Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 September 15

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 September 15)
< September 14 September 16 >

September 15 edit

Image:Natein99.jpg edit

Image:Natein99.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Scythetleppo (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader just took a picture of a friend or someone and declared him a gutter punk. Completely unencyclopedic. Alksub 22:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - Oh, those gutter punk's - always falling over. ScarianTalk 02:29, 16 September 2007 (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 discussion was:

Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg edit

Image:Ken Gourlay & Justin Berry.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ssbohio (notify | contribs).
  • This is a photograph of a living person claimed as fair use. It is a private photograph of uncertain date and ownership, taken without permission from the personal website of one of the subjects.

The two people depicted were involved together in child pornography websites both before and after the younger turned 18. It is impossible to say whether the younger subject was a minor at the time of this photograph. This means that photograph may or may not depict the younger subject in the act of underage prostitution.

The notoriety of the two subjects was passing, and has not become lasting notability. I have proposed and received support for making the article this image is listed into a redirect. DanB†DanD 00:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has never been alleged that the two individuals depicted had a prostitute/client relationship. It is an otherwise unremarkable tourist snapshot taken of two people in a public place. No other image exists to replace it with, and since it was published on the Internet, it can be appropriated under fair use for the article. Hermitian 22:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, I wish I had such a flexible definition of the fair-use policy available to me when my commercial photographs of artists performing were deleted!
Also, sorry for my imprecision of thought! I can see how wrong it is to suppose that someone who is both customer and business associate in your business of live webcam sex shows is in any way engaged with you in prostitution! DanB†DanD 22:16, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Berry & Gourlay collaborated on Berry's first "mylivewebcam" site, then they collaborated on Berry's (non-pornographic) xPert Creations web development business and on Gourlay's Chain Communications ISP & hosting venture, neither of which involved child pornography or prostitution. Add to that the fact (reported in the New York Times & CounterPunch) that Berry started as a prostitute & pornographer before meeting Gourlay, and I don't see where your allegation against this photo comes from.
Is it your contention that Berry & Gourlay should never be depicted together because you suppose that Gourlay paid Berry for sex? Do you have evidence to back up your accusation? They were business partners; This photo (of an event that happened years ago) cannot be duplicated since neither man is the same as he was then, neither man has the same connection with the other as they did then, and neither man is going to be vacationing in Mazatlan, Mexico with the other. The photo is of a meeting, an event which won't happen again. A musician performing his music is a quantitatively different thing. --Ssbohio 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the problems with this nomination are many, some subtle, some so at variance with the facts as to beggar belief.
  1. It is a photograph of a living person claimed as fair use. What Dan leaves out is that it has a valid fair-use rationale that meets FU and which has previously been reviewed. It is a photo of a living person as he appeared during the period of time for which he is notable along with one of the people he became notable for knowing.
  2. It is … taken without permission from the personal website of one of the subjects. That's the definition of fair use. Fair use requires no permission. Fair use requires a valid rationale, which this image has.
  3. It is impossible to say whether the younger subject was a minor at the time of this photograph. THe photo is taken in a public place and is not even suggestive, much less salacious. Berry's age is not a deciding factor, unless deciding by simply not liking it.
  4. The photograph may or may not depict the younger subject in the act of underage prostitution. This is an unfounded accusation against two living people, one which on its face meets the definition of libel. Nothing in the article or the image suggests that Berry ever prostituted himself for Gourlay. It's hardly fair or sensitive toward Berry to accuse him of such a thing in order to win a deletion debate.
  5. The notoriety of the two subjects was passing, and has not become lasting notability. I have proposed and received support for making the article this image is listed into a redirect. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of deleting this image. If the article is deleted, then the image goes away as fair use content not used in any article. It is not in any way a reason to delete the image separate from the article.
This nomination appears to be a case of forum shopping when the nominator was unable to gain the advantage in a content dispute in the article. This image has been viewed and reviewed by a number of editors and admins. Its fair use rationale is solidly within policy guidelines. This nomination treads the fine line as to whether it is in good faith. --Ssbohio 01:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When was this image reviewed by admins, and who were they? DanB†DanD 05:32, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia doesn't actually publish logs of who views an image. Thankfully, this isn't trial by ordeal, and I'm not required to jump through hoops to prove the clear claim of fair use that is already evident here. However, let me go back & find out for you. So, I'll look in my talk page archive and see if I still have the bot notice or any other comments. --Ssbohio 14:13, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So by "reviewed" you did not mean that any admin had reviewed the image's fair-use rationale? DanB†DanD 18:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I checked my talk page archive & couldn't find the fair use notice for this image. I recall there being one, but, because I can't find the evidence, I'll withdraw my claim that it's been reviewed. Did you have specific objections to one or more elements of the fair-use rationale? I'd be happy to address them.
In any regard, the fair use rationale is a classic example of a situation for which fair use is meant. The fair-use rationale was written with the law & Wikipedia policy in mind. The image is not replaceable because it depicts a particular event that can't be repeated, and it's used in an article that discusses the relationship between the two people it depicts. It's a textbook example of what fair use is supposed to allow. In what way do you believe that this illustration of a relationship (of some kind) that doesn't exist anymore, involving 2 people who will never visit together in Mazatlan, Mexico again, is replaceable? Do you want to be the one to ask Justin Berry to put his arm around Ken Gourlay, knowing what we know now about their history? Replacement of this image is an impossibility, both for practical & compassionate reasons. --Ssbohio 19:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - Per Hermitian and Ssbohio above. Jeffpw 10:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This image was kept by User:Yamla. Hopefully remarks on the closure will be added soon. -Nv8200p talk 01:33, 26 September 2007 (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.

History of this nomination:

No, the IFD is closed and the decision was keep. -Nv8200p talk 01:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is going on? This is confusing! DanB†DanD 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20102000 sean.jpg edit

Image:20102000 sean.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Alkivar (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image of a living normal football player from a news story on nfl.com. Previously nominated as a replaceable image, but inexplicably kept. There is no fair use justification for the use of this photo - we cannot use news photos and call it fair use. Our use is not at all transformative - it's merely an attempt to not have to pay royalties. Even if we could legally use this photo, it violates our replaceability policy as it is used only to show what the guy looks like and he is still living. B 00:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete Delete This image is clearly replaceable fair use. It is an image of a living person as he currently appears, thus lacking the characteristic of being nonreplaceable. It might arguably be legal fair use, but it is not within fair use policy. --Ssbohio 01:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've weakened my position based on the claim below that the photo is historically significant due to the issue of the disbanded team. However, the image must be used in an article to be keepable, and it needs to have a clear fair use rationale for use in that article. --Ssbohio 14:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while a photo of Sean Morey is potentially findable, it is impossible to replicate this image as Sean Morey no longer plays in NFL Europe. The team he played for The Barcelona Dragons was disbanded after the 2003 season. It is 100% impossible to replicate a photo of Sean Morey in a team uniform that doesn't exist anymore, in a game with a team that doesn't exist anymore, 4 years after said team was disbanded! As such this is a historically significant photo for Morey. Obviously a free image would be better, but until such time as we have one, this should be kept.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 03:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now, it's an unused unfree copyrighted image, speedy deletable under WP:CSD#I5. It might (only might) be fair use to illustrate Morey's time with the Barcelona Dragons. Without its being used in an article, its claim to fair use on Wikipedia dries up. --Ssbohio 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not unused, its currently in the Sean Morey article and has been since it was originally uploaded in 2006, and no its not Speedy Deletable under CSD:I5, because its currently in use.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies. I mistakenly checked whatlinkshere instead of the image page, and concluded it wasn't being used in article space. I was clearly wrong about that, so I withdraw my assertion that this qualifies for speedy deletion. --Ssbohio 23:55, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-free image used to show what a living person looks like, should have been speedied. We don't use a non-free image because free images aren't available if they could be created. Jay32183 01:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Harringbaby02.jpg edit

Image:Harringbaby02.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by knulclunk (notify | contribs).
  • I uploaded it, will replace with better named, etc. Delete speedy is okay. Knulclunk 04:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image is blank. Author/uploader requested speedy deletion via listing the image on this page. Tagged image as {{db-author}} under CSD G7, which deals with pages for which the author has requested deletion and/or blanked the page. --Ssbohio 04:28, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Image:JaneZhangandKitaro.jpg edit

Image:JaneZhangandKitaro.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Omghgomg (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, there is no need for this picture. Also, I uploaded it, so speedy deletion is okay. σмgнgσмg 07:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:XtremeTennis.jpg edit

Image:XtremeTennis.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Oddball115 (notify | contribs).
  • Nonsense image used to illustrate a deleted article about a made-up sport (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xtreme Tennis). No encyclopedic value whatsoever. Hut 8.5 10:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It hurts my eyes to look at it... but that's not really a reason I can use. Agree per Hut 8.5 - nonsense. ScarianTalk 02:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Met-art-cover.jpg edit

Image:Met-art-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pitkina (notify | contribs).
  • This is just pornographic/advertising/offensive material and does not contribute to the article. Thus UE DandanxD 13:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Saying the image is unnecessary is one thing. But Wikipedia is not censored, for taste or sensibilities. Being pornographic is not a valid qualification for deletion. VanTucky Talk 22:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is still UE. --DandanxD 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not an image created for encyclopedic use, but as a commercial image released into the public domain it is one of very few non-fair use resources to illustrate erotic/pornographic commercial media. Not originally being of encyclopedic nature doesn't mean it can't have an encyclopedic purpose. VanTucky Talk 00:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Met-art-movie-cover.jpg edit

Image:Met-art-movie-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pitkina (notify | contribs).
  • This is just pornographic/advertising/offensive material and does not contribute to the article. Thus UE DandanxD 13:54, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Saying the image is unnecessary is one thing. But Wikipedia is not censored, for taste or sensibilities. Being pornographic is not a valid qualification for deletion. VanTucky Talk 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is still UE. --DandanxD 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not an image created for encyclopedic use, but as a commercial image released into the public domain it is one of very few non-fair use resources to illustrate erotic/pornographic commercial media. Not originally being of encyclopedic nature doesn't mean it can't have an encyclopedic purpose. VanTucky Talk 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Metart-cover.jpg edit

Image:Metart-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pitkina (notify | contribs).
  • This is just pornographic/advertising/offensive material and does not contribute to the article. Thus UE DandanxD 13:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Saying the image is unnecessary is one thing. But Wikipedia is not censored, for taste or sensibilities. Being pornographic is not a valid qualification for deletion. VanTucky Talk 22:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is still UE. --DandanxD 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's not an image created for encyclopedic use, but as a commercial image released into the public domain it is one of very few non-fair use resources to illustrate erotic/pornographic commercial media. Not originally being of encyclopedic nature doesn't mean it can't have an encyclopedic purpose. VanTucky Talk 00:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images from hisxpress.com edit

Numerous images from this site (listed above) were uploaded under GFDL license based on this entry at Wikipedia:Successful requests for permission. However, due to some questions about one of the images, AnonEMouse did some checking, and the permissions folks apparently do not feel this is a good permission, because New Millennium Video, an online retailer, likely does not own the copyrights or have the right to release the images under the GFDL, and possibly gave the permission for purposes of self-promotion. Changing the license tag to non-free wouldn't help, as so far as I can see they would all be WP:NFCC#1 violations if claimed under fair use. Videmus Omnia Talk 14:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I checked the image pages of the first five images listed above, and none were tagged on as being part of an IfD discussion. Shouldn't tags have been placed at the start of the IfD? --Ssbohio 14:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Post facto comment This appears to have been a too hasty process with insuffiecient regard for proper procedure. No mention also is made of the fact that there was a previous ifd round on these images not leading to their deletion. __meco 12:38, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ferret_Avatar.jpg edit

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

Image:Erroneous_file_download_screen_shot.jpg edit

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

Image:References_screenshot.jpg edit

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

Image:42DivisionGallipoli1915.jpg edit

Image:42DivisionGallipoli1915.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by [[User talk:Rcbutcher#Image:Image:42DivisionGallipoli1915.jpg listed for deletion|Rcbutcher]] ([{{fullurl:User_talk:Rcbutcher|action=edit&preload=Template:idw_preload&editintro=Template:idw_editintro&section=new&create=Post+a+comment}} notify] | [[Special:Contributions/Rcbutcher|contribs]]).
  • I replaced it with a better image at Commons - :Image:MapHellesWarZoneGallipoli1915.jpg Rcbutcher 19:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:April cover.jpg edit

Image:April cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by VanTucky (notify | contribs).
  • Image is a copyrighted cover of a newspaper which was accidentally uploaded under a GNU/CC license. Image was provided to me by the copyright holders to illustrate the subject in question, so it could be changed to a fair-use clause easily. However, there is a new and more suitable image already in use, so the image becomes redundant. In other words, it's an unused fair use image. VanTucky Talk 21:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Vvoice march cover(2).jpg edit

Image:Vvoice march cover(2).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by VanTucky (notify | contribs).
  • Image is a copyrighted cover of a newspaper which was accidentally uploaded under a GNU/CC license. Image was provided to me by the copyright holders to illustrate the subject in question, so it could be changed to a fair-use clause easily. However, there is a new and more suitable image already in use, so the image becomes redundant. In other words, it's an unused fair use image. VanTucky Talk 21:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:November Cover.jpg edit

Image:November Cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by VanTucky (notify | contribs).
  • Image is a copyrighted cover of a newspaper which was accidentally uploaded under a GNU/CC license. Image was provided to me by the copyright holders to illustrate the subject in question, so it could be changed to a fair-use clause easily. However, there is a new and more suitable image already in use, so the image becomes redundant. In other words, it's an unused fair use image. VanTucky Talk 21:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:20000koopsunderthesea.JPG edit

Image:20000koopsunderthesea.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mr. Whitman (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image that has a fair use rationale that does not explain the specific use of the image within the article. Appears to be used only for decoration. Jay32183 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_September_15&oldid=1145634140"