Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion/2011 July 23

< Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Thin Arthur (talk | contribs) at 17:40, 23 July 2011 (→File:Anders Behring Breivik.jpg: Delete). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 17:40, 23 July 2011 by Thin Arthur (talk | contribs) (→File:Anders Behring Breivik.jpg: Delete)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

< July 22	July 24 >

July 23

File:Wipe histevol.gif

Does not appear to be free use. I removed it from the article it was in because it wasn't put in any meaningful context. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Wieman, Henry Nelson.jpg

Source given is Philosopedia, and there is no source information on the Philosopedia page to derive the actual source from. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Wells with spires cutnpaste.jpg

As a photoshop job it's got minimal encyclopedic value. Also, the source images are not specified, it's just "pics from Commons". Sven Manguard Wha? 01:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Response: This pic is an indication of the way that the building was intended to appear. The facade without the spires is still magnificent, but has always appeared unfinished. The option is to transfer it to Commons and use it in the article. Finding the two files that the facade and spires were taken from is easy. The spires are from a photo of Chartres. My own pic, if I remember rightly.

Anyway, I'll take a look on the article page of Wells Cathedral and see if it would be appropriate to include it. Amandajm (talk) 02:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Further: Having taken a look at the article, Wells Cathedral, I intend to expand the section on architecture. In that context, this picture would be useful. I suggest moving it to Commons, bt I'm not sure how this is achieved. Amandajm (talk) 02:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe upload it there and let this copy die here? (Not absolutely sure; I've lost some of my familiarity with image procedures.) But I'm not sure if semi-speculative things like this are in line with the rules and guidelines? I mean, an image like this might be in an encyclopedia I was creating from scratch, but it's definitely a borderline case if we consider Misplaced Pages guidelines. Ab e g92contribs 17:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Waynearthurs.jpg

Questionable legitimacy. No metadata, uploader has no other contributions. Sven Manguard Wha? 02:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Vavrek.jpg

Orphaned, unencyclopedic. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:WagerMutiny 02.jpg

The source isn't really given, "Byrons book" - which book? who is the artist? It's also orphaned. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:VASTimage06.jpg

From a video clip, probably not uploader's work. Even if it were, it has no foreseeable encyclopedic value and is of low quality. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:VASTimage09.jpg

Does not (based on the summary) appear to be the work of the uploader, does not appear to be free. Orphaned. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:12, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Vibration-isolation.jpg

Orphaned, unlabeled graph. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:50, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Villa Rusciano incisione.jpg

Source is "Private collection", but the image appears at this site which has no release. Permission is "commons" but I don't see the image on Commons at all. Currently orphaned, and Villa Rusciano is well illustrated. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Village Voyage screenshot.jpg

Orphaned screenshot from what appears to be a defunct wiki, no indication that GFDL release is accurate. No article on Village Voyage. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Rubenstein et al 1994 Prosomeric Model.png

Orphaned. Permission is "Granted via email from Dr. Salvador Martinez" which is not OTRS logged. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Alex R.JPG

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 06:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Us-mdleo.gif

According to the license page for the source site this can only be used for non-commercial use. On top of that, the copyright holder probably is Leonardtown, Maryland, not this flag artist. Finally, with two versions of the flag on that site, with the other one being marked "Version per county code", I'm not sure this is even accurate. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:WPDOLPHINS.jpg

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 06:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a good faith effort, but what they're trying to do is better done using wiki markup. Delete and tell the uploader how to do it the right way. Ab e g92contribs 17:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Barelling.jpg

Orphaned, redundant to File:Barelling.svg, no chain of attribution needed. Acather96 (talk) 06:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Vote4Meisfunny.jpg

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:WikiProject Mariners logo.jpg

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 06:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:WikiProject MarinersNewsletter logo.jpg

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 07:00, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Jean-Luc Quevauvilliers poses at a party in NYC in 2009..jpg

Orphaned, used in a now deleted article, no foreseeable use. -FASTILY 07:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Eww. If I were a girl, I'd be thouroughly creeped out by that portrait. Also, delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Vanity photo for use in resurrected Jean-Luc Quevauvilliers (just speedied db-g4). Won't somebody please think of the children. Gurt Posh (talk) 07:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Take it out unless someone's making a seriously good faith effort to find sources and bring it up to encyclopedic standards in userspace. Delete unless said unlikely scenario happens. Ab e g92contribs 17:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:US-CT-Ashford.PNG

Orphaned to File:Ashford CT lg.PNG Sven Manguard Wha? 07:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Juice extractor.jpg

Only used in userspace, unencyclopedic. Acather96 (talk) 07:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thought it would be some sort of realistic representation of a juice extractor, but seeing what I saw, delete (unencyclopedic and irrelevant).

File:Hey look its me!.jpg

Orphaned, unencyclopedic Acather96 (talk) 07:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Anders Behring Breivik.jpg

Procedural nom for a contested speedy deletion. This non-free image fails point 1 of non-free content criteria. There is a reasonable likelihood that a free equivalent could be created. Also BLP issues on the talk page in disputing the speedy deletion. Additional information: the source is incorrect, the image is from Facebook. It was not "Released by an array of international news media", it was used by Nordic media under extended collective licensing. ShipFan (talk) 16:41, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment The image is originally from his Facebook. There's a PDF going around with this image and his Facebook profile. Even though some agency might have licensed it, it does not necessarily mean that they have obtained legal rights to it themselves. --hydrox (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Ergo the fair use claim is invalid. The source is incorrect. This is a clear copyvio. ShipFan (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT --hydrox (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Okay, done using exactly the claims made here. Let's see if they hold water. ShipFan (talk) 17:22, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep. No free image exists, and one is not likely to be created as the individual is now incarcerated and accused of killing 90+ people. Fair use rationale is included, and prior speedy nomination was met with a majority of dissent on the images talk page. Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
There is a reasonable likelihood that a free equivalent could be created in the form of police or court photos. There are BLP issues as the subject has only been accused of a crime, not convicted by a court. ShipFan (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Your deletion rationale (as it did on the image talk page) continues to shift as each new one is addressed. IF a court photo or police photo appears then I have no problem with removing this photo. However, right now one doesn't exist and is not likely to in the foreseeable future. Thus, the fair use rational is valid for the time being. Redthoreau -- (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The non-fair use rationale is invalid. It fails non-free content criteria because a free equivalent of a living person could be created. ShipFan (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

- However there is a reasonable likelihood that a free equivalent could be created in the future. ShipFan (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Comment: The police in Norway do not offer freely licensed photographs. Photographing someone in court is illegal in Norway. JonFlaune (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

If you want to talk about Norwegian law, you must also note there is no concept of fair use under Norwegian copyright law and since the image was created in Norway it is impossible to claim fair use under any circumstances. However since Norwegian law does not apply to Misplaced Pages then none of these arguments are valid. There is a reasonable likelihood that a free equivalent could be created by somebody outside the court. ShipFan (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not published in Norway. However, for someone to take a photograph in court, they would have to go to Norway and break the law there. I don't think there is any likelyhood that a free image can be created in the foreseeable future. JonFlaune (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

However you could take a photo of a person outside the court as they arrive. Claiming there isn't likelyhood that a free image can be created in the foreseeable future is crystal ballery. ShipFan (talk) 17:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

- - Frankly, I don't think you could. There is no "perp walk" in Norway. He will probably arrive secretly with no photo-op whatsoever, they will just drive him into the basement of the court house. JonFlaune (talk) 17:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep (edit conflict) For now, free equivalent is impossible to create, as the suspect is in secret location. ~~This might change once the public trials starts.~~ (never mind, see above.) (1) There are no commercial opportunities for anyone attached to this image, (2) and the image has been widely circulated in the media. (4) If required, we can create a lower resolution copy of the image, although this is already very low resolution and low quality. (3) Image is used exactly because of its extensive encyclopedic value in its context, (8) but only as long as no free alternative is possible to create. (5) Image would be used in 1 or 2 mainspace articles. (7) (9) Image description is fine. (10). Ie. image conforms to the WP:NFCC and its use is fair use under the US copyright legislation. --hydrox (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
- In other words there is a reasonable likelihood that a free equivalent could be created in the future. ShipFan (talk) 17:04, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
  - Yes, but for now fair use is the only possibility, as we must have an image of the main suspect in the article. --hydrox (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    - No it is not the only possibility! And why MUST you have an image of somebody who is only suspected of a crime and has not actually been convicted? ShipFan (talk) 17:11, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
    - Actually no we must not. We could entirely have articles without his picture. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete: I sympathise strongly with ShipFan's last point Irrespective of subtleties of licensing legislation, this is a question of social responsibility and presumption of innocence. This man has a right to a proper trial, and to be viewed and portrayed as "innocent until proven guilty". --HAdG (talk) 17:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete We are committed to free content, not just "free-content when it's convenient". Non-free content is sometimes allowed per WP:NFCC, but the image is not of historical value, the guy is not dead (we don't have the ability to get a create free picture "now", which does not mean that we will not in the future), and it's not free, so delete it. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:18, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Keep per Hydrox. NFCC#1 only applies for cases where you can theoretically go to the subject right now and photograph them, which you obviously cannot here (again, for now). As for potential concerns of BLP issues, Misplaced Pages:BLP#Images allows images that are used in-context, even if the context is negative. Yes, he has only been accused so far but in this case he was overpowered by the police while shooting teenagers, so there is no doubt whatsoever that he actually perpetrated those crimes. BLP issues are a valid concern for people who are only accused but there are common sense exceptions for cases like this. Regards So Why 17:13, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to create one right now. There exists a reasonable likelihood that a free image of a living person could be created. ShipFan (talk) 17:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but you are wrong. The question whether there is such a likelihood is exactly the kind of crystal balling you despise above. As has been pointed out to you above, there is no likelihood that he will ever be publicly seen, with no perp walk, no photos allowed in the courtroom, secret arrivals and departures in court and most likely no photos allowed in prison. But that's irrelevant anyway, as we don't deal with what might be possible in future. We deal with the facts as they are right now. If you read WP:NFCC#1, you will notice that it does not say "could be created in the future" but "could be created". This refers to the possibility to create one if you went to the subject and took a picture. You can't here and just because you claim different doesn't make it correct. Regards So Why 17:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"there is no likelihood that he will ever be publicly seen". He might be acquitted. ShipFan (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm a vivid supporter of "innocent until proven guilty" but there is no reasonable way to assume he will be acquitted. He was caught in the act of shooting those teenagers after all. Even if it turns out that he was insane and thus cannot be convicted, I'm pretty sure he will not be released back into the public but sent to a mental hospital, again a place where you cannot take a photograph of him. But again, speculation on what might happen is irrelevant. NFCC#1 does not make an exception for cases where creation might be possible sometime in the future. It simply does not. So repeating that won't change that the policy does not support your point of view. Regards So Why 17:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

About the "innocent until proved guilty": Exactly. Misplaced Pages is not about giving summary judgements to anyone, regardless of what they have (or are accused of) having done. And both the articless do follow this. The image's use is in good faith and responsible, even if there's no snowball's chance in hell this guy was innocent. --hydrox (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Keep because, well, if this were any other person it would be a delete, but the special circumstances of his incarceration for a violent crime in a country that isn't one of the likelier ones to get a free photo of a prisoner out of creates a special circumstance. Ab e g92contribs 17:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

There are no special circumstances. Some of the comments here have BLP issues. ShipFan (talk) 17:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete and restore in future if need be. At the moment the subject in question is still only a suspect and whatever may be reported by the media, may not be responsible for the tragedy in question. In the future, after a trial and I'm from somewhere where it goes against my understanding of justice to act as if a suspect is guilty before a court has given its verdict, we may be able to caption the image as being of the culprit for the attacks, or maybe even as a wrongly arrested suspect and at that point the image will be encyclopaedic and questions of using an un-free image more easily accommodated. Misplaced Pages is here for the long term and has no need to chase the sensational-that this image serves-that rolling news does.--KTo288 (talk) 17:28, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I think those who contributed to this article are the best for deciding whether to show the image is appropriate. --hydrox (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I have to disagree. Those contributing to the article are probably the worst for deciding whether the image is appropriate. There are too many emotions involved and they are not looking at this objectively. As I said in the AFD we must remain cool, calm, dispassionate and detached from the subject. Thin Arthur (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete. The person is only a suspect, not convicted. The image is not of historic significance beyond contemporaneous news coverage. Thin Arthur (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)