Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 July 2

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 July 2)
< July 1 July 3 >

July 2

edit

Image:Nighttime english cities labelled.jpg

edit
Image:Nighttime english cities labelled.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Genolian3 (notify | contribs).

Image:Fat-Joe.jpg

edit
Image:Fat-Joe.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Y5nthon5a (notify | contribs).
Delete unless the image came from Wikipedia (take into account it could have). — BQZip01 — talk 23:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Angel Locsin2.jpg

edit
Image:Angel Locsin2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by GoblinTech (notify | contribs).

Image:Emblemofcapeverde.jpg

edit
Image:Emblemofcapeverde.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ThaGrind (notify | contribs).

Image:Small-triangle-black.PNG

edit
Image:Small-triangle-black.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hyacinth (notify | contribs).

Image:Small-triangle-pink.PNG

edit
Image:Small-triangle-pink.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hyacinth (notify | contribs).

Image:2Pac_-_I_Ain't_Mad_at_Cha.ogg

edit
Image:2Pac_-_I_Ain't_Mad_at_Cha.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ted87 (notify | contribs).

Image:Gdansk-Seal.gif

edit
Image:Gdansk-Seal.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gdansk (notify | contribs).
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 

closed as misplaced. Please take this to commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Location Nagorno-Karabakh en.png

edit
Image:Location Nagorno-Karabakh en.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by VartanM (notify | contribs).
  • This map is supposed to show the location of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic because it was used as the main map at the top of the article. However, the map doesn't show what is written in the article, see. I think there is no need to store useless media here. Gülməmməd Talk 03:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The map in the administrative divisions is a map of the former oblast. The map in the infobox is a map of the area controlled by the Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Here it doesn't say former or had, instead it says has. Since the article is about what is called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the main map shouldn't be map of controlled regions, if it is. On the map the region is indicated as NKR-Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Because the so-called NKR is not the whole controlled regions, the map is not either map of the controlled regions -- it is just useless something. Gülməmməd Talk 04:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a file on commons, it should be discussed there! Fasach Nua (talk) 07:23, 3 July 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:10 They Reminisce over You (T.R.O.Y.).ogg

edit
Image:10 They Reminisce over You (T.R.O.Y.).ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SoulBrotherNumberOne (notify | contribs).

Image:NYC_subway_rollsigns.jpg

edit
Image:NYC_subway_rollsigns.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SPUI (notify | contribs).

Image:Storm_with_Keystone_Cup.jpg

edit
Image:Storm_with_Keystone_Cup.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DMighton (notify | contribs).

Image:Strathairn_as_murrow_.jpg

edit
Image:Strathairn_as_murrow_.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nv8200p (notify | contribs).

Image:Stuckist-Thomson-Serota.jpg

edit
Image:Stuckist-Thomson-Serota.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tyrenius (notify | contribs).
Deleted and replaced in article with free version already on Commons. Ty 09:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stuckists-First-Group.jpg

edit
Image:Stuckists-First-Group.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tyrenius (notify | contribs).
Deleted and replaced in article with free version already on Commons. Ty 09:19, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jeeves5.JPG

edit
Image:Jeeves5.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mattjblythe (notify | contribs).

Image:Stuckists-Walker-Serota.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 

no consensus, default to keep. Dreadstar † 05:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Stuckists-Walker-Serota.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tyrenius (notify | contribs).
  • The image is not needed. The content can be replaced with text and sourced. Fails WP:NFCC#8 as decoration. Rettetast (talk) 17:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is not possible to replace this image with text. Sources state Sir Nicholas Serota, the Tate director, visited The Stuckists Punk Victorian show and commented on it. They do not describe what happened when he visited. This photograph clearly shows that—namely that he met with the artists. This was an exceptional event. The Sunday Times had predicted Serota was the "least likely visitor" to the show, because of the ongoing campaign and demonstrations by the Stuckist artists against the Tate. The event is particularly telling, as it was followed by a rejection of a donation to the Tate of Stuckist paintings from the show. This led directly to the Stuckist campaign against Tate's purchase of The Upper Room, which resulted the Charity Commission making "one of the most serious indictments of the running of one of the nation's major cultural institutions in living memory" (The Daily Telegraph). The photograph shows a personal interaction which the reader would otherwise not be aware of, and which undoubtedly adds to their understanding of Serota's visit and the subsequent events. It shows an aspect of his character which would otherwise not be apparent. It also gives insight into the position of the individual artists present, who would then mount the campaign mentioned, including a demonstration outside Tate Britain. Ty 02:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Delete As the above discourse is not discussed in any capacity on the pages in question. If altered and critical commentary on the image were present, this would be different. — BQZip01 — talk 23:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Ah, I see. Much better. — BQZip01 — talk 05:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This material was present, but not necessarily next to the image. I have consolidated it in juxtaposition to the photograph. Please note per policy WP:FUC, the requirement is not "critical commentary on the image", but as #8: Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic. This, as I have pointed out above, applies in this case. Ty 04:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The image is important to the articles and now is properly placed in relation to the text.....Modernist (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above, where relevance is established - at the very least for the Stuckists article, or ideally get a licence from the photographer. Johnbod (talk) 02:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - image could be replaced with 'Sir Nicholas Serota visited and met with the artists'. PhilKnight (talk) 00:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is an entirely unsatisfactory substitute. It does not give any indication of the nature of the meeting, which the image shows to be a close one and of sufficient duration for him to be looking through a book (which seems to be the show catalogue). The text alternative suggested does not name the artists, and the participation of particular people is relevant. Do you have a reference for the statement? Ty 02:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The visual image is more important than the text alone; for several reasons: the context, the demeanor of the meeting, and the proximity to the work...the image tells a more complete story..Modernist (talk) 20:10, 24 July 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:Jeeppickup.png

edit
Image:Jeeppickup.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Denali134 (notify | contribs).

Image:Suarezbasketball.jpg

edit
Image:Suarezbasketball.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jorfer (notify | contribs).

Image:Jeff_02_319.jpg

edit
Image:Jeff_02_319.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Listercodyb (notify | contribs).

Image:Jeff_Conaway_of_Celebrity_Rehab_and_Babylon_5.jpg

edit
Image:Jeff_Conaway_of_Celebrity_Rehab_and_Babylon_5.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Blainhowardjs2comm (notify | contribs).
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 Both deleted. They're not even being used in conjunction with any commentary, just in an image gallery (where nonfree images aren't allowed).

Image:Sunay_HerMajestyQEII.jpg

edit
Image:Sunay_HerMajestyQEII.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DADASHIM (notify | contribs).

Image:Sunay_KingofJordan.jpg

edit
Image:Sunay_KingofJordan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DADASHIM (notify | contribs).
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:Josh_Headshot.jpg

edit
Image:Josh_Headshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jap267 (notify | contribs).

Image:InErzurum.jpg

edit
Image:InErzurum.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by DADASHIM (notify | contribs).

Image:Jeff_Headshot1.jpg

edit
Image:Jeff_Headshot1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jap267 (notify | contribs).

Image:Trade_Up_1031.jpg

edit
Image:Trade_Up_1031.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jap267 (notify | contribs).

Image:Jeff_Lassen_Louis'_Lunch_inside_view.jpg

edit
Image:Jeff_Lassen_Louis'_Lunch_inside_view.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tomticker5 (notify | contribs).
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 Deleted, still no evidence of copyright holder or age of photo, no FU rationale was added (and a fair-use claim still requires a statement of who the copyright holder is.) —Angr 18:44, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sohail Rana with Ahmed Rushdi.jpg

edit
Image:Sohail Rana with Ahmed Rushdi.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arunreginald (notify | contribs).
  • Uploader claims that the creator died more than fifty years ago, yet at the same states that he doesn't know who the creator is. In addition, from the given source it appears likely that the image was taken in the 1960s or later. HaeB (talk) 17:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The PD-Pakistan license states that photographs works that date back fifty years are considered fair-use. Since the composer and the singer pictured in this pictured started back in 50s, it is safe to deduce this picture is fifty years old. But my assumptions can be wrong. Nevertheless, towards the zenith of his career in 1963, Sohail Rana seldom appeared for photoshoots with singers as depicted in the picture (never again did he appear with the singer he is pictured with) rending this image of valuable importance. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, assuming that this formulation is correct and the 50 years after publication apply (and that the image was published right after it was taken), it would need to be from 1957 or earlier. In other words, the man on the left would be 19 or younger and the man on the right 23 or younger, according to the birth years stated in Sohail Rana and Ahmed Rushdi. Both appear older to me. And [2] mentions successful collaborations between them until 1972. Regards, HaeB (talk) 21:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure but delete In that case, I would be the first to mark it for deletion. But the point remains that this image is truly iconic in the sense that this is the one and only time these two were caught on print. And judging by their standing in Pakistan as the founding fathers of the Pakistani pop industry, this image should rather be kept. I am unsure of what non-free fair use rationals would apply to that and would need help. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 21:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure but keep It's a good image and enhances the article. The published image is on an n known source, so it could be assumed that its free but then its all an assumptions and hence my uncertainty on this issue. Sorry if this comment was a total waste of time. SholeemGriffin (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I concur with the unsure comments, but this image is irreplaceable as one of the individuals is dead. If a simple FUR is added, the status of the image as PD or copyrighted is moot. So keep but update the tags on the image. — BQZip01 — talk 00:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with an update to the tags explaining a fair use rational. I agree that it's probably post 1957 and so tagged incorrectly, however, I do believe it's irreplaceable, enhances the article, and can be justified under fair use. Vickser (talk) 20:55, 6 July 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.
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 Deleted. Cannot be kept as fair use as there is no indication of who the copyright holder is and no FU rationale has been written. —Angr 18:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nazia Hassan in 1983.JPG

edit
Image:Nazia Hassan in 1983.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arunreginald (notify | contribs).
  • Comment: I regret my mistake. I wasn't surely aware of the area of the non-free fair use rationale that would appear to this particular instance. The upload form merely comes up with the field and I left it unchanged as I began searching for the relevance of debate for tagging this image with a FU rationale.
    Knowing that it can not be addressed, even I strongly would go for its deletion. Even though this image had been in my possession for a long time, I believe the provision its source data might not be available. I did not create the image myself rather uploaded it from a personal collection. I wouldn't vote for keeping it. Arun Reginald (talk · contribs) 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The user claims the photo is from his personal collection. It's a nice image and it enhances the article. I think that the copyright could be altered to suit the requirements. SholeemGriffin (talk) 01:02, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Keep "Personal collection" does not imply he owns the copyright. Plus the fact that he also thinks it should go... However... this is the picture of a deceased person and cannot be replaced with a free image. Alter tag accordingly, add FUR, show source; otherwise delete.— BQZip01 — talk 00:17, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have lots of photos in my "personal collection" I don't own the copyright to. -Nard 01:27, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm still just dipping my toes into images for deletion so I'm not 100% sure here, but would this be a case where we'd want to instead go ahead and write a fair use rationale? Especially in the Nazia Hassan article, the loss of this picture would be felt. She's dead, so it's not possible to just have someone get a picture of her. Obviously as tagged this can't stand (since the uploader doesn't have the copyright) but as an image of an iconic popstar with no free alternative available makes me think we might want to retag as fair use. Anyone who knows more about IFD who can explain if this would be viable? Vickser (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure. Go for it! I also missed the fact that this image is of someone who is deceased. Altering my !vote accordingly. — BQZip01 — talk 05:36, 7 July 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:Jeff_craft.jpg

edit
Image:Jeff_craft.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gencraft (notify | contribs).

Image:Jeff_Summit_Inn.jpg

edit
Image:Jeff_Summit_Inn.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Freeman8739 (notify | contribs).

Image:Jeff_and_Leo.jpg

edit
Image:Jeff_and_Leo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jefferybott (notify | contribs).

Image:Jeff_headshot.JPG

edit
Image:Jeff_headshot.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jeffsonderman (notify | contribs).

Image:Jeff_in_pain.jpg

edit
Image:Jeff_in_pain.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Digifruitella (notify | contribs).

Image:Ending.jpg

edit
Image:Ending.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Digifruitella (notify | contribs).

Image:Ledger_Joker_clown_mask.jpg

edit
Image:Ledger_Joker_clown_mask.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Digifruitella (notify | contribs).
Not convinced it is a copyvio, I would expect better quality from a studio release, have you a source? Fasach Nua (talk) 18:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was inserted in an article as a film screenshot, so it would obviously be non-free. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:55, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jeff_obrian.jpg

edit
Image:Jeff_obrian.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jmobrian (notify | contribs).

Image:Jeff-Johnson-Mike-Demkowicz.jpg

edit
Image:Jeff-Johnson-Mike-Demkowicz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Johnrpenner (notify | contribs).

Image:NormaTalmadge01.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 

delete, taking a cautious approach per Angr. PhilKnight (talk) 00:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:NormaTalmadge01.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Caldwell4 (notify | contribs).
  • Source info is insufficient to verify the PD claim. I don't know that much about women's fashions of the 1920s, but it sure looks just as likely to have been published after 1 January 1923 as before 31 December 1922. —Angr 19:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — talk 00:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems to be from a set of photos [3] that includes one of her with Gilbert Roland. Roland wasn't in hollywood till the mid 1920s, and in all likelihood this dates the picture to the 1926 release of Camille. She also looks a bit older in the picture compared to ones from 1921~1922. There's enough circumstantial evidence for me to think it's later than Jan 1, 1923, so a delete vote from me. Vickser (talk) 20:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep does not appear to have been published with a copyright notice or have been renewed. -Nard 20:50, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Photo is by Melbourne Spurr, seems to be a publicity photo for The Woman Disputed I'd guess, so figure publication is ~1928. This would put it in the Published between 1923 and 1977 without a copyright notice, making it Public Domain. I'd say Keep. WilyD 13:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What's the evidence it was published without a copyright notice? —Angr 13:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's your contention there's a little   scrawled across the back of the photo? WilyD 13:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it's my contention there's no evidence one way or the other yet. There could easily be a little copyright notice on the back of the photo, or it could have been published in a series that had a copyright notice somewhere else. I prefer to err on the side of caution in cases like this and only use "published without copyright notice" in cases like Night of the Living Dead where the absence of a copyright notice is actually independently verified. (What I personally think is most likely is that it was published with a copyright notice, but that copyright was not renewed, and so it's PD for that reason - but even then I'd want to see at least some evidence rather than just taking it for granted.) —Angr 14:01, 11 July 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:Shortcircuit_film.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 Delete. 

--Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image:Shortcircuit_film.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Edwin_Larkin (notify | contribs).
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:NamViet 200bc.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 Deleted due to obvious copyright violation and/or POV pushing. Long term issue with Webster121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). 

--seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modified map created for solely POV reason, claiming sole credit rather than crediting the original map creator. Map claims to be created by uploader but most likely was not; uploader causing great trouble by non-consensus/POV edits at Nanyue article (see edit history), for which this image was apparently produced. The original image is by Thomas A. Lessman, who was not credited in the new upload, and the sole difference appears to be that the apparently objectionable toponym "Nan-Yue" (see the region that is currently southern China and northern Vietnam) was "greened out" with PhotoShop or some comparable program. Badagnani (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The licence is invalid, however this seems to be part of a content dispute, the image should be tagged with {{ifd}} and the uploader should be informed of this nomination for discussion to continue Fasach Nua (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Badagnani (talk) 07:55, 3 July 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.

--seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Aboutu.ogg

edit
Image:Aboutu.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TV-VCR (notify | contribs).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_July_2&oldid=1140401005"