Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 June 12

< June 11	June 13 >

June 12 edit

Image:38846572jc3.jpg edit

Image:38846572jc3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bl0ndxrebel (notify | contribs).

Very similar rationale to Kylieminoguetheone.jpg tagged for deletion below. Neither Warner Bros. nor Madonna's official website display the cover neither does any other outlet beyond Wikipedia. The Adobe Photoshop metadata is listed at the bottom the article. I believe this is a fan made image. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 14:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No it is the reel cd cover ! I got the promo cd and this is the cover ! http://newmadonnamusic.blogspot.com/2008/06/cd-promo-de-give-it-2-me.html Dominic c v (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Erm, in light of that revelation, I'd say we keep the cover for now... 74.227.52.50 (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I find that very hard to believe since the single is not available for purchase so how can you own a promo single, which only intended for radio outlets, etc and not for personal use? Additionally, your reference is a French fan/blog page which is NOT a reliable source under Wikipedia's policies. Alkclark (talk) 16:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - http://www.madonnatribe.com/news/modules.php?name=News&file=categories&op=newindex&catid=10 another site and AMAZON too have it for cover http://www.amazon.com/Give-2-Me-Pt-1/dp/B001B1ZY2Q/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1213889144&sr=8-13 ! Dominic c v (talk) 15:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kylieminoguetheone.jpg edit

Image:Kylieminoguetheone.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by BambooBanga (notify | contribs).

The uploader claims in the fair-use rationale that "The cover art can or could be obtained from Parlophone/EMI" however, neither EMI Music Group nor Kylie Minogue's official website acknowledges or displays the particular cover. I have a strong belief that the cover is fan made due to the Adobe Photoshop metadata listed at the bottom of the image article. Additionally, this cover has not been released on any other medium beyond Wikipedia, thus there is no verfiable proof that this is the official cover. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 14:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Beginner's luck.JPG edit

Image:Beginner's luck.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Simpleflow2007 (notify | contribs).

Orphan, cover of album by a musician that does not have a wikipedia article. BlueAzure (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Digital Smoke Cover Art.jpg edit

Image:Digital Smoke Cover Art.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Matthewconaway (notify | contribs).

Orphan, copyvio. Album cover, a fair use sized version is in use on the article for the album. BlueAzure (talk) 00:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Elizabeth MacDonald.jpg edit

Image:Elizabeth MacDonald.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cs-wikuk (notify | contribs).

Orphan, the article this was on was deleted. BlueAzure (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nu York Headshot.jpg edit

Image:Nu York Headshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ethan marten (notify | contribs).

Orphan, photo of person that does not have a wikipedia article. BlueAzure (talk) 00:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lost_Echoes.jpg edit

Image:Lost_Echoes.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Klutzrick (notify | contribs).

Non-free book cover being used in an article about the author and with no commentary about the cover Nv8200p talk 01:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PrizeFighterPromo.jpg edit

Image:PrizeFighterPromo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Prizefighterrock (notify | contribs).

Orphan, photo of a band that does not have a wikipedia article BlueAzure (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IceMan.jpg edit

Image:IceMan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by IceTheDon (notify | contribs).

Orphan, photo of musician that does not have a wikipedia article. BlueAzure (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cover II copy.jpg edit

Image:Cover II copy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adriversfr (notify | contribs).

Orphan, cover of album by a musician that does not have a wikipedia article. BlueAzure (talk) 02:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hello Beautiful 2007.jpg edit

Image:Hello Beautiful 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hellobeautiful (notify | contribs).

OR, AB, UE Metros (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Farleydead.jpg edit

Image:Farleydead.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Boo1210 (notify | contribs).

Orphan, seemingly a copy-vio, also unencylopedic. Also, the copyright license is obviously wrong. 青い(Aoi) (talk) 08:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 debate was

Kept.  Strong consensus entirely backed by policy.  Image is used to identify a piece of unfree media and enhance understanding; arguments to the contrary are unconvincing, given the usual batch of studies one could drag up from any teaching journal. WilyD 21:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Forest Of The Dead.JPG edit

Image:Forest Of The Dead.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Der lektor (notify | contribs).

Not fair use. This is illustrative but not informative and the precise description of the scene portrayed is not essential to the reader's understanding of the subject. It is being used in an infobox, not relating to CRITICAL commentary in the text. Unjustifiable as fails wp:nfc#8, by a long way. I also rather object to people simply changing the image to another screenshot and then closing the debate. Troikoalogo (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep - This is petty. By your reasoning, no screencaps are permitted by the NFCC rules (which is untrue), and yet one screenshot does so much to inform the reader about the tone and general subject of the episode. Some screencaps are unjustifiable - an image of the Doctor smiling, for example, would be completely non-unique, and would do little to further the reader's understanding. A picture of a corrupted Miss Evangelista, however, is difficult to describe in words, and does so much towards aiding the user to get the 'feel' of the episode. One screencap per television show episode is easily justifiable. Finally, through your own admission, you appear to be arguing against the use of a screencap and not this screencap, in which case this is not the venue for discussion. On the article's talk page, it was decided that the Miss Evangelista was better suited to this article, so the other was in effect deleted, thus automatically closing the ongoing debate. "I also rather object to people simply changing the image to another screenshot and then closing the debate." - then you are not debating the deletion of this image, but rather the deletion of any image used as a screencap, and this is not the venue to do that. _Talk Islander 14:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very frustrating when an ifd takes effort to compile, submit, and notify, and people respond by repeatidly uploading a different random image not considering the wp:nfc guidelines and we have to go through the process again. I remember one ifd debate I was involved in and a member of WP:DW committeed himself to upload all 300,000 stills in an episode until one stuck! Fasach Nua (talk) 18:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another point, a statement "One screencap per television show episode is easily justifiable" needs justification, it is entirely unsupported by WP:NFCC, which states "There is no automatic entitlement to use non-free content in an article" Fasach Nua (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment I would like to see at least one example (a few would be more helpful, to allow for a sort of triangulation since each instance will be specific to its context) of screencap use that satisfies fair use criteria, according to those involved in this attempted mass deletion of Doctor Who-related screencaps. Clearly, there is such thing as fair use of screencaps, as if the criteria ruled out all possible uses there would be a simple statement that there is no fair use of screencaps rather than a list of criteria that must be fulfilled. But it seems that those criteria, while useful guidelines, are too vague on their own for people to agree on what does and doesn't fulfill them. I do not feel that I can weigh in on whether or not this image is legitimately fair use without examples of what would be considered such. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 08:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Keep as those advocating deletion have apparently been unable to explain in unambiguous terms (i.e. through examples) what sort of screencaps are fairuse, despite being certain that this one is not. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Doctor Who articles are in my view being targeted by people with points to make outside of the scope of the articles themselves, and this appears to be another example of this. As for this picture in this article, the picture is informative and illustrates something that is at best very difficult to describe and at worse impossible to describe. Jasonfward (talk) 14:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- delete Images fails wp:nfc#1, the article already contains the GFDL text "though was corrupted and caused her face to become severely disfigured while increasing her intelligence", which fulfils the function of this image, the image adds no further information wp:nfc#8, even without the text the insignificance of this component of the story would make it unwarranted Fasach Nua (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This image is illustrative and does have a valid fair use rationale. It is an excellent choice in screencap to illustrate the episode and I think would be quite difficult to imagine the way in which the charcater has been disfugured, which has a "computer error" failure air to it rather than perhaps Quasimodo which some people may imagine without the help of this image. Million_Moments (talk) 20:40, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per TheIslander. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 16:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - as per Islander and Jasonfword. This is a power play, and these images are being used as pawns in that. This is a NEW image, and it fulfills all of the NFC criteria. I;ve asked the opposing folk (the one wanting deletion of every friggin' image under the sun) to name an image used in an episodic article. They wouldn't or couldn't name one. To my reckoning, that lends a LOT of credence to Jasonfword's accusation. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:35, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

strong keep I agree with The Islander, without this image i would not know how she was disfigured.--Lerdthenerd (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question how does how she is disfigured matter to your understanding of the episode? Surely all you need to get across is that she is stored in a computer, which is hinted at due to this storage error Fasach Nua (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Strong keep I'd love to write something clever here, but I can't top what Islander said. I agree with it completely. U-Mos (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- strong keep The image is absolutely essential and is one of the most striking parts of the episode. It would be nearly unconscionable to remove it. Jasonfward is correct as is Islander.--Happydog (talk) 07:49, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

question It is a beautiful striking image, but does it meet WP:NFC#1 and #8? Fasach Nua (talk) 10:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The shock of this pivotal scene is captured in a way that words would struggle to equal. Use of a non-free photograph is justified here. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:10, 24 June 2008 (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.

Image:Torchwood ep 1 Eve Myles.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 debate was

duplicate nomination from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 11#Image:Torchwood ep 1 Eve Myles.jpg.  — Edokter • Talk •  20:40, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Torchwood ep 1 Eve Myles.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bastique (notify | contribs).

Not fair use. This is illustrative but not informative and the precise description of the scene portrayed is not essential to the reader's understanding of the subject. Unjustifiable. fails wp:nfc#8, by a long way. Troikoalogo (talk) 11:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: this nomination was speedy closed as a duplicate of Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 11#Image:Torchwood ep 1 Eve Myles.jpg. Please note it is NOT a duplicate. That debate was speedy closed because an alternative image was uploaded. However, I am contending that that alternative image still fails FUC #8. Please do not speedy close debates in which you have an obvious interest.--Troikoalogo (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- check the above link again... there is still an active discussion going on. You are confused with another image (probably Forest of the Dead.jpg). — Edokter • Talk • 20:40, 12 June 2008 (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.

Image:Abeen0.jpg edit

Image:Abeen0.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Abeen (notify | contribs).

Uploader has put an ifd tag on image, but not completed the process. Image appears to be orphaned, and was only used on uploader's user page. Fugu Alienking (talk) 12:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Tag the image with {{G7}} Fasach Nua (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Superpowers21.png edit

Image:Superpowers21.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NuclearVacuum (notify | contribs).

I (the unloader) have uploaded a newer version of this image to Wikimedia Commons (Image:PotentialSuperpowers.png). This Wikipedia file is no longer needed. — Nuclear Vacuum 14:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment Tag the image with {{G7}} Fasach Nua (talk) 18:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Muscat_flag.gif edit

Image:Muscat_flag.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AreJay (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, redundant to Commons image Image:Flag of Muscat.svg. Kelly ^hi! 21:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pwc_Consulting.jpg edit

Image:Pwc_Consulting.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AreJay (notify | contribs).

Decorative fair use image, replaceable by text. Kelly ^hi! 21:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bangalore1924_map.jpg edit

Image:Bangalore1924_map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AreJay (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, redundant to Image:Bangalore1924 map.gif. Kelly ^hi! 22:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bangalore_Historical_Map.jpg edit

Image:Bangalore_Historical_Map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AreJay (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, possibly redundant to Image:Wikipedia OldMysore.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 22:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Flag_Karnataka.gif edit

Image:Flag_Karnataka.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arunpksh (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, redundant to Commons Image:Flag of Karnataka.svg Kelly ^hi! 23:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Colossus_crest.jpg edit

Image:Colossus_crest.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamafter (notify | contribs).

Uploader is not the author. PD-self license is false. -Nard 23:32, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arromanches_blueprints.gif edit

Image:Arromanches_blueprints.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamafter (notify | contribs).

PD-self license is false. -Nard 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Grand_Knights_Cross_of_the_Order_of_the_Crown_of_Italy.jpg edit

Image:Grand_Knights_Cross_of_the_Order_of_the_Crown_of_Italy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamafter (notify | contribs).

Uploader is not author as he falsely claims. -Nard 23:34, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Type95-Heavy_tank.jpg edit

Image:Type95-Heavy_tank.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamafter (notify | contribs).

I do not believe the uploader is the actual copyright holder of a vintage WWII photo. -Nard 23:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sd-Kfz-165-1.jpg edit

Image:Sd-Kfz-165-1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamafter (notify | contribs).

Copyvio. Source URL says "copyright" not Creative Commons. -Nard 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. cOPYRIGHT HAS EXPIRED... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.82.215.23 (talk • contribs)

Germany is life of the author plus 70 years. This is an image of a Sd.Kfz. 165/1 (first designed in late 1939). Let's assume the author took the photo, then died immediately; the photo would still not be PD until 2009. What is the basis for your assertion? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Uploader indicated that permission had been acquired and was directed to WP:COPYREQ back in January. Uploader was reminded again when Heuschrecke 10 came to FAC in March. It's concerning that no steps to file permission with OTRS have been taken. This is to say nothing of the fact that the source is quite unlikely to be the copyright holder (I doubt Achtung Panzer webmasters were snapping photos in 1939/1940s Germany). ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 16:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Anzio-War-Cemetery.jpg edit

Image:Anzio-War-Cemetery.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamafter (notify | contribs).

Unfree photograph taken from a third party website. -Nard 23:56, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ACGPopRGS.jpg edit

Image:ACGPopRGS.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamafter (notify | contribs).

Original image this was taken from has been deleted and the PD-self claim is false. -Nard 23:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 debate was

On Commons - move along. WilyD 22:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Artemis_FowlUBX.png edit

Image:Artemis_FowlUBX.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamafter (notify | contribs).

Also derived image Image:WPAF Medal.png. -Nard 00:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No source for the image of gold bars used to create this image. I highly doubt uploader just has gold bars lying around to photograph himself. -Nard 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gold bars are here Image:Gold_ingots.jpg, although it is currently in breach of the licence, due to no creditation of original Fasach Nua (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same image on Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 15:55, 18 June 2008 (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.

Image:Ludwig_Gehre_head-shot.jpg edit

Image:Ludwig_Gehre_head-shot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dreamafter (notify | contribs).

No proof this image is public domain. -Nard 00:01, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete - To be in the PD according to the tag, the subject must be at the most 13 years old, I suspect he is older in this photo! Fasach Nua (talk) 08:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss? Actually the copyright is 70 years from the death of the creator. Since we don't know who created the image we have no way of knowing when he/she died. The image could well be from before 1938. Is there another acceptable use of this image with a different copyright tag? It is of a low quality, is used to only to provide a visual reference to the subject and is unobtainable anywhere else. Ozdaren (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn this photo is undoubtedly PD-US. -Nard 14:12, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]