Misplaced Pages

:Files for deletion/2008 April 18 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Humus sapiens (talk | contribs) at 10:14, 1 May 2008 (→Image:Anne Frank the Hollywood photo Oct10 1942.jpg). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:14, 1 May 2008 by Humus sapiens (talk | contribs) (→Image:Anne Frank the Hollywood photo Oct10 1942.jpg)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

April 18

Image:Silk Smitha.jpg

Image:Silk Smitha.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Arundhati lejeune (notify | contribs).
  • This non-free image is not being used in a way consistent with Misplaced Pages policy. The article has not described properly about the use of this image, except in the caption of the image itself. Thus image violates WP:NFCC#8. It's just an screenshot which does not add adequate value to the article as would be required by WP:NFCC#8. NAHID 18:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep How do you propose to replace a deceased actress's image from a film appearance? Resurrect her and pursue a producer to cast her? Have you noticed that the NFCC#8 bit applies mostly to people alive? While applying that policy so wantonly, would you also consider a deletion of Image:Iub logo.gif? It seems to have no description in the article either. It doesn't even have a source properly cited as described in WP:CITE#IMAGE, which may even be considered as ground for speedy deletion of the image. But, you don't really see people jumping at every opportunity to propose a deletion of material uploaded by another editor, simply because they have chosen to harass, stalk and pester that person. As you can see, Misplaced Pages policies are meant to be used with discretion. Perhaps you also have noticed that fair use images like Image:3 Occasional Pieces.jpg for deceased people are also used in FA-class article, as that discretion in policy use is an accepted norm here. I also am sure that you can see how it has become difficult for me to assume good faith in your actions. Aditya 22:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
The actress's deceased or alive, that's not the fact. The fact is, there is no explanation about this screenshot anywhere in the article (required by NFCC#8). Screenshots can only be used in discussions of the TV show or movie they're taken from. But this matter absent here and apparently it's a violation of NFCcriteria#8--NAHID 19:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is little difference between a general photo and a screenshot in this case. Either would be non-free, either would be covered under the replaceability clause that deals with people who are no more. This interpretation is very much accepted by the community, as you would see that it is a fairly common practice for FA grade articles, which are considered to be examplary good work on the Misplaced Pages by community consensus. Check James T. Aubrey, Jr., Nirvana (band), Samuel Beckett and more (interestingly the last two examples here depict their works). If the name of the film in the caption is confusing you, you may change the caption. There is no immediate need to look for commentary on the film. That wouldn't apply anyways to an infobox image. It is highly regrettable that you choose to ignore everything I said above, and kept harping on a non-issue. Which amounts to nothing but petty lawyering. Something not expected of an editor of your experience in good faith. Ignoring all rationale and repeating a non-issue over and over again doesn't help Misplaced Pages grow, and doesn't establish the credibility of the nomination or the nominator. It just helps you make the last word. Aditya 11:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Lifeofdapartyvideo.jpg

Image:Lifeofdapartyvideo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fergie forever (notify | contribs).
  • I do not believe screenshots for music videos qualify as fair use in song articles under normal circumstances, and nothing with respect to this case indicates this is any different. Skomorokh 01:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Gabriel of Belgium.jpg

Image:Gabriel of Belgium.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Morhange (notify | contribs).
It is okay to give uploaders a few days time to rectify the license situation (5 days according to WP:IFD), but Morphage had already been notified on April 18th. And her comment here does seem to indicate that it is not possible at the moment to confirm that this photo is in the public domain - even if the described statement by the rights holders could be found again, it would probably be the standard release of the image as part of a press kit for promotional use only, which is not sufficient to declare it as freely licensed for all purposes. Regards, High on a tree (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:2008Swingstate.jpg

Image:2008Swingstate.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by JPmaverick (notify | contribs).

Image:Whitman's mother.jpg

Image:Whitman's mother.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sherurcij (notify | contribs).
  • I had disputed the fairuse rationale but the template was removed so I'll explain again. This does not to seem to satisfy Misplaced Pages:NFCC#8. There is no indication that the image would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in any way. The only mention of his mother's death in Charles Whitman was that "Just after midnight, he killed his mother Margaret. The exact method is disputed, but it seemed he had rendered her unconscious before stabbing her in the heart. He returned to his suicide note, now writing by hand." An image of her body afterwards is not necessary, especially given the total number of people killed that day. If someone else is interested, Charles Whitman has eight other fairuse images, which may seem excessive. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, if the other eight images were of bodies, or of his mother, it'd be a strong reason to delete this. However, as it stands the image is owned by a government source, so there is no commercial loss to the photographer, is it of a non-repeatable subject and adds significantly to the article as it shows the level of calm and such that he left his mother's body in, she wasn't thrown down a stairwell, there aren't bloody handprints on the wall, it's not a gory scene, he arranged her body lying in the bed, yet she has defensive wounds across her arms where she was clearly cut by the knife Whitman used to kill her. This isn't a "random victim", this is his mother - and clearly notable. Sherurcij 08:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • There is no mention of any of this in the article and that just makes this approach original research about how he killed her. How does the image help the understanding of how he killed her when there is no mention of the details (which ultimately aren't that relevant to the article as a whole). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the purpose of an image, to demonstrate what isn't included in the prose of the article. It would be OR to write about the defensive wounds on her arms, or that her body was placed in her bed as though asleep, since we haven't found media articles from the day. But it's not OR to simply include the image of the body. Sherurcij 13:11, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
But you are claiming that the image is significant to the article because of these things that you are admitting you couldn't put in the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because it's not "ORiginal Research" to simply show the image. Sherurcij 15:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Ricky, can I ask you to consider the possibility that you may have a misconception on original research? We agree that original research is proscribed from article space. But are you sure that unreferenced conclusions are proscribed from talk pages discussions? I believe you are mistaken and that Sherurcij is fully entitled to draw reader's attention to things he has no references for -- on talk pages. Geo Swan (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep (from talk page this morning) - But the picture provides information, to somebody who study criminal minds, crime scenes, provides a lot of information, just wathing the picture you can realize how he loved his mother, placing her as sleeping, taking care of details, as a crime scene is very intresting, as motivaition of the criminal gives a lot of light. Deleting images who provides information is a crime. 189.149.64.69
  • Keep -- Whitman's note said that he tried to minimize the suffering of his wife and mother when he killed them. The photo confirms this. I believe this photo DID increase my understanding of the topic. Geo Swan (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Look, I am not saying that OR is proscribed from the talk page discussion. My problem is people claiming reasons based on OR that aren't in the article. My concern is saying that the article is significant for a reason that is not clear from the article itself. The article merely describes her passing. If we are going to have a minimal use of fair-use images, this image does not seem necessary in my view. I cannot go and use a copyrighted image and then when asked about it, claim that it is significant to the article for a bunch of stuff that isn't or can't be in the article itself. The image also does not seem to pass the "omission would be detrimental to that understanding" part of #8 (which I'll readily admit is being fought over, so I won't focus on that), as you can easily remove the image and the article would clearly be exactly the same. Again, the article only mentions that he killed her and that he stabbed her. Everything that everyone is noticing is just stuff that they are seeing from the picture or from outside information that could never be put in the article. This is not the way to argue that image are necessary under our fair-use guidelines, in my view. If another admin thinks this satisfies, I'll leave it be, but I am more seriously concerned about the Time and Life magazine covers and the other copyrighted images on the page. Image:Coversvanity demi.0.jpg is an example of a good fair-use of a magazine cover, not the way it is being here in this article (but that's a completely separate point). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Aram_Khatchatourian_60x95.JPG

Image:Aram_Khatchatourian_60x95.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Steelmate (notify | contribs).

Image:Bronstein.jpg

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

Image:Anarchocommunism.jpg

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

Image:PalisadesMedicalCenter logo.jpg

Image:PalisadesMedicalCenter logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by LenoxBlue (notify | contribs).

Image:SF2 pinball.jpg

Image:SF2 pinball.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by David Pro (notify | contribs).

Image:FedEx 777F Artwork BCA.jpg

Image:FedEx 777F Artwork BCA.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by N328KF (notify | contribs).

Image:MD_Malcolm_Staff_.jpg

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

Image:Seven+two.jpg

Image:Seven+two.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:Halifax_Fan_works.JPG

Image:Halifax_Fan_works.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:Halifax_fan_ATEX_APPLICATION.jpeg

Image:Halifax_fan_ATEX_APPLICATION.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:HALIFAX_FAN_TABLE_2.jpg

Image:HALIFAX_FAN_TABLE_2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:HALIFAX_FAN_PERFORMANCE_CURVE.jpg

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

Image:HALIFAX_FAN_TABLE_1.jpg

Image:HALIFAX_FAN_TABLE_1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:HALIFAX_FAN_TABLE_3.jpg

Image:HALIFAX_FAN_TABLE_3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:Gordon,Jeramy.jpg

Image:Gordon,Jeramy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thumbsdown00 (notify | contribs).

Image:Jeramy.gif

Image:Jeramy.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thumbsdown00 (notify | contribs).

Image:Centrif_fan_+_flow.JPG

Image:Centrif_fan_+_flow.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:Two_MEBI_ATEX_FANS.jpg

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

Image:Halifax_Plastic_Impeller.JPG

Image:Halifax_Plastic_Impeller.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:Two_Halifax_ATEX_fans.jpg

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

Image:MISTRAL_BI.JPG

Image:MISTRAL_BI.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:PB_PB.JPG

Image:PB_PB.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:PMV_FC.JPG

Image:PMV_FC.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:Industrial_fan.jpg

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

Image:Fan_Engineer235.JPG

Image:Fan_Engineer235.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:SIDE_KICK_over_Grisdale.JPG

Image:SIDE_KICK_over_Grisdale.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fan_Engineer (notify | contribs).

Image:Salva_Vita_Foundation_final_note_2006_Krzywkowska.pdf

Image:Salva_Vita_Foundation_final_note_2006_Krzywkowska.pdf (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Grazka09 (notify | contribs).

Image:Anne Frank the Hollywood photo Oct10 1942.jpg

Image:Anne Frank the Hollywood photo Oct10 1942.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Humus sapiens (notify | contribs).
  • This image fails WP:NFCC policy #8 on significance, because there is already another non-free portrait used in Anne Frank. The text in the image could simply be quoted in the article. Ilse@ 21:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • I do not agree with this image's supposed non significance. I found it (and other photos of Anne Frank in the article) crucial to my overall understanding. --128.195.54.180
      • There is no purpose of use description that justifies the use of this image. – Ilse@ 15:43, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
        • You are entitled to your opinion, Ilse. Others may think otherwise. Since this image is listed as LIFE's 100 Photos that Changed the World: digitaljournalist.org, and was on Anne Frank's page for years now, I am removing your tag. ←Humus sapiens 10:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
          • If the portrait in the image is significant because it "changed the world", this should be explicitly mentioned in the featured article Anne Frank. And also, only the portrait image should be shown, applying WP:NFCC #3, since the text is also copyrighted because Anne Frank died less than 70 years ago. – Ilse@ 11:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
          • Ilse is quite right. It shows what Frank looked like - something that is adequately addressed by the infobox image. If the image itself was discussed in the article, or if that portion of the diary was discussed, it would be a different story, but despite the supposed importance of the image, it is not discussed. Nor does the fair use rationale offer anything more than a generic rationale. The image and text are copyrighted by Anne Frank Fonds, and we should be using unfree media sparingly and only when necessary. People saying it is "crucial" need to do something more than just say so, and need to demonstrate how it is crucial. To say that this image is crucial to an understanding of Anne Frank is simply not true. The article existed as a featured article long before the image was added, and somehow people understood the article. It's a nice image, and it's interesting, but it's not crucial. Rossrs (talk) 08:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
            • This photo reflects her ambitions and aspirations, important for understanding her character and her fate. It was special enough to be listed as one of LIFE's 100 Photos that Changed the World, so the reason for listing it for deletion as "insignificant" is nonsensical to say the least. It's been included in the article since 2005 and there were no complains. Why is this sudden urge to delete now and disfigure the article on Yom HaShoah? ←Humus sapiens 10:34, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
              • The photograph may be acclaimed and historically significant but that is not what is being discussed. It is not used with any degree of significance in the Anne Frank article. This has nothing to do with Yom HaShoah. Please keep to the topic. As for disfiguring the article? It was made a featured article long before the photo was added. Obviously it wasn't considered "disfigured" then, or it would not have been promoted and displayed on Misplaced Pages's front page as one of it's "best" articles. Please discuss the use of the image in relation to our existing policies regarding fair use, and stop injecting emotive statements into the discussion. We're discussing a photograph, its copyright status, and our right to use it within our existing policies, and that's all. Rossrs (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
                • Do you seriously suggest that removing this photo would improve the article? ←Humus sapiens 20:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
                  • Of course not. I suggest that because the image is not discussed in the article, which is one of the main requirements when making a fair use claim, removing it would not "disfigure" the article - to use your own words. Rossrs (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
                    • Good point. I have added a phrase about her aspirations of becoming an actress. The disfigurement was "This image is proposed for deletion." ←Humus sapiens 10:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - This image is not owned by LIFE, nor is it copyrighted as far as I know. It is in widespread use and of such a significant nature that I don't possibly see how its use could be a problem. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
    • We don't use unfree images just because they are not "a problem". We could harmlessly use numerous unfree images but our policy is that we use them only when absolutely necessary, so to keep the image its necessity needs to be established. Rossrs (talk) 12:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep it - it really did help me to understand and relate to her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.78.226 (talk) 20:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Request for clarification: would someone clarify the claim that it is copyrighted? I agree that it would, in principle, have been copyrightable, but it comes from an era when copyright generally required registration, and did not happen simply by default. I presume Dutch law figures into the matter, and I know nothing about the status of such an artifact under Dutch law. Who, precisely, is supposed to hold the copyright? The estate of Otto Frank? - Jmabel | Talk 20:09, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • According to Melissa Muller's biography of Anne Frank (ISBN 0 7475 4523 5), Otto Frank bequeathed the intellectual property of the diary and its contents to the Anne Frank Fonds which currently holds copyright and receives all income generated. (The actual pages of the diary, rather than it's text was bequeathed to the The Netherlands State Institute for War Documentation.) The Fonds was established in Basel, Switzerland, and is therefore subject to Swiss law. I'll try to find a weblink. The Fonds has taken legal action against copyright infringements in the past. Obviously more serious issues than merely the use of a photograph, but they have demonstrated that they take their copyright ownership seriously. It's important to note that we're not just talking about a photograph of Frank but a reproduction of text from the diary, which is copyrighted. As I said, I'll try to find something more substantial to refer to than just my own assertion. Rossrs (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
      • Link to Anne Frank Fonds copyright page - in part "The AFF protects all personal rights of ANNE FRANK and Otto H. Frank. Jointly with the ANNE FRANK-House it claims the rights to all photographs of ANNE FRANK and to the facsimile of her handwriting." So we have three aspects in this image that are subject to copyright - her image, her text and her handwriting. Rossrs (talk) 22:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Image:Jasonsheemun.jpg

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

Image:Jasonla.jpg

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

Image:Old_town_kopitiam.jpg

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

Image:Hillcity.jpg

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

Image:Zboruvate li angliski.ogg

Image:Zboruvate li angliski.ogg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bjankuloski06en (notify | contribs).

Image:Earthquake Information for Pakistan.gif

Image:Earthquake Information for Pakistan.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deeptrivia (notify | contribs).