Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 January 16

< January 15	January 17 >

January 16

File:Old CBOT.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. Demonstrated replaceable. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:07, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prominent building which existed from 1885 to 1929; there must be published images of it taken prior to 1923 which would be in the public domain. At the very least, the non-free image should be removed from the "List" articles in which it is used. Kelly ^hi! 00:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Until a free image is availed. There is no reason to assume anyone has access to a free use image.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:38, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I did a few minutes' search at the Library of Congress CDN collection and found an exterior view here, as well as a couple of nice detail shots here and here. I'm sure others are available. Kelly ^hi! 01:10, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention the fact that it should not be used in those list articles if it is non-free. J Milburn (talk) 11:53, 16 January 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:Uniform artica.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per this thread at the Commons OTRS noticeboard. Also File:Uniform Design Phenix.jpg . Kelly ^hi! 01:19, 16 January 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:KordaLookingFilmNegative.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. As Future Perfect at Sunrise noted, "It may be symbolically evocative, yes, but factually informative it is not." For a non-free image, I cannot justify keeping it around for an image that appears to be primarily decorative. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:12, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed semi-speedy. Not clear what this image is adding. We already have an image of the photographer with the picture- why do we need another of the photographer with the negatives? J Milburn (talk) 11:51, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – although there is an image with the photographer and the blown up finished picture, this one is him with the two negatives (of which he was left with the decision of choosing one, which as the article notes went on to become one of the most famous pictures in the world). This picture tries to recreate that moment that all professional photographers go through when they are looking at their film negatives and deciding on which ones to ultimately go with. Since the entire article is on this one image (and thus its film negative as well) this image is more than appropriate and may add to a readers visual understanding of the topic. Redthoreau -- (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – we have some very good (free as well as legitimite non-free) image coverage for this article. This image, however, is merely decorative. It may be symbolically evocative, yes, but factually informative it is not. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:45, 18 January 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:American-dad-season6-100-ad.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently random screenshot of a non-free animated TV series, used only in an episode article infobox. No embedding in analytical commentary, no discernible function for making the work understood. Meaningless/vague FUR: "a quick snapshot of the main idea behind the episode, and the themes behind the character" (no explanation why this is the "main idea", and what does "theme behind a character" even mean?) Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:05, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, If we delete it, then we have to delete every screenshot we have from every animated TV series -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, those screenshots that serve a legitimate purpose in illustrating a substantial point of analysis in the text, stay. Those that are just pasted in the infobox because people think there should be an image for the sake of having an image, get deleted. It's policy, and it's long-standing practice at FFD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:14, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So please point out the difference between this picture and these ones -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 08:59, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not much of a difference, at first sight. These others may well be just as bad. That doesn't mean we shouldn't apply the rules to this one now, and then apply the necessary scrutiny to others. Fact is, some popular TV wikiprojects have been "islands in their own reality" for a long while and have tended to enjoy their own internal consensus in favour of an overly lax handling of the NFC rules, contrary to overriding project-wide policy, while the actual rules have been hacked out elsewhere. I remember the Dr Who wikiproject bearing much of the brunt of the related FFD debates, until they finally made an effort at getting their house in some order. At some point, the remaining series will need to be cleaned up too. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what are you talking about? Do you understand that if we apply your way of thinking, no article about any TV show would have any pictures whatsoever? To ask every TV station for permission to use every image we have for every show and episode is undoable. That's why we NFC rules for books, games, tv shows...etc-- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's so difficult to understand about "those screenshots that serve a legitimate purpose in illustrating a substantial point of analysis in the text stay"? Yes, there are some episode articles, however few, that do engage in substantial analysis and sourced commentary on visual details of the show, which then legitimately require illustration. Images that could be demonstrated to serve such functions have been kept at FFD. However, many articles, probably most, don't do this, and images uploaded for mere random, routine decoration have been deleted as a matter of course in hundreds of cases, either at FFD or as speedy deletions. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:17, 21 January 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:Khalid-Saeed.jpg

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 February 2.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 ⚡ 16:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely graphic image (warning: click link at your own discretion) of a dead body, showing the distorted face of an apparent torture victim, meant to be used as the infobox image of the biographical article about the dead person. Non-free photograph lacking any meaningful FUR, now orphaned (by me). Even if a fair-use case could be made, and even in view of "NOTCENSORED" etc., I think there are ethical issues, issues of human dignity, and issues of taste, that should prevent us from displaying this image (even more so at the top of the infobox). Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Wikipedia does not censor so you argument that its too graphic. I think that way he died has horrible and inhuman and the picture shows to the reader how brutal the crime was. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not representative of him, though? DS (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thats why I have a picture of him before he died File:Khaled Mohamed Saeed.jpg to show how he looked before he died. I understand that the image is very graphic but It significantly adds to the understanding of the event, since such an event is hard to visualize. -- The Egyptian Liberal (talk) 09:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the problem with this image is also that to the unprepared observer it suggests much more brutality than is probably justified: the shock effect of the hideously distorted face is largely due to the fact that his lower lip was held down and fixed (sewn?) to the chin, baring his teeth. But that is evidently something that was done to the dead body during the post mortem, not an effect of actual torture, as the image must suggest to the naive observer. I'm not saying I deny he may have died from police brutality, but the brutality that was reported was beating, not sadistic torture rituals of sowing lips to chins or the like. So no, the image actually does not add to understanding the event, rather to the contrary. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agree with Fut.Perf. while I am not familiar with the person or circumstances of his death, I agree that post mortem images are not within scope of wikipedia, it is enough that the article states that Multiple witnesses have testified that Saeed was beaten to death by the police. While other sites may be of benefit in presenting evidence of that, it is beyond wikipedia scope and purpose. Sorry. DMSBel (talk) 20:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Future Perfect. If we want to describe the torture we can do so using words and not that image. AniMate 22:00, 22 January 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:Chengdu J-10.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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence given that the image is advertizing material or part of a promotional kit. feydey (talk) 17:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the issues have been fixed. New more credible version uploaded.-- Novus Orator 05:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please fix the source attribution so that it links not directly to the image, but to a web page on the source website containing it together with authorship and copyright description? It is necessary to assess its status. The issue is: who created this image? If it was, say, the government or the company who produced the airplane, and there are generally no public occasions where taking such photographs would be possible or legal, then you'd have a good fair use case. If, however, it was taken at a public occasion by a general member of the public, we'd have to assume that if one person could take such a photo, then somebody else could do it again in the future and license it freely, so it would be deemed replaceable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Link is now fixed.-- Novus Orator 05:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, unfortunately. Now it's just a link to the front page of the whole forum, not to the specific posting that contains the image. I tried but I can't find the image on the site this way, I'm afraid. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will get it correctly established. To much of the input link must have been erased in my first effort.-- Novus Orator 06:28, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is now fixed. Goes directly to the source.-- Novus Orator 06:38, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete. Thanks for fixing the link, but it doesn't solve the problem. There is no evidence the person who posted it in the forum was the copyright owner, so NFCC10 (documentation of copyright status) is still not fulfilled. More crucially, it appears a number of images were taken by general members of the public during a public parade/show. If there was one such event, there will be more such events. If somebody could take these images, somebody else can do it again and release them freely. Therefore, the image is inherently replaceable. We just need to wait until somebody releases one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:59, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear. I now see we actually had File:J-10a zhas.png all along. WP:TROUT. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - - Great, go ahead and delete this image so we don't have a duplicate.-- Novus Orator 07:48, 19 January 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:FaxxNavy.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: keep. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not verifiable that the purpose of the image is reuse by the media. No author. feydey (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Posted under rationale that does not require author. Source is a aviation enthusiast blog that likely posted it for this purpose. All the fair use items are filled out. Provides a illustration of the topic that cannot be replaced.-- Novus Orator 05:21, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the "aviation enthusiast" who posted it there is not the copyright holder, so that link is of no use for us (and like with the case above, the link doesn't actually lead to the page in which the image is embedded.) If this was released by Boeing, we need a link to the release by Boeing. NFCC#10 requires full documentation of copyright and authorship status. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed link to the show who released it. It was not the Boeing Company, it was the the India Defense Forum. Page link shows it in context.-- Novus Orator 06:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ – actually, no, "India Defense Forum" did no such thing, they were just mirroring a report from some other blog (I changed that source link for you). But that other blog isn't the copyright holder either, and doesn't name its own source. So, basically we know absolutely nothing about its status. This is bad both from a copyright perspective (NFCC10) and also from a content perspective. We have no way of checking whether it actually represents authentic plans of Boeing. If you want to illustrate a planned development by Boeing, you can only use an image that is demonstrably from Boeing. – Yet another problem, the image doesn't really contribute to understanding the general concept of "5th generation figher airplane". If it's only a preliminary draft of such a development, then without sourced analytical commentary about technical details visible in the picture it's essentially no different from just any random illustration of any old plane. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

changing to keep, as per changes offered by Bushranger, now seems legitimate. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This image is allowed under the fair use promo clause. Until the design is released all images are not going to be final, but this is the general shape that the speculation is taking on the internet. All of the documentation and rationales are present for this image. It no longer claims to be from Boeing, and is allowable under the promotional tag.-- Novus Orator 07:46, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If it's not from Boeing, then whose "promotional" material would it be? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:52, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've found a WP:RS, Aviation Week, that explicitly states the image is from Boeing [1]. It's currently used at the wrong page, though, and I'll be fixing that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:42, 20 January 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:Ruff-Diamondz.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused photo of the band Ruff Diamondz; the corresponding article was deleted under WP:CSD#A7 for lack of an assertion of notability. There also may be a permissions problem with this image—the description says "Copyright to BigMouthModest!", and there is no evidence that BigMouthModest (whoever that is) has agreed to release this image under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license. —Bkell (talk) 20:07, 16 January 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:VTLOGO.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated logo for VeggieTales—superseded by File:VeggieTales logo.jpg. —Bkell (talk) 20:25, 16 January 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:The Labours of Hercules.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prime example of WP:NFC#UUI, point nine. A book cover being used in an article about a fictional character, where the cover is not subject to sourced critical comment. Fails WP:NFCC#8. — ξ ^xplicit 22:01, 16 January 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:Poirot Season 11 DVD.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prime example of WP:NFC#UUI, point nine. A film cover being used in an article about a fictional character, where the cover is not subject to sourced critical comment. Fails WP:NFCC#8. — ξ ^xplicit 22:02, 16 January 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.