Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2010 January 12

< Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Damiens.rf (talk | contribs) at 19:35, 13 January 2010 (→File:Airspeed Viceroy.JPG). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 19:35, 13 January 2010 by Damiens.rf (talk | contribs) (→File:Airspeed Viceroy.JPG)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< January 11	January 13 >

January 12

File:Sarah Geronimo In Motion1.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Sarah Geronimo In Motion1.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rars07 (notify | contribs).

User has been uploading files as his own works despite the fact that the opposite seems true Blake Gripling (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Delete both, speedy if possible. This guy had the nerve to insist these were his and I bought the claim, hook, line and sinker. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

File:The Other Side of Sarah Geronimo.JPG

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:The Other Side of Sarah Geronimo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Rars07 (notify | contribs).

Obvious nonfree screencap with no proper permission from uploader Blake Gripling (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Dr. Mrinal Chatterjee.JPG

File:Dr. Mrinal Chatterjee.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bhagabansahu (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Alex davies leeds2009.jpg

File:Alex davies leeds2009.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Qwertysan (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Samar Minallah (in the middle) Filming in Rahimyar Khan for a documentary on Human Trafficking.JPG

File:Samar Minallah (in the middle) Filming in Rahimyar Khan for a documentary on Human Trafficking.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Charsphinx (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Shawn Ashmore Out on the Town as Photographed by Jason Michael.jpg

File:Shawn Ashmore Out on the Town as Photographed by Jason Michael.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Jasonmichael (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. FASTILY_sock 01:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:XDA Exec.png

File:XDA Exec.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Roketjack (notify | contribs).

OR, UE, use not stated, possible CV. FASTILY_sock 01:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Suzan Lewis Pro Photo 22.jpg

File:Suzan Lewis Pro Photo 22.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ricksaphire (notify | contribs).

Orphan photo of non-notable person who does not qualify for WP article WWGB (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:200610121411ab.jpg

File:200610121411ab.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User:NewAust (notify | contribs).

Image is of very low quality (taken from moving car. Currently orphaned for greater than a year without use within a wikipedia article Calmer Waters 05:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Peanut.jpg

File:Peanut.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Partsman72 (notify | contribs).

Vanity photo; OR, UE, LQ, use not stated. -FASTILY 06:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Honda hsv10.jpg

File:Honda hsv10.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Roguegeek (notify | contribs).

Non-free image used in Honda HSV-10 GT "to show the Honda HSV-10 GT which has not yet been shown publicly". Since the car will not be seen by the public until it starts to race it is not clear what purpose other than decoration this non-free article serves at this time. When identification becomes a valid rationale, that is when the racing season starts, the image will be replaceable. Doesn't seem to meet WP:NFCC#8 now and won't meet WP:NFCC#1 when it does meet #8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Keep - Meets WP:NFCC#8 clearly. The contextual significance is that the direct subject of the article is the direct subject of the photograph. You can't get any more significant than that. When the subject is shown publicly, it will no longer meet WP:NFCC#1 and should then be deleted. roguegeek (talk·cont) 19:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete - a free image is either possible to make now or can be made in a very short period of time. Just because we don't have a free image now is no reason to host this. - Peripitus (Talk) 21:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Hoodlum priest.png

File:Hoodlum priest.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Keiron22 (notify | contribs).

Non-free content rationale claims image is used "as the primary means of visual identification of the article topic" and that "no free photos of the group from when the group was popular are known to exist". The Hoodlum Priest article makes it clear that this wasn't a group but rather the work of one still-living individual. Seems like this should be replaceable by any free picture of Mr Derek Thompson. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Supply and demand table.JPG

File:Supply and demand table.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dupz (notify | contribs).

Redundant and orphaned. Quibik (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Hyper CD-ROM.jpg

File:Hyper CD-ROM.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sfaefaol (notify | contribs).

Non-free content rationale claims that this image is used to "illustrate what a Hyper CD-ROM looks like". No surprises: it looks like a CD-ROM. Not clear that this meets WP:NFCC #1 or #8. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Strong Keep. A careful analysis of the image reveals that the Hyper CD-ROM does indeed not look like a CD-ROM, but is roughly half an inch thick. No such storage medium exists to date, at least as far as I know. Therefore, the image provides a context of what this and possibly other future storage media will look like, making it indispensable for an accurate understanding of the article's main subject. #1 and #8 are thus fully met. sfaefaol 15:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Googly-Eyed Glass Squid.PNG

File:Googly-Eyed Glass Squid.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tethu (notify | contribs).

Re-upload of obvious copyvio from The Deep: The Extraordinary Creatures of the Abyss. See also Misplaced Pages:Featured picture candidates/Googly-Eyed Glass Squid. mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete copyright violation. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Airspeed Viceroy.JPG

File:Airspeed Viceroy.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bzuk (notify | contribs).

Unreliable source for a non-free image. The image was just donwloaded from some webpage at a free web-hosting site. No copyright information can be verified. No information about the picture can be verified. Picture does not seems essential for the article. Damiens.rf 17:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Comment The image is of the Airspeed Viceroy aircraft, not just any old one. Only one was built, photos of it are rare. Without going further into the issues of sourcing and fair use (and whether we can apply them here), if any of our images justify inclusion through fair use, then this would be one of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
This looks like very much like any other Airspeed Envoy to me. The article explains the difference, neither of which is likely to be obvious in this grainy little picture. There's a line drawing of the aircraft available at File:Airspeed Viceroy drawing.jpg which appears in the article. Not so much replaceable as already redundant I would say. Fails points 1 and 8 of the non-free content criteria I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
In rebuttal, and following up on AD's point, this is an extremely rare photo of a Viceroy and there are no substitutes. The drawing that was put in the article that sufficed for a time was my hand-drawn illustration because there was nothing else. The case for a historically significant illustration was painstakingly made and the illustration has been in place for quite a long time. Note: Fair use for the Airspeed Viceroy image is claimed.
Though this image may be subject to copyright, its use is covered by the U.S. fair use laws because:
1. It is a historically significant photo of a relatively obscure aircraft.
2. It is of much lower resolution than the original (copies made from it will be of very inferior quality).
3. The photo is only being used for informational purposes.
4. Its inclusion in the article adds significantly to the article because of the dearth of photos of this aircraft and because the photo and the historical significance of the aircraft are the object of discussion in the article.
This image is a faithful digitization of a unique historic image, and the copyright for it is most likely held by the person who created the image or the agency employing the person. It is believed that the use of this image may qualify as fair use under United States copyright law. Other use of this image, on Misplaced Pages or elsewhere, may be copyright infringement. See Misplaced Pages:Fair use for more information.

The non-free content criteria requires that non-free images on Misplaced Pages must not " used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." There are no other photos extant. The historic image is used in a transformative nature, where the image and data accompanying (caption/commentary) assists the reader in understanding the subject. A rationale must be provided for every article any non-free image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria. Source and other copyright information was provided as to all available background. Bzuk (talk) 13:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Even disregarding all non-sequitur in the wall of text above (like saying the image does not "replace the original market role" because "there are no other photos extant") and the unlikely definition of "transformative nature" being used, the main point of the nomination have still not been addressed. --Damiens.rf 14:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

As this image is being considered under fair use, then can you please explain what "Unreliable source for a non-free image" and "No copyright information can be verified" mean? These would be a problem if we were relying on some 3rd party's claim of it being freely licensed, except that we're not. Fair use is the claim that some restricted subjective use can take precedence over that prior copyright, no matter what its objective status. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We usually can't consistently claim fair use without knowing the copyright holder, because it would be difficult to determine that our use is not replacing the original intended use of the work (i.e., if our use is truly transformative). This is reflected in Misplaced Pages's policy by requiring valid copyright information for every image used. --Damiens.rf 19:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-free image that is so similar to the lead image in the same article that the small differences could be described with text. This image is excessive use of non-free content and does not signficantly add to reader's understanding. Fails NFCC#1, 3a, 8 Peripitus (Talk) 21:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

File:IPod Touch 2.0.png and File:Ipod Touch 1st Generation.JPG

File:IPod Touch 2.0.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gyrferret (notify | contribs).

File:Ipod Touch 1st Generation.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by HereToHelp (notify | contribs).

Various claims are made to justify the use of this non-free contentThese seem weak to me. Similar arguments are not made in the case of PDAs or mobile phones. While a free image would either involve powering off the device or photoshopping the image to obscure the copyrighted software elements this doesn't seem to be a major concern. Accordingly I don't believe this image meets WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind me merging these noms, since it means less repetition of arguments, and I can't see them having different resolutions. The thing about iPod Touches is that, more than any other electronics device, they rely on (copyrighted) software. It is particularly damaging to remove the software because there is scarcely any external hardware to speak of. It may be a weak argument, but I think that vector renderings do not adequately convey the device. Only the software can do that. HereToHelp 01:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Illustration on WinFax PRO 2.0 Functionality from Launch Press Release.jpg

File:Illustration on WinFax PRO 2.0 Functionality from Launch Press Release.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Captmondo (notify | contribs).

This non-free image shows advertising copy for Delrina WinFax Pro (now that brings back memories). The rationale gives the purpose as "to illustrate a long-obsolete product's functionality", but it seems to me that this could be done with a free image or in text. Image seems to fail WP:NFCC#1. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While true, you could equally say that about any illustration. This image was taken from a press release and uses graphics common to the period to illustrate the point. While an illustration could be created to describe the same thing, a substitute would lack the verisimilitude of the original. Considering that it was derived from a press release (if one can quote from the text of a press release, why not an image from one?), and is from a firm (and for that matter, a product) that no longer exists, and takes into account all of the other points of WP:NFCC#1, as the uploader of the image I believe there is good reason for it to stay. Captmondo (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

File:DUP-Peter-Robinson-WithGun.jpg

File:DUP-Peter-Robinson-WithGun.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stevenmc (notify | contribs).

An easily replaceable with the GDL text, "He held a gun once", thus failing wp:nfcc Fasach Nua (talk) 22:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Delete. It fails to meet NFCC#1. On the other hand, it could be argued that it "would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic" (NFCC#8). However, the article does not provide any information about how significant the situation in which the picture was taken is. --Ecemaml (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

File:Ian-Paisley-Ulster-Resistance.jpg

File:Ian-Paisley-Ulster-Resistance.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Stevenmc (notify | contribs).

Replaceable with gfdl text, "He wore a hat once", fails wp:nfcc Fasach Nua (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Weakly keep. It can be argued that it meets NFCC#1 criterion since the picture is used in Ulster Resistance (and it could be difficult to find a free equivalent) and not in that of Peter Robinson (politician) --Ecemaml (talk) 17:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:

Archived files for deletion discussions