Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 February 13

< February 12	February 14 >

February 13

File:Greg_Glassman.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons, please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Appears at CrossFit. Bogus assertion of copyright ownership by uploader; file is a crop from an online newsletter with a clear assertion of copyright. [1] Gordonofcartoon (talk) 13:15, 13 February 2010 (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:Homerososa.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: Image does not exist. If the file name in the header contains a typo, feel free to correct the typo and un-close this discussion. AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CV Fer3250 (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2010 (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:Arif solak BanazHamambogazi1.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with OTRS-ticketed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamambogazi_Thermal_Springs_Banaz_UsakProvince_Turkey.jpg from Commons. Replaced also in relevant articles PhilKnight (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: The given link to the version at Commons is a different image (the one from below). Does this still need to be moved to Commons? — Bility (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2010 (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:Arif solak BanazHamambogazi2.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced with OTRS-ticketed http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamambogazi_Thermal_Springs_Banaz_UsakProvince_Turkey.jpg from Commons. Replaced also in relevant articles. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this one is higher-res than the commons one. Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an acceptable version at Commons is now being used. — Bility (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2010 (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:Group 70 Large Amature Telescope.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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

source unclear, not clear why it's PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as low quality and lacking evidence the author has released it into the public domain. — Bility (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2010 (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:Helices.png

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

llnl.gov images are not necessarily PD, see Template_talk:PD-USGov-DOE Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2010 (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:Montacute House Yeovil.gif

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 as G7 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

used only in userspace draft, low quality, we have much better photos such as File:Montacute House front Apr 2002.JPG Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded it years ago, we have so much better now - get rid of it - no problem with me. Giano 22:15, 13 February 2010 (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:Redstar2000avatar.gif

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

invalid reason claimed that this would be PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2010 (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:LeventisSpeech.ogg

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 Fastily (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

invalid reason to be PD Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2010 (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:Nodar Kumaritashvili.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: No Consensus, leaning Keep.-FASTILY ^(TALK) 01:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a recetly deceased individual. Yes he is dead and any new image can't be created, but there are probaly numerous images out there where the copyright holder is willing to release the image under a free lisence. Rettetast (talk) 23:06, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree: an attempt to find a free image should be made. Just because he is dead doesn't mean no one ever took a picture they would be willing to release. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
File:NodarKumaritashvili.jpg should also be deleted for the same reasons. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was the uploader of "File:NodarKumaritashvili.jpg". I thought that an image of a deceased person was generally regarded as non-replaceable since the justification for the replaceability of a non-free photograph of a living person is that someone can always take a new photograph and license it to Wikipedia freely. However, if the practice is otherwise then I have no objection to the deletion. I did a Flickr search but did not find any free images. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:42, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As the uploader, I searched for a free photograph, but I could not (and still cannot) find one. Google, Google Images, and Flickr do not turn up any free photographs. If anyone finds a free alternative, then obviously, this should be deleted. The arguments for deletion simply say that there could be a free picture out there despite no evidence that one exists. OCNative (talk) 06:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless you can find a Free Replacement otherwise it's non replaceable with a free image. Sawblade5 ⁽^{talk to me} ^| ^{my wiki life}⁾ 06:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For one thing, "replaceable" does not mean "a free replacement has been found". As pointed out above, there's reason to believe that a free image can be found with a little bit of work. But even setting aside this issue, the image does not bring much, if anything, to the article. Its absence would not be detrimental to the reader's understanding of the topic. Pichpich (talk) 14:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if for some reason we can't find a free image, this one is no longer used anyway. Reach Out to the Truth 15:09, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: NodarKumaritashvili.jpg (no space) is not used, but Nodar Kumaritashvili.jpg (space) is. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Both images have been nominated for deletion here. I was watching the older image for deletion discussions and assumed such a discussion would cover that image only. We should delete the older unused one, but keep the newer one until a free image is found. Reach Out to the Truth 03:08, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think you have it backwards. The older one (space) is being used; the newer one (no space) is the unused one. OCNative (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. The one I first saw on the page first was the one without the space, so I just assumed that was the first one uploaded. Looking at the timestamps indicates that you are indeed correct. The image I was referring to as the older image is actually the newer of the two but not currently used. Sorry for the confusion. I just figured User:Jacklee liked CamelCase or something. ;) Reach Out to the Truth 18:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delighted to discover the existence of the term "CamelCase"! I do prefer CamelCase for filenames, because they avoid the awkward strings like " " that often appear in URLs. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 05:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the photo of deceased person is a good FU if no free photos had been found. Аурелиано Буэндиа (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, non-free images of deceased individuals are generally permitted, because they're generally not replaceable. If we find a free image, then this gets deleted, but until/unless that happens, this is considered nonreplaceable. Moreover, it does help the article a good bit — the image of a person is crucial to identifying that person. Nyttend (talk) 00:12, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like what Nyttend and the others said, unless if a PD image of the late luger has been found, I guess this is a reasonable excuse for a fair-use image of a person. We sometimes have to ignore some rules, at least to an extent acceptable by the community, if this keeps you from building a better encyclopedia. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:18, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although we have to be careful which rules to ignore, since ignoring copyright can be a bad idea :-) but Mike Godwin has okayed our fair-use policies, and this specific use of this image clearly passes those policies. Nyttend (talk) 03:29, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, The uploader has clearly stated that it is the IOC's official picture. I cannot comprehend how the International Olympic Committee would financially gain from this picture, not to mention the fact that it is the only picture Wikipedia has. Anyone who wants to delete should try to find clear evidence to the contrary (For example, a Copyright tag, etc.). RM (Be my friend)
- Comment: I suspect that the IOC does not own the copyright to the image. It was probably a photograph taken by a photographer on the athlete's behalf, and submitted to the IOC as part of the athlete's application to take part in the Winter Olympics (see this, for example). So the copyright owner is either the photographer or the athlete's estate, and it is arguable that either of them would have some interest in future commercial exploitation of the image (though I suppose such opportunities are rather limited as the image is more like a passport photograph rather than a proper portrait). In any case, the onus is on the uploader to justify that the use of the image on Wikipedia is fair, and not on any person arguing that it should be deleted. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 04:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scanlan (talk) 20:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as replaceable. Arguments in favor of keeping non-free images until the replacement is found set a dangerous precedent of putting the onus of adhering to fair use on everyone else, as opposed to the uploader. — Bility (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2010 (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.