doc9871 (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • A non-free image that violates WP:NFCC#1. It's being used in the infobox at Jim Morrison, but there are several free images at commons:Category:Jim Morrison that could be used instead. The image is therefore replaceable with a free alternative. —Angr (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The "free" alternatives suggested to identify the subject consist of: a criminal mug shot (included simply because it's "free" despite possible NPOV concerns); many examples of arguably poorly-interpreted[1] artwork on the commons of the subject derived from copyrighted photographs (a subject who is deceased, and of whom no free images are known to exist or could reasonably be created), and "text alone". This image meets all the NFCC, IMO. Doc9871 (talk) 15:05, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Wikipedia does not distinguish the time/date/location/source of a free image vs a non-free image in regards to NFCC 1 (a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose). The article is about Jim Morrison and the image is being used in the info box. It does fail per the nom. Beyond that however this is most likely from a photo/press agency which is not allowed per policy (Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight.), even via Fair Use it fails NFCC 2. Several images turn up on Getty and Corbis from the same show in Germany. (© Bettmann/CORBIS, © Michael Ochs Archives/Corbis, Michael Ochs Archives/Getty) I believe this one was taken by Günter Zint, who used to shoot for DPA as well as freelance and has images represented by numerous photo agency's throughout the world, as well as offering prints for sale via sites such as Artnet and panfoto. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see how this[2] is of the "quality" of an encyclopedia: any artist could "vie" for the image of Morrison in the infobox based on the nominating rationale: whose particular "image" is more "representative" or "photorealistic" of Morrison? Over an actual photograph? The exact part of the policy you cite states: "Editors who notice correctable errors in fair use tags or fair use rationales are urged to fix them, if able. Voluntarily fixing such problems is helpful to Wikipedia." Outright deletion is often the path more traveled, of course. It would seem more likely to have been Michael Ochs who took the image, rather than Günter Zint, from the diffs you've provided - what makes you believe it was Zint? But this brings up the NFCC #2 point exactly: you believe it to the work of a specific photographer: do you know for certain that it is his and would fail NFCC #2 by not respecting his commercial opportunities? There were many photographers there, and if we can identify who took it for sure, it would be one thing. The image is tagged as fair-use, is cropped[3] and of low resolution, and "is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." That's all that is required to meet NFCC #2 according to the NFCC policy. You point out that "several images turn up on Getty and Corbis from the same show in Germany" - but I don't see this one there. There are quite a lot of images at Getty from that show/day, and if it were in the Michael Ochs archive Getty would surely have it there to protect their "commercial opportunities"; they even own the rights to and sell Morrison's 1963 mug shot[4], apparently flying in the face of PD-FLGOV. Corbis also sells images from Ochs and others[5] from that day - but not this one. One last important note about NFCC #1: the last sentence reads, "...the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion." "Probably". Not "does not meet": and this includes the "text only" argument for any and all FU images. Doc9871 (talk) 01:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:As the brother of Phil Ochs, Michael has (had) a large archive of material that, at first, he collected from photographers and labels. In later years he decided to start acting as a photo agency. When I worked at Rhino we used him a lot for reissues and compilations. He sub-licensed/sold his collection to Getty a few years ago. Many of Gunters images are part of that archive and just because not every single one of them is online does not mean they don't exist. Also his images, like other photographers, were/are distributed by other agency's including Redfern, Retna and Corbis. Getty has been obtaining photo agency's from around the globe and in doing so has obtained images from photographers from around the globe. In regards to Criteria 1, again, Wikipedia does not distinguish the time/date/location/source of a free image vs a non-free image. Criteria 2 - I know there are always discussion about the use of image from photo agency's but the policy is clear. Any press/photo agency is in the business to sell its images for editorial use, Wikipedia use of it is very much "likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media". Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By tagging the image as non-free, Wikipedia is doing far more to protecting the commercial opportunities than sites like Flickr and Bing, who allow images to be freely distributed that are owned by Getty (through the Ochs archive and many others), Corbis and other photo houses. These images are copyrighted and yet freely available with no word as to copyright. "Editorial use" would mean more like publishing a book or a newspaper (or records like for Rhino) where you're selling a product for profit and using their image to help do it. WP is not making any money off the image, so we're not hurting their commercial opportunities - and we're saying it's not free to boot (you worked for Rhino? Cool - I like their stuff!). Pull down the popup on this[6] page, select "Publishing and Editorial" and you'll see that all the options are for products to sell (including electronic media). WP couldn't by this image if we wanted to: there's no money in it. Check this out: you can go directly to Corbis and Getty and drag many of the images from their websites onto your computer's desktop, do whatever you want to with them, and then put them up on sites like Bing without saying where you got it. Some images won't do it, and some have watermarks: but most do not, and are in high resolution. Why do Getty and Corbis allow this? Aren't they making it awfully easy to "steal" their copyrighted images? But, again, Getty and Corbis don't appear to own this particular image anyway. There are around 80 other pictures on Getty from this same day among the over 450 images of Morrison: this would certainly be in there as well were it in the Ochs archive (he sold his over 3 million images to Getty in 2007 for an undisclosed amount). If Gunther took it, he either sold it to the Ochs Archive or he would be selling it on his own. Under WP:CITE#IMAGE, "It is important that you list the author of the image if known..." So far it is not known with certainty who the author is. If the "original market role" of the image was to use it to sell things: WP is not replacing that role. Now if advertising ever takes a hold on WP (which I hope it never does), then it's a whole different story... Doc9871 (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clearly replaceable by the Commons images or any of them. Stifle (talk) 15:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This image is of good quality for use. The other images are very poor quality and should not be used in the project at all. After doing a search I see no free images available for the use we need that this one should be kept under fair use of images. The other images that are being discussed are the ones that should be deleted but not this one. There is no other free image. Do a search and you will see this is true. I say keep it per meeting NFCC, thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not sure if you missed the free images, based on your comment (There is no other free image. Do a search and you will see this is true.) you may have. For example there is File:Jim Morrison 1970.jpg, which is a cropped version of File:Jim Morrison mug shot.jpg. If the entire mug shot were used it might send the "wrong" message however the cropped version does not indicate it is a mug shot. There is also File:Jim Morrison Memorial Berlin2.JPG, another free image. This may be a derivative work however it does illustrate Jim Morrison. There is also File:The Doors in Copenhagen 1968.jpg, which shows the entire band. I would say all of these images are very good quality. Also keep in mind, and I sound like a broken record, that Wikipedia does not distinguish the time/date/location/source of a free image vs a non-free image. Soundvisions1 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...the cropped version does not indicate it is a mug shot." Not correct, I'm afraid, as people have 1)eyes and 2)the other mug at The Doors to compare it to. You're being too particular, Soundivisions1 - I think Stifle is right: any of the images on the Commons could replace it. In fact, we should add some more: how about this one? Sure it's based on this photo, but it would be free! How about this little gem? Oh, yes, it's apparently copyrighted (despite being based on this) - how'd they do that? This would add a whole different wrinkle to the debate. To replace a photo that is tagged as non-free fair use with "free images" such as these sets, IMO, a very bad precedent, and is a misinterpretation of NFCC #1. Even this album cover or this magazine cover are preferable to the images at the Commons: but if they're not free, no deal? The policy does not read, "No non-free images on WP". It just doesn't... Doc9871 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the policy reads "No non-free images on WP if there are free images that can be used instead", and there are. File:Jim Morrison ZeichnungSchuschke.jpg, which I nominated for deletion at Commons as being derivative of a copyrighted photo, has been kept. There is simply no case that this image cannot be replaced by a free equivalent. —Angr (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fear the policy does not read exactly the way you quoted it, I'm quite sure. I'm not going to "bore" you with it, but despite the userbox at the top of your page, non-free images do have a place in a free-content encyclopedia, and this is a perfect example of "why". He's a deceased and historically famous celebrity, text alone isn't going to do it, and no free images (meaning photographs, not alleged "equivalents" like "cartoons") of him exist. So: we make sure NFCC #10 is met with tags and non-free fair use rationale, and we include the non-free image. NFCC #2 violation arguments are useless here, BTW, because a "copyvio" would mean the uploader was claiming a non-free image to be a free image of his/her own creation, or that it was public domain or otherwise freely licensed when it isn't. This is tagged as non-free, and acknowledging a copyright. "No non-free images in WP. Period". If that were the case, we wouldn't be here right now... Doc9871 (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This simply isn't an example of a time when policy (stupidly) permits nonfree images. "Images" does not mean "photographs only", and even if did, there is a free photograph available. I know you don't like that photograph, and I understand why, but the fact remains that it is available, as are other images, including drawings that do just as good a job of showing what he looked like as photographs do. —Angr (talk) 11:07, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a free image I forgot about that could demonstrate a standard for the "drawings that do just as good a job of showing..." argument.[7] Don't want your kids to see it? Too freakin' bad, because it's free and, of course, "encyclopedic". How about this? (Buzzer sound!) Free - don't even bother trying to delete it for the "text only" option. Just ask yourself: if either of these images were non-free, could text alone convey to the reader what these images don't? Would NFCC #8 apply? Policy is meant to be broad. The NFCC is best interpreted on a case-by-case basis, and "free=good/non-free=bad" as a beginning approach simply because of the free nature is, IMO... limiting. But: that's just me and my idiotic take on things. "Creampies all around!"... Doc9871 (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*Breief comment: Doc9871 said: a "copyvio" would mean the uploader was claiming a non-free image to be a free image of his/her own creation, or that it was public domain or otherwise freely licensed when it isn't. Not always true - in relation to a fair use image Wikipedia has a very specific policy about this: Image use Policy - Fair use - Unauthorized use of copyrighted material under an invalid claim of fair use constitutes copyright infringement and is illegal. Media which are mistagged as fair use or are a flagrant copyright violation can be removed on sight. Soundvisions1 (talk) 16:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't images allowed under fair use when no other is available? The drawing is not up to standards. I personally do not like drawing being used in articles, I think they look bad and unprofessional for a serious encyclopedia. As for the mugshot image, that's a horrible picture and to say that it is cropped so the reader won't know is well probably not true. If a reader has come to this article they probably know or have heard rumors that he was arrested and could find that image by a simple search. The rest of the images we have as far as I'm concerned should be speedy deleted. The image being talked about now is the only image that is of quality for our project if we want to do it like we are supposed to and show we are a serious encyclopedia. If that image is decided to be deleted than fine I won't argue but then no image is to be put into the article. These are my opinions on this matter. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 17:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crohnie asked "Aren't images allowed under fair use when no other is available?" and the answer to *that* question is "yes". However for this image there are images available to replace it - both free and non-free. If the criteria for deleting images were "that's a horrible picture" it would be madness and chaos in regards to images. For this discussion, on this image, the nom was made for WP:NFCC#1 - Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense, or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose. It has been shown that there is "a freer alternative" as well as has been "created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." Much of this debate revolves around how "horrible" these free alternative are. As —Angr pointed out about: I know you don't like that photograph, and I understand why, but the fact remains that it is available, as are other images, including drawings that do just as good a job of showing what he looked like as photographs do. Soundvisions1 (talk) 17:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of whether I like it or not, it's a matter of "acceptable quality". None of these are acceptable quality for this encyclopedia, and since both you and others are of the opinion that they are and that "free" of any quality is better than the fair-use image, there's no point in trying to convince you. NFCC #1 says no "no free equivalent is available, or could be created..." Right there, we have the distinction between equivalent (photograph) and created (obtaining a free photograph, usually, or I suppose a "drawing" if that can't be done). With living celebrities, a free photograph can almost always reasonably be created, so no way is a non-free image going to fly. Now, per WP:MUG, "Images of living persons should not be used out of context to present a person in a false or disparaging light. This is particularly important for police booking photographs (mugshots)...". This guideline doesn't expire simply because a subject does: he was a musician and not a criminal, and the non-free content replacement suggestions do not "serve the encyclopedic purpose" of portraying him as a musician. "Out of context" would include making it the main image to identify the subject by putting it in the Infobox. It's not just "what he looked like": he was a famous singer, and the image depicts him singing. It identifies him as a musician, and that (along with no clear copyright holder, and the fair-use tags and rationale) was why the image was chosen. When the NFCC's are this vaguely worded, it's all a matter of opinions. Some here focus on deleting fair-use images simply because they are not free, and use the vague wording to apply to any conceivable argument for deletion ("text alone" is usually the last resort); there's nothing wrong with this, but I prefer to look at individual cases. The free "alternatives" are not of acceptable quality to serve as equivalents to the non-free image, and no free images are available or could be created since the subject is deceased. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it... Doc9871 (talk) 01:07, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The free images suggested at the commons are inferior; mug shots (even if cropped) and artistic interpretations are not "acceptable quality" images for Jim Morrison the singer of The Doors. Just because a free image (regardless of quality) is available doesn't mean that it should be chosen over a non-free image. User:Doc9871 makes good points to keep this image and I agree with him. Since Getty and Corbis don't appear to own this image, it should not be deleted on an assumption. Even if Getty owned the image, such as this one, the release information would probably be the same for both. The page for that image shows "Release information: Not released. More information". The "More information" link opens a document which states that releases are not required for editorial use to "illustrate of a matter of general interest". Wikipedia qualifies as editorial not commercial use, and it illustrates matters of general interest. CuriousEric (talk) 00:55, 27 September 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:A330-300 (TSN2).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 TeaDrinker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 19:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:A330-300 (TSN2).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Sloebs (notify | contribs | uploads).
  • Blatant copy vio - image has the name of the site it was taken from and a copyright notice. Also the same...

I've reported quite a few more uploaded by the same person with no copyright specified, but I was using Twinkle and I reported them to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2010 September 19 - I don't know my way around the "files for deletion/unfree image" areas very well. Those others aren't as blatant as these, but perhaps they should all be examined together. In addition to these two, the others are...

There are also a few more new uploads, which I have not reported at WP:PUF...

-- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 19 September 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:Adam Kaltenhauser.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 Courcelles (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 20:08, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Adam Kaltenhauser.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by Bigevilalien (notify | contribs | uploads).
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:Geocaching logo.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 as G7 by Rettetast (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 22:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Geocaching logo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) – uploaded by OisinisiO (notify | contribs | uploads).
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2010_September_19&oldid=1142599518"