Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 October 20

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, replaceable in its capacity of showing what a living person looks like. —An gr 09:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jimfitzz.jpg

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

This is just a repetition of an already existing image plus a living person. Damiens.rf 13:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is not a "repetition" or duplicate, it is an image of the person in front of his famous artwork ... the other image is simply the artwork by itself and used in a different article. Redthoreau (talk) RT 18:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of WP:NFCC#8, why do we need this "image of the person in front of his famous artwork"? --Damiens.rf 21:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We needed an image of him period, it just happens that he is standing in front of his famous artwork (which is all the better). He also allows for his own images (he took this one) to be used for non-commercial purposes. Redthoreau (talk)RT 05:47, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we need an image of him, just produce a free one, instead of using copyrighted material. --Damiens.rf 13:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's allowed and needed. - Boston (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A non-free depiction of a living person in front of a free image doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1. Further, the IDP lacks any detailed fair-use rationale a required by WP:NFCC#10c. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 17:42, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the fair use criteria. The fair-use rationale is just wrong too, as this image is being used on a living person. If this was a free file, then the "permission" part would be needed to checked, as it now says "He allows free use for non commercial purposes." which we don't allow. --Kanonkas : Talk 20:09, 24 October 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: Delete. Sorry, although it's clear that most people consider the image a significant contribution to the article, not one of the "keep" voters has addressed the fact that the image violates WP:NFCC#10a by not indicating who the copyright holder is (it isn't CBS News, the immediate source of the image). —An gr 09:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Lastnatalee.jpg

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

Fails WP:NFCC #8 — the image does not contain information that is significant for the readers' understanding of the topic of this article, since the article's subject Natalee Holloway cannot be accurately identified. The image does not contain specific details mentioned in the article or image caption, that can only be understood by showing this particular image. Also, the image is not discussed in the sections where it is displayed. Therefore, the image serves the purpose of illustration only.
Possibly fails WP:NFCC #1 — if the club setting is to be visually identified, a free image could be made.
Fails WP:NFCC #10a – the image author is not mentioned ("Not known").
Fails WP:NFCC #10c – the purpose of use desciption is false. On this image of 244 by 183 pixels, "identification" is not possible. The article contains no "critical commentary" on this image. The image does not contain any significant information. And the image is not "placed next to the associated material discussing the work". Ilse @ 13:07, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:I assure you, Natalee is visible and recognizable. Otherwise, no one would even care about this image, least of all the FBI, who released it to the media. Clips from this image have been used in news reports. We don't know who the author is because the FBI released it to the media without saying who the author is. Ilse is stating her views as facts, with other than accuracy.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That being said, the subject of the article is already capably identified in other copyrighted media in the same page. Using this to perform the same function would fail WP:NFCC#3a. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was the last known photo of the woman before she disappeared? Why can you assume that it is an inaccurate image as it comes from a CBS website as well as being released by the FBI? Besides, its a low res photo. The caption from the website is this - 48 Hours has obtained what is believed to be the last known photo of Natalee Holloway, the 18-year-old from Alabama who went missing nine months ago while on a senior-class trip in Aruba. FBI agents discovered the photo in the camera of one of her classmates. Holloway, pictured on the left, is seen dancing at island bar "Carlos and Charlie's" on the night she disappeared. I say keep. JungleCat Shiny!/Oohhh! 01:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This places the subject matter in proper context. Ms Holloway is, tragically, only notable because of her disappearance, so I would view a "last known" photograph as particularly notable.--Calabraxthis^(talk) 06:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Is that "notable" or "notable", the latter requiring reliable sourcing, the former requiring personal interpretation. The image isn't discussed in the article, so which sourced context does it lie within? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My point was that Ms Holloway's disappearance was notable, hence the decision made to elevate the article about her to Featured Article status. Absent Ms Holloway's disappearance, would she even be in Wikipedia? In this light, a photo taken just before she disappeared from a location she visited on the night of her disappearance is arguably more relevant than the head-shot that appears of her at the top of the article. And in terms of your requirement to discuss the photo within the text of the article itself, if you applied this criterion across all Wikipedia articles, it seems to me that there would be very few photos left. --Calabraxthis^(talk) 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no legal obligation to delete it, and it is a factual piece of our civilization's history. Keep it! Maybe the infant generation can learn something from it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.212.220 (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think the photo does fall into the historical image category and should be kept. Sf46 (talk) 11:05, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep mostly per above. This is the last known image of a missing person, whose last night and activities have been discussed extensively. This is not an image that could be reproduced or equally represented in mere text. - auburnpilot talk 13:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in concurrence with the nomination. Image is not the subject of critical commentary as detailed in the non-free acceptable use guidelines; image and content is not even discussed in the article, ergo is unable to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic (WP:NFCC#8). Further, WP:NFCC#10a requires attribution to the copyright holder is the source is not the same.
It seems to me that this image is so obviously WP:ITSIMPORTANT because it's the last picture of a given individual. It the image itself is important, then verifiable and reliable sourcing should be proffered to bolster that argument. Is using this copyrighted image currently necessary to understand the article and its content? As it isn't, then we don't need to infringe this unknown copyright holder. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 21:47, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets notability as the last public sighting of Ms Holloway. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:47, 22 October 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: Image already deleted, Commons showing through --Papa November (talk) 14:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Whitby Abbey image.jpg

Image:Whitby Abbey image.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sue Wallace (notify | contribs).

The Flickr image page here shows this image licensed as "all rights reserved". Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a Creative commons licence to this image. Chris Kirk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.144.134 (talk) 19:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Instead of undeleting the low-resolution version here, though, I'm going to upload the high-resolution version to Commons. —An gr 19:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commons showing through now. —An gr 10:20, 25 October 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: Delete, replaceable non-free image of living person. —An gr 09:59, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Douganthony.png

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

Non-free picture of a living Australian, used to illustrate his bio, and to decorate the article about the National Party of Australia. Damiens.rf 16:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - images of the National Party Leaders were released by the Party. JRG (talk) 05:21, 25 October 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: Delete, replaceable non-free image of living person. —An gr 10:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Johnanderson.jpg

Image:Johnanderson.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Theworld2 (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture of a living Australian, used to illustrate his bio, and to decorate the article about the National Party of Australia. Damiens.rf 16:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - images of the National Party Leaders were released by the Party. JRG (talk) 05:20, 25 October 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: Delete. Sorry, but there's already a free image showing what he looked like, so this image fails the irreplaceability criterion. —An gr 09:52, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:John McEwen.jpg

Image:John McEwen.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Timeshift9 (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture of a ~~living~~ Australian, used to illustrate his bio, and to decorate the article about the National Party of Australia. Free alternative available at Image:Nla.pic-an23474705-v.jpg Damiens.rf 16:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John McEwen died in 1980. One might quibble about this image's significance, but it's not obviously replaceable. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for pointing out better than i could that Damiens.rf is a dill. Paul Austin (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - please see the previous IfD discussion that I closed as no-consensus -> Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_August_9#Image:John_McEwen.jpg - Peripitus (Talk) 21:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Commons image dates to the 1930's. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- PD-status doesn't have an expiration date. --Damiens.rf 12:01, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Dead people are not usually classed as living. Rebecca (talk) 13:23, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With a libre image already available and implemented in the article (Image:Nla.pic-an23474705-v.jpg); for this image, is his appearance at such an age perticularly significant or commented upon? — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons given in last debate. The image is not replaceable by the other one, and there is debate whether the other image is actually free. JRG (talk) 05:19, 25 October 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:Tennant-david.jpg

Image:Tennant-david.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PabsP (notify | contribs).

Not used. Damiens.rf 16:56, 20 October 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: Keep for now. Image is currently tagged for speedy deletion as no source or fair use rationale was provided Papa November (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Holtage.jpg

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

Reproduction of a non-free newspaper cover used solely to decorate an article that doesn't even mentions the newspaper. Damiens.rf 16:58, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that I'd call it "decoration." Certainly it shows the man's importance, that his disappearance would be front-page news. And while one could simply write that, this extremely low-res image (where only the headlines can really be read) gives a sense of how much space it took-- the entire page-- how many photos they chose to run, how it was presented at the time. There's not much copyrightable information included in the image, anyway, given the tiny size and poor resolution. Furthermore, until the image caption was replaced with the deletion notice, the newspaper was mentioned. Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Still you haven't really addressed WP:NFCC#8. This is image, as you pointed out, is not necessary for the understanding of the article. --Damiens.rf 13:45, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think he's addressed it pretty darn well, personally. Rebecca (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Crypticfirefly. Rebecca (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - definitely addresses the importance of the article. Holt drowned - a newspaper article showing so passes NFCC #8. I don't know what else would. JRG (talk) 05:22, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crypticfirefly and JRG. Orderinchaos 09:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Image could not reasonably be replaced by a free one. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:54, 27 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Keep per above. Timeshift (talk) 01:32, 28 October 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:Harold Holt at car boot.jpg

Image:Harold Holt at car boot.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nomadtales (notify | contribs).

Non-free picture of an Australian politician collecting snorkelling paraphernalia used just to illustrate the point that he liked snorkelling. Fails WP:NFCC#8 Damiens.rf 16:59, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Keating.jpg

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

Not used. Damiens.rf 17:01, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps we should wait a while (2 weeks?) since the uploader seems to be new here with edits only on August 11 and August 12. --Leoboudv (talk) 04:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This picture appears to show the "Florida Studio Theater"[1] which is located in the original clubhouse of the Sarasota Woman's Club. It is probably intended either for the artilce on the Club or for a new article on the theater. Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:19, 25 October 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: Deleted for now to be on the safe side. If permission comes in by OTRS, let me know and I'll undelete. —An gr 10:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Samantha Smith portrait.jpg

Image:Samantha Smith portrait.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PabsP (notify | contribs).

When asked, uploaded denied to supply an otrs confirmation (calling it "'a frivolous tagging") and single-handled removed the no-source tagging. Delete unless otrs can be confirmed. Damiens.rf 17:04, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know, many Wikipedia contributors don't know or understand about OTRS, which is not particularly well explained on the pages that many editors see and contains information that most people cannot view. Indeed, the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:OTRS isn't very helpful in this context. Why not explain more fully and suggest that he forward a copy of the email to that office? I see on your talk page the uploader wrote "I don't know how to use OTRS and I *did* get permission to use that portrait . . ." Maybe some polite assistance would be in order at this stage? Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete w/o licensing confirmation, we do not assume good faith with regards to copyrights. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:35, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I tried posting the email to the image page but Damien reverted me. Paul Austin (talk) 16:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't suggesting that you assume "good faith," I was suggesting that Damiens provide the uploader with the information he/she needs because he/she is obviously confused. It appears that has now been done, but apparently without sufficient specificity. Paul Austin-- you need to forward that email that you got from Robert Shetterly to permissions@wikimedia.org. I recommend that you also cc Mr. Shetterly on the email. Crypticfirefly (talk) 05:42, 25 October 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:Woman's Club.jpg

Image:Woman's Club.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JHLIT (notify | contribs).

not used Damiens.rf 17:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Looks like it was uploaded by a new user with the intent of including it in the article Sarasota Woman's Club-- it is a picture of the original clubhouse. Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:16, 25 October 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: Keep, but retag as non-free historical. The source only gives permission to reproduce the image. Copyright law prevents the modification of images unless explicit permission is granted - Papa November (talk) 14:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fly River Tailings Disaster.jpg

Image:Fly River Tailings Disaster.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nomadtales (notify | contribs).

Derivative work, commercial use, and all other use is not really permitted. Damiens.rf 17:25, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not getting that. It says "Permission is given to reproduce all or any of the contained materials provided due credit is given to CERM3 as the source." I don't see any disqualifying limitation . . . am I missing something? Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need more than just a license to reproduce. We need an irrevocable permission to reproduce, copy, produce derivative works, etc.... --Damiens.rf 12:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The licensing information is pretty clear that just about every use is allowed, as long as CEM3 is properly attributed. Unless this turns out to be invalid, I see no reason to delete it. Fransw (talk) 07:45, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Completely inaccurate. The licensing information is pretty clear that reproduction (and not "just about every use") is allowed. No word about modifications, for instance. --Damiens.rf 12:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If your objection is that this doesn't seem to allow derivative works (though I think it is clear that it would allow some), that's one thing. I see no limitation on commercial use, however, contrary to what you've written above. And, this is probably a situation where if someone would get off their kiester, they could get whatever license they think is needed from the original source by simply emailing them. Crypticfirefly (talk) 13:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Crypticfirefly. Under statutory interpretation principles you can't read the copyright license as denying something unless it is expressly taken away. JRG (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Licence does not appear to be limiting other than that we must credit the source. We already demand this for CC 3.0 licences. Orderinchaos 02:56, 28 October 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:John Hinde ABC.jpg

Image:John Hinde ABC.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nomadtales (notify | contribs).

Free alternative available at: Image:Hinde_war_correspondent_uniform_small.jpg Damiens.rf 17:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sydney Cricket Ground Ladies Stand.jpg

Image:Sydney Cricket Ground Ladies Stand.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Nomadtales (notify | contribs).

not used Damiens.rf 17:27, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - non-use is not a reason for deletion. JRG (talk) 05:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mullauna Card.jpg

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 - The image has a copyrighted logo, use of which on a userpage is not covered by the fair-use rules. User can upload without the logo if he wants - Peripitus (Talk) 12:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mullauna Card.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PabsP (notify | contribs).

Uploader claims to have "created this work entirely by myself'", but he actually just scanned it. Damiens.rf 20:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good Lord. It is a scan of the uploader's student ID card which he is using on his user page. It would be more useful to explain how to tag it properly than nominate it here. Crypticfirefly (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm affraid it can't be tagged "properly", since it's non-free and is being used on a user page. --Damiens.rf 12:24, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just a suggestion, look at that image and identify what elements are actually subject to copyright protection as opposed to being non-creative standardized layout, uncopyrightable information (name, id number) etc. Would you be happy if he blurred out the school's logo at the top of the card? Suggest that you consider what you are really objecting to here and explain it to the uploader. Thanks. Crypticfirefly (talk) 12:57, 21 October 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:B_3249.jpg

Image:B_3249.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chaimo (notify | contribs).

This image is *extreamly* low quality and does not contribute to the article -- it is used solely in a gallery. The uploader is absent. Jordan 1972 (talk) 21:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:ZacEfron Scream.png

Image:ZacEfron Scream.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by FlawedDeception (notify | contribs).

Hoax image. See afd for Scream (Zac Efron song). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]