Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 11

< Wikipedia:Files for deletion

File:KTX-II South Korean High-Speed Train.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 discussion was: deleted as speedy obvious copyvio. It is extremely unlikely that the news agency stole the picture from us rather than vice versa; the date is inconclusive (the picture could easily have been published by the agency before it was used on that particular news article), and the fact that the news agency pic shows a larger crop than our version is proof that they can't have taken it from us. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:KTX-II South Korean High-Speed Train.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Softjuice (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Copyright violation: courtesy image of "Yonhap News Agency", see here High Contrast (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • KEEP - I am not sure there is a copyright violation here. One stone appears gone between the two photos. What is more important is that user High Contrast used a more current source for the image than the time of submission of the image to Wikipedia. The image of the Korean train appears in the society and culture section of a Japanese article that uses an automated current online date (April --, 2011), noting an earlier date of February 11, 2010 (near the print icon in the upper right of that online article). The Wikipedia entry is January 15, 2010, and claimed creation date on Wikipedia by user Softjuice of January 12, 2010. The image in Wikipedia precedes the online article. Softjuice may very well be the creator of the original photograph. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 04:09, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep User:Thor Dockweiler establishes priority. walk victor falk talk 17:16, 14 April 2011 (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.

File:ILikeIkeGirls.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 15:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:ILikeIkeGirls.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ai.kefu (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We don't need a non-free pictures of girls supporting a political draft to make the point the political draft was had popular support. Damiens.rf 13:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is an absolutely terrific and germane photo for this article, which concerns the movement to draft General Eisenhower for the presidency. The rationale given for using this photo is right on the money. Sincerely, your friend, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2011 (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.

File:Mmchameleons.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 13:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mmchameleons.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Pepso (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Being used in the article Music for Chameleons as a secondary book cover, but there is not a single word in the article to address the image or to justify its use. Its use appears to be solely decorative. Rossrs (talk) 14:23, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Info on the 2001 Penguin edition has now been added to both body copy and caption. Pepso2 (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The section added to the article just mentions the existence of a new edition of the book. Trivial information used to justify the use of decorative non-free content. --Damiens.rf 15:59, 11 April 2011 (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.

File:Lastoneneta.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 discussion was: delete. Bottom line: We can't verify the source. Therefore we can't use. Sorry. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lastoneneta.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Legaleagle86 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Article say image is from 1945, so, cant be 100 years old. Source is invalid. Damiens.rf 16:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is from 1945 and thus as Damiens.rf has rightly pointed out it cant be more than 100 years old. Thus it seems that the PD100 would not be the appropriate license. In India photographs have 60 year protection under copyright law, hence this picture would have come under PD in 2005. Hence IMHO we need to change the license and not delete the picture. LegalEagle (talk) 17:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We need a source to be sure the image was really published on India in 1945. Currently, we haven't. --Damiens.rf 18:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is undisputed that the picture was taken on Aug, 1945. However it would be almost impossible to prove that the image was published in India in 1945, the first authentic (undisputed) use of this image that I have managed to find in the library archive is in the annexure to the Shah Nawaz Committee report of 1956. The image in the SNC report is credited to an earlier British intelligence report of 1945-46 (the content of the intelligence report was classified and only few documents were allowed to be inspected by SNC). However I guess that intelligence report should be declassified by now, I would look up in the web archives and if I find it I would let you know. As of now I do not have any source to prove that the image was published in India before 1956. LegalEagle (talk) 11:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have also sent a mail to an investigative journalist group whose website also carries this picture [1] and have asked them to provide more info on the publication date of the image. LegalEagle (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this image originally came from British Intelligence, then it would be Crown Copyright, which would have expired after 50 years, thus placing the image in the PD in 2006 (50 years after publication). Mjroots (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2011 (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.

File:Simpsons Love Is a Many Strangled Thing promo.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 discussion was: Delete; deleted by SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT⚡ 12:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Simpsons Love Is a Many Strangled Thing promo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Maad Dogg 97 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Used in infobox, not embedded in analytical commentary, apparently random scene, no visible relation to plot summary, purely decorative use. No meaningful FUR. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep What picture would you propose as more appropriate (one non-free image allowed for identification purposes)? The episode is called "many strangled things" and shows Homer being strangled. walk victor falk talk 17:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not true that there is a general blanket allowance of one non-free screenshot per episode article. Every screenshot has to meet the strict criteria of contextual relevance individually. A screenshot is only legitimate if it serves to illustrate something that is crucial for the article, and the object of explicit sourced commentary. This is long-standing practice and policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:08, 15 April 2011 (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.

File:SacramentoBeeArticleJuly8,1947.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 discussion was: Kept as {{PD-no-renew}}. To back this up there are clear references in a few places that the Sacramento Bee did NOT renew copyright for their news papers in this period - Peripitus (Talk) 22:46, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:SacramentoBeeArticleJuly8,1947.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian0918 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We don't need a non-free scan of a newspaper to make the point that a given subject was covered in one of the newspaper's edition. Damiens.rf 19:43, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, and with all due respect to anybody who might feel otherwise, one picture is worth a thousand words. There is nothing wrong with using a photo of a contemporary news source to stress the extensive coverage that any given event received at the time. Sincerely, yours truly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2011 (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.

File:RoswellDailyRecordJuly8,1947.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 discussion was: Kept as {{PD-no-renew}}. Just a note that I've done the searching that confirms this as almost certain. If it were not for that I would be in a fix as many of the below keep arguments are very weak - Peripitus (Talk) 22:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:RoswellDailyRecordJuly8,1947.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Brian0918 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We don't need a non-free scan of a newspaper to make the point that a given subject was covered in one of the newspaper's edition. Damiens.rf 19:44, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, and with all due respect to anybody who might feel otherwise, one picture is worth a thousand words. There is nothing wrong with using a photo of a contemporary news source to stress the extensive coverage that any given event received at the time. Sincerely, yours truly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:07, 13 April 2011 (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.

File:Chillerama.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 discussion was: Delete. DMCA takedown notice received. See Wikipedia:Office actions#DMCA compliance. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Chillerama.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sk8erock (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Courtesy listing for copyright holder who requests removal in OTRS:5652258. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it not the official poster? If so, I find it odd they would want it deleted from an article about their film. There are many posters on film articles and I've never seen the copyright holder want them removed before, is all. I'm just curious. It may not be an official cover. —Mike Allen 21:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They assert that it is "copywritten [sic] private test artwork" and that they "did not authorize this nor wish this art to be out there for public consumption." I previously informed them via OTRS that I would not be deleting it as a copyright violation because it was being used under fair use and was previously published on their official website at http://www.newrebel.org/films/chillerama (archive) for a period of at least 3 months. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, both sides may well be true. It's their copyright, they don't wish it to be used any longer; still, we could use it under fair use, in principle. But then, why would we? If this is not (or no longer) the official cover art, it fails its professed purpose,i.e. to "identify the product, properly convey the meaning and branding intended", which is the central argument for the infobox FUR. We could make a fair use case if we were to write a section about its production history with a critical discussion of how the artwork evolved or something. But of course we don't have that, and it's unlikely to happen. Therefore delete. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it's truth that this is not the final official poster, Delete since it's useless for Wikipedia. --Damiens.rf 13:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the other side, since Chilerama is a upcoming movie, it may make sense to use the only temporary poster material released. The fair use claim sounds strong enough to let us ignore the copyright holder request. So, Keep. --Damiens.rf 13:36, 12 April 2011 (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.

File:Battle of Los Angeles LATimes.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 discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Battle of Los Angeles LATimes.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Panoptik (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

We don't need a non-free scan of a newspaper to make the point that a given subject was covered in one of the newspaper's edition. Damiens.rf 19:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, and with all due respect to anybody who might feel otherwise, one picture is worth a thousand words. There is nothing wrong with using a photo of a contemporary news source to stress the extensive coverage that any given event received at the time. Sincerely, yours truly, GeorgeLouis (talk) 07:05, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Agreed with above said. It also is the only picture for the article and the license it's under on commons seems to satisfy the keep and use on Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. 08OceanBeachS.D. 01:32, 14 April 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_April_11&oldid=1138517324"