Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 June 25
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 June 25)
June 25
[edit]
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, absent uploader, insufficent information to determine an encyclopedic use User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment, appears encyclopedic, the only problem is I don't know enough about the subject to write it into the article (or for that matter which university they mean). -N 01:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, not PD-USGov likely non-free User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Banghra1982 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, likley shold be tagged non-free User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, sole contrbituon of uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Dan crook54 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by It's-is-not-a-genitive (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Djdude12971 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Monkeboy2042 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, sole contributions of uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Per Downtownies, screenshots of The Sims 2; ineligibie for {{PD-self}}. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep, this could be useful in the Battle of Midway article.- My mistake, there's already a free picture of a flying giraffe with a Mexican man's head in that article. Delete. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Kinggobbler (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopdic edited image (adult content) User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Dariosanchez15 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic, very low quality User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Uselesspearl (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Tomoshannon (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by TuckerUofR (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned pdf file, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic corporate bio User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Katanamaker46 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Image:ATgAAABiX_RZ3AbbOY-HaY9ahQgGL0z8peCzCc8rUa91OIS-o4WfCIg8lTqsExt5FwBl9HAKRMDJuXu2hc-EBeZRW8BGAJtU9VAJrI3tuRTmAtRsJmaaGNpoNTNRWg.jpg
[edit]
- - uploaded by Rajanetworking (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, you forgot to add: Obnoxious file name. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. I never thought I would call for a delete just because of a filename (oh yeah, orphaned too). The Evil Spartan 17:50, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: It's probably just an alternate spelling of "te90tecds-o98ebe89j-thahiiecev-kcgjak88anh-tahouex". – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Djdollar902 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal drawing User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Mohammad Hosein Moeinian (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- orphaned image, recently absent uploader, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- orphaned image, unencyclopedic personal photo User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 00:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Twentynineteen (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Twentynineteen (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, absent uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- orphaned image, sole contribtuion of uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by TranscendMP6 (notify | contribs).
- orphaned image, sole contribution of uploader, unencyclopedic User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 01:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by J-V Heiskanen (notify | contribs).
- Obsolete; better image uploaded by subject of image and released into the public domain. Image:P4020001.jpg obsoleted by Image:CimonAgain.png — Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. 01:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image showing a young Howard Stern, used to decorate the section of his bio about his early days. Doesn't adds much information (all bios do completely ok without such images) Abu badali (talk) 02:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Notification received, brought up on talk page of page where image is used, so if someone wants to integrate this or the wedding picture into the article, or improve on the fair use rationale. Optigan13 03:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image showing Howard Stern marrying. It doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Notification received, brought up on talk page of page where image is used, so if someone wants to integrate this or the young howard picture into the article, or improve on the fair use rationale. Optigan13 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image with no source. Abu badali (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Alex_Bakharev (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image iikely to belong to a news agency (source info doesn't identifies the author or copyright holder), doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information that isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 02:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete — The image is not critical. Also the information provided in the caption appears to contradict other information in the text of the article. The image fails WP:NFCC#8 and possibly WP:NFCC#2. SqlPac 05:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- A photograph of a painting used to illustrate the subject of the painting instead of the painting. Someone even made a crop (Image:Paul Keating crop2.jpg) for the infobox that is terribly inappropriate. We do not use fair use material to show what living people look like. There isn't even any source or copyright information on the painting itself. Fair use is not "I found it somewhere, I can use it!" Kotepho 02:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - I object to the above user's rude deletion-assertion of this picture. Firstly, the source is there - it is taken from Flickr. I don't know who created the painting - it is in Parliament House, Canberra, that is all I can tell you. I am asserting that the image is fair use in representing that Keating was honoured with a painting after his Prime Ministership. It is not meant to represent his likeness whatsoever. The crop was created from a wrongly tagged image from Commons which has since been deleted; it has nothing to do with this picture. If you want me to fix up the fiar use criterion I will, but there is no reason why this picture cannot be kept. JRG 02:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- As I said on my talk page, that is not a proper source for the painting. As you have said above you do not know the information that I say is not there! It is not optional, see criteria 10(a) of our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria "Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source." Even not using this image in the infobox and putting it in another section does not stop it from being a non-free image used to show what a living person looks like. Saying that it is used to illustrate that he was honored with a painting seems to be a facile attempt to circumvent our prohibition of non-free images used in this fashion and you have not shown how this is something that needs to be illustrated or if it even is an important factoid to begin with. Kotepho 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- How are you supposed to illustrate that someone was honoured with a painting then? Why are you the judge of whether it is an important fact or not? Please explain further. JRG 03:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. You're not supposed to illustrate that someone was honoured with a painting, as this information can be conveyed with (free) text only. --Abu badali (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why can't you illustrate it? That is more than justified by US and Australian fair dealing/fair use law. Unless Wikipedia goes beyond what the law says (which shouldn't be the case). JRG 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is the case. --Abu badali (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why? That doesn't answer the question. JRG 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- You asked if Wikipedia's requirements for using non-free material under an assertion are more restrictive than those required by law. This is true. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia first and foremost. We only include material under fair use in extremely limited circumstances as including fair use material reduces the ability of our content to be redistributed anywhere by anyone for any purpose (which is the whole point of Wikipedia) (e.g. in countries without fair use/fail dealing or for commercial purposes where it would be harder to justify their use). On the specific question, I will refer to criterion 8. "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." The information conveyed by the fair use material must be important enough to the subject that the article would be lacking without it and it must not be able to be adequately replaced by text instead. For this use to be allowed you would need to show that a) being honored with a painting was significant and important and b) the article would be severly hinder the understanding of the article without the image. Kotepho 03:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Took the words out of my mouth. --Abu badali (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Or, to quote Jimbo, "Just because it's legal to use an image doesn't mean we should." – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Took the words out of my mouth. --Abu badali (talk) 03:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- You asked if Wikipedia's requirements for using non-free material under an assertion are more restrictive than those required by law. This is true. Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia first and foremost. We only include material under fair use in extremely limited circumstances as including fair use material reduces the ability of our content to be redistributed anywhere by anyone for any purpose (which is the whole point of Wikipedia) (e.g. in countries without fair use/fail dealing or for commercial purposes where it would be harder to justify their use). On the specific question, I will refer to criterion 8. "Non-free media is not used unless it contributes significantly to an article. It needs to significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic in a way that words alone cannot." The information conveyed by the fair use material must be important enough to the subject that the article would be lacking without it and it must not be able to be adequately replaced by text instead. For this use to be allowed you would need to show that a) being honored with a painting was significant and important and b) the article would be severly hinder the understanding of the article without the image. Kotepho 03:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why? That doesn't answer the question. JRG 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- It is the case. --Abu badali (talk) 03:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why can't you illustrate it? That is more than justified by US and Australian fair dealing/fair use law. Unless Wikipedia goes beyond what the law says (which shouldn't be the case). JRG 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. You're not supposed to illustrate that someone was honoured with a painting, as this information can be conveyed with (free) text only. --Abu badali (talk) 03:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- How are you supposed to illustrate that someone was honoured with a painting then? Why are you the judge of whether it is an important fact or not? Please explain further. JRG 03:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- As I said on my talk page, that is not a proper source for the painting. As you have said above you do not know the information that I say is not there! It is not optional, see criteria 10(a) of our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria "Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source." Even not using this image in the infobox and putting it in another section does not stop it from being a non-free image used to show what a living person looks like. Saying that it is used to illustrate that he was honored with a painting seems to be a facile attempt to circumvent our prohibition of non-free images used in this fashion and you have not shown how this is something that needs to be illustrated or if it even is an important factoid to begin with. Kotepho 03:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete freedom of panorama in all Commonwealth countries extends to 3d objects only. As this is a 2 dimensional object, a derivative of it is unfree. -N 01:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - Image:Paul Keating crop2.jpg used on Australian federal election, 1993 and Australian federal election, 1996, no fair use alternative available, no longer in public domain and even if he was found the photo would be unrepresentative of our PM from 10 years ago, has aged significantly. Timeshift 01:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. FOP would only apply here if the painting was a small portion of the photo. The "appearance" argument by Timeshift only applies if his appearance 10 years ago (as opposed to now) was significant in some way. howcheng {chat} 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually you are incorrect. FOP allows taking derivative pictures of copyrighted works. Please see Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama (which I must admit I co-wrote with an admin from Commons). There is no requirement it be only a small portion of the work. What you are thinking of is called "de minimis" use of the copyrighted work. See de minimis. However in this case, Australian FOP clearly doesn't apply. -N 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. I am also a Commons admin and am pretty familiar with FOP. De minimis refers to the amount of usage of copyrighted material in relation to the entire copyrighted work. For example, a still frame from a TV show is de minimis because at 24 fps, it's a tiny portion of the entire show. A single-sentence quotation of a copyrighted book is de minimis. Freedom of panorama is for example, when you take a picture of Times Square you will include a lot of advertising in the scene, but because each individual advertisement is only a small portion of the scene (and the subject of the photo is Times Square, not the specific advertisement), then freedom of panorama applies. Does that make sense? Nevertheless, I wholly concur that FOP does not apply here because the subject of the photo is the painting, which makes it clearly a derivative work. howcheng {chat} 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually I misspoke, apparently Lupo is not an administrator. However I still believe you are incorrect. The actual FOP laws clearly state that taking pictures of approved items is legal. They say nothing about the portion of use. -N 20:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. I am also a Commons admin and am pretty familiar with FOP. De minimis refers to the amount of usage of copyrighted material in relation to the entire copyrighted work. For example, a still frame from a TV show is de minimis because at 24 fps, it's a tiny portion of the entire show. A single-sentence quotation of a copyrighted book is de minimis. Freedom of panorama is for example, when you take a picture of Times Square you will include a lot of advertising in the scene, but because each individual advertisement is only a small portion of the scene (and the subject of the photo is Times Square, not the specific advertisement), then freedom of panorama applies. Does that make sense? Nevertheless, I wholly concur that FOP does not apply here because the subject of the photo is the painting, which makes it clearly a derivative work. howcheng {chat} 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Actually you are incorrect. FOP allows taking derivative pictures of copyrighted works. Please see Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama (which I must admit I co-wrote with an admin from Commons). There is no requirement it be only a small portion of the work. What you are thinking of is called "de minimis" use of the copyrighted work. See de minimis. However in this case, Australian FOP clearly doesn't apply. -N 19:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If used to illustrate the person, this fails NFCC#1. If used to illustrate the fact that he was painted, it fails NFCC#8. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:11, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- The painting won the Archibald Prize. Would that count? JRG 00:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- In an article about the painting, yes. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I did some more research and it turns out it wasn't this particular painting, but another one; I'll try and find an image of that one and put it on the Bryan Westwood page, and let this be deleted. JRG 10:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- In an article about the painting, yes. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unnused logo claimed to be in public domain. Abu badali (talk) 03:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- A different version of the logo was uploaded and is now used in the relevant article. The PD claim is false, and as it stands this is a copyvio. TCC (talk) (contribs) 11:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Alex_Bakharev (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary non-notable unfree image, showing two notable men meeting. This image doesn't seem to add any noteworthy information tha isn't already conveyed with text. Abu badali (talk) 03:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- An important image showing unrepeatable historic event: first inauguration of Putin. The image is instrumental for showing growing influence of the Russian Orthodox Church in the matters of Russian state under Putin. The image is from the Russian Orthodox Church website, we are not competing with the church in any way. The site in fact has the following notice [1]: Мы благодарны всем, кто воспользовался нашей информацией, сославшись на нее в своем издании, не нарушив тем самым этический кодекс журналиста и Закон об авторских правах. (We are grateful to everybody who used our information and refer to it in in their publication; so they did not violated the ethics of a journalist and the Copyright Law. The the owner of the site is actually encourages usage of the materials only requiring attribution. The image originally had {{Attribution}} tag but it was not clear if the modification is allowed Alex Bakharev 04:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- How does the image convey that information more than text alone can? "Napoleon took the crown from the Pope and crowned himself instead of letting the Pope crown him, signifying that he was not subjugated to the Church." provides the same information whether there is an image of it or not. Kotepho 05:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: If consensus is that we cannot illustrate "crowning moments" for beauty pageants with non-free images, then I don't see how we can use a non-free image to illustrate this either. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Alex_Bakharev (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary copyvio from BBC. Abu badali (talk) 03:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is a historic image that was published everywhere. It is absolutely associated with the death of Litvinenko. Originally the image was released by the Litvinenko family as a free use, later the photographer argued the usage in commercial publications. The image is the way most people on this planet recognize his murder Alex Bakharev 04:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. This a Press Association photo. Violates WP:NFCC #2. howcheng {chat} 18:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. The image is absolutely important and useful. But that's not enough. It has to pass NFCC #2. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:07, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. A unique and historic photo. Unreplaceable. Should qualify as fair use. DWaterson 13:57, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Nikola_Smolenski (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary unfree paiting. Abu badali (talk) 03:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'd argue that the painting is necessary because it illustrates Leonov's own impression of this historical event he participated in. A painting of the same event by any other author wouldn't be necessary. In addition it illustrates the article about Leonov, who is also known as an artist, and there are no free images of his artwork. Nikola 03:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think small reproduction of the most prominent painting by a cosmonaut turned artist is a fair use in Aleksei_Leonov. I do not think it is fair use in the Voskhod 2 article Alex Bakharev 05:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- A small reproduction of Lenov's most prominent painting could be used in Lenov's article if that article included discussion about his style. That discussion would have to be properly sourced to avoid original reserach (i.e., it should reflect what have been said about his paintings, instead of some Wikipedian's view of his paiting). --Abu badali (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think small reproduction of the most prominent painting by a cosmonaut turned artist is a fair use in Aleksei_Leonov. I do not think it is fair use in the Voskhod 2 article Alex Bakharev 05:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- I'd argue that the painting is necessary because it illustrates Leonov's own impression of this historical event he participated in. A painting of the same event by any other author wouldn't be necessary. In addition it illustrates the article about Leonov, who is also known as an artist, and there are no free images of his artwork. Nikola 03:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, as below. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Nikola_Smolenski (notify | contribs).
- Unnecessary unfree paiting. There are free alternatives for its use in colonisation of the Moon. And in Alexey Leonov it just sits in a gallery of unfree images. Abu badali (talk) 03:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- While there are free alternatives, they all show Western views of colonisation of the Moon, and there are no free images which show views which existed in the Soviet Union. As Leonov is also known as an artist, and there are no free images of his artwork, unfree images have to be used to illustrate his technique. Nikola 03:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Does colonisation of the Moon makes a comparison of Easters and Westerns artist's impressions of moon colonization? Where is Leonov's technique discussed? --Abu badali (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- One of the images by Leonov either this one or the above should stay. He is quite prominent as an artist and we need a sample of his work. Two non-free paintings might be excessive for the Alexei Leonov article. Alex Bakharev 05:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Only if the article discusses his work and style as a painter. Currently, it simply mentions that (and would benefit from having more sources). --Abu badali (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- While there are free alternatives, they all show Western views of colonisation of the Moon, and there are no free images which show views which existed in the Soviet Union. As Leonov is also known as an artist, and there are no free images of his artwork, unfree images have to be used to illustrate his technique. Nikola 03:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It's a great image, but as it's currently used (in a gallery without comment), it just doesn't pass our non-free content criteria. – Quadell (talk) (random) 15:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Artanis-EN (notify | contribs).
- Image used only in User:Artanis-EN/USOT, which has been listed for deletion as it is a page consisting primarily of offensive comments. Also has ugly JPEG artifacts. —Bkell (talk) 04:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by R for revenge (notify | contribs).
- Wrongly uploaded as a free image (is a derivative work). Also obsolete to pics already provided. — Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 05:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Enjinc2000 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned and unencyclopedic. — Oakster Talk 09:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Enjinc2000 (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned and unencyclopedic. — Oakster Talk 09:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned image — ERcheck (talk) 11:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Krasnik_herb.jpg obsoleted by Krasnik_herb.svg — Akiramenai 13:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Ah her.jpg obsoleted by Ah her.svg — Akiramenai 14:07, 25 June 2007 (UTC).
- Possibly unfree, orphaned, unencyclopedic The Sunshine Man 15:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Inactive uploader, unencyclopedic, orphaned The Sunshine Man 15:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Mohamadrejali (notify | contribs).
- Unencyclopedic, orphaned, inactive uploader. The Sunshine Man 15:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia isn't a MySpace, unencyclopedic, orphaned, inactive uploader The Sunshine Man 15:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Do Tu Nguyen (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, unencyclopedic, inactive uploader. The Sunshine Man 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - it's actually not orphaned - see User:Do Tu Nguyen. I don't know why it's not showing up on the links though. The Evil Spartan 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - user has made no contributions other than to his userpage. I'm normally against deleting this type of thing, but with no other contributions, we have WP:NOT#MYSPACE. The Evil Spartan 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, seemingly unencycloepdic. The Sunshine Man 15:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- UE. Originally it was used in Mark Bamford - the article was mostly nonsense, as can be seen from this version of the page, and the image was used in that sense. There is truly no way this image could be used in an encyclopedic manner.- The Evil Spartan 16:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Non-free image used mostly for decorative purposes. Replaceable- The Evil Spartan 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- - uploaded by Maxxriddick (notify | contribs).
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
- Non-notable biography in the wrong namespace.- The Evil Spartan 16:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
- Decorative non-free image uploaded for "further explaining the plot section through the use of pictures." — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Lincalinca (notify | contribs).
- This non-free TV screenshot does not show anything that isn't already adequately explained in words, thus failing WP:NFCC #8. howcheng {chat} 17:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep: As part of a good article, there should be sufficient imagery (free or fair use) to ably illustrate the subject matter. The words used do depict the performance, however the images enhances the reader's capacity to visualise the event in question. Though the words assist, the image is supplemental and assists the viewer. --lincalinca 02:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NFCC#8. Image only serves to illustrate two artists performing together, does not significantly contribute to the article. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 02:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, decorative. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- This non-free book cover is not being used for discussion of the book, but instead for the martial arts position that is being demonstrated on the cover, thus failing WP:NFCC #1. howcheng {chat} 17:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- This non-free book cover is not being used in the context of critical commentary about the book, but instead as illustration of the subject on the book cover. See WP:NONFREE#Examples of unacceptable use. howcheng {chat} 18:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Flag_of_French_Sudan.gif obsoleted by Flag_of_French_Sudan.svg — Akiramenai 18:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Entourage145 (notify | contribs).
- as per WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:HOAX as this image appears to be both a hoax and serves no purpose to the WP community — Plm209(talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- This image is claimed to be from Associated Press, and is used in an article that puts Associated Press in bad light, as it states that this image is a staged scene. The only source so far to backup the claim that this is really an image from Associated Press is a website that claims to mirror an article from german magazine Spiegel. The website provides a link to the original Spiegel article, but that link is broken. I believe we can't use this image unless we can be completely sure this is an image from Associate Press, as the article claims it is. Important to say, I believe it can be proved that if this image is really from Associated Press, this is a rare case of valid fair use of an image from a news agency, as the image is not being used to illustrate a discussion about the event depicted, but instead about the media coverage of the event depicted. (So, no "this is copyright paranoia" arguments are needed ;) ). This is more like a libel issue ([[WP:BEC]]: Biographies of Existing Companys). Abu badali (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete this is original research and shoddy work. Ironically, it puts the encyclopedia in a bad light, not AP. -N 01:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)- Keep image - (1) for starters, article has changed a lot since initial deletion post request and the article no longer puts AP in bad light. (2) i don't understand why User:N talks about original reaserch issues as the article is extremely refrenced and (3) i believe copyright should be fixed and attributed as in the other image on the article - Image:PalestinianChildren.jpg. Jaakobou 23:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless we can find a reliable source attributing the image to the AP. howcheng {chat} 22:05, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- strong keep the image is an integral part of the debate; and to ChrisO, it's the same as the picture of the boy.
- Okay here goes. One there's no proof that picture is of the same woman mentioned in the MSNBC video. At least not using the sources provided. Two, http://www.wtc-trauer.de/ is not a reliable source. There's no proof any of the stuff posted there is actually real. Therefore it is shoddy research and original synthesis. And it can't count as fair use if we aren't certain it's really what it says it is. The image has to go. -N 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- User:N, please go over the article - these are the shots aired on all the networks and links in the article indicate "AP news stories reported worldwide on the demonstration in Nablus and AP distributed still pictures and video of similar rallies in east Jerusalem, Lebanon and elsewhere. An AP still photographer did not take pictures of the Nablus rally after being warned at the scene not to do so." (AP protests threats to freelance camerman who filmed Palestinian rally Sept. 12, 2001). as for the website hosting the der spiegel article, there is a link which actually does not lead to a dead page, but to an article previewresult of clicking the link from the google trans.... we have no reason to suspect the source has falsified the rest of the article. Jaakobou 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have viewed the MSNBC source in the article and I have viewed the supposed spiegel article. There is no proof the incidents mentioned are connected. Nowel is not even named in the Spiegel article. -N 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- i think this is an admission that the images are from AP? anyways, three videos and all of them are with this woman... she is the only prominent figure.. perhaps the "bin laden" guy is a tad noticable also.. regardless, the Palestinian interviewee on der spiegel obviously speaks of that woman. to the point... i don't see how this discussion belongs here - this is a discussion about establishing that this image is from AP and associated with the related article and hence this is a case of fair use and the image should not be removed. if you feel this argument is incomplete you can continue this argument the article's talk page. like i stated before i believe copyright should be fixed and attributed as in the other image on the article - Image:PalestinianChildren.jpg. Jaakobou 03:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I have viewed the MSNBC source in the article and I have viewed the supposed spiegel article. There is no proof the incidents mentioned are connected. Nowel is not even named in the Spiegel article. -N 00:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- User:N, please go over the article - these are the shots aired on all the networks and links in the article indicate "AP news stories reported worldwide on the demonstration in Nablus and AP distributed still pictures and video of similar rallies in east Jerusalem, Lebanon and elsewhere. An AP still photographer did not take pictures of the Nablus rally after being warned at the scene not to do so." (AP protests threats to freelance camerman who filmed Palestinian rally Sept. 12, 2001). as for the website hosting the der spiegel article, there is a link which actually does not lead to a dead page, but to an article previewresult of clicking the link from the google trans.... we have no reason to suspect the source has falsified the rest of the article. Jaakobou 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Okay here goes. One there's no proof that picture is of the same woman mentioned in the MSNBC video. At least not using the sources provided. Two, http://www.wtc-trauer.de/ is not a reliable source. There's no proof any of the stuff posted there is actually real. Therefore it is shoddy research and original synthesis. And it can't count as fair use if we aren't certain it's really what it says it is. The image has to go. -N 00:02, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Move to close discussion this is being discussed at Wikipedia:Fair_use_review#25_June_2007 which is a better forum (and they've resolved the problems with the image). -N 03:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think the article really needs two Associated Press's images from the same controversy. This image should be deleted, and the article could keep using solely the non-problematic Image:PalestinianChildren.jpg --Abu badali (talk) 04:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, not a good enough source, possible libel issues, and non needed since we have the other image (NFCC #3). – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:22, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- comment - how could a random picture of kids, who only appear in the videos is ok and the woman of the celebrating woman, which has extensive notes about her and the controvercy is non-needed? Jaakobou 22:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete Other images portray the celebration of the 9/11 attacks better than these images, it fails fair use guidelines. Bleh999 22:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Speedy delete. This is a blatant copyvio. WP:COPY#Using copyrighted work from others is clear on this: "Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. This could create legal liabilities and seriously hurt the project." This is particularly true for agency photos, as the agencies are currently cracking down on the unauthorised use of their images. -- ChrisO 07:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - there are no free images I know of which portray the subject of the article Celebrations of the September 11, 2001 attacks properly. There are quite a few non-free ones, including this one. I think we should choose the best image and use it in the article (I have no objections against this particular one) and all the others should be deleted (or not used in this particular article) because that would obviously violate fair use guidelines. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- This is one of two forms for a monster of the week from VR Troopers While there may be some debate over whether there should be any pictures at all, surely we can agree that there shouldn't be multiple pictures for them. By which I mean we should minimize the copywrite image use to a minimum. Seeing 2 pics of him doesn't really add anything to the list.— Spriteless 19:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC).
- - uploaded by Deadkid dk (notify | contribs).
- Fair use image obsoleted by non fair use image Image:Belka Flag.svg. — UberHalogen 20:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned album cover - questionable copyright BigrTex 22:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- This image had a recently concluded IFD here. There was some question about whether this image, taken from a NASA website, was really from NASA. In my close, I stated that we would keep the image for now, pending some kind of response from NASA. I emailed NASA and quickly got a reply. Here it is:
| “ | Though this photo was posted years ago, I am fairly certain that it was not taken by anyone at this site, therefore your suspicion may be a good one. The photo was given to our personnel by Ms. Black during our Female Frontiers project for use on our website. I do not have any further information on its source. | ” |
- That email is unfortunate on several levels, not the least of which being that we can't necessarily trust NASA images to be free. So anyway, this image is not a work of the US federal government and the copyright has not had a chance to expire, so it is a copyrighted image. The question is whether or not we can use it under fair use. I offer this procedural nomination without prejudice. --BigDT 22:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Keep She personally gave permission to NASA to use the image on its public domain website. As she worked closely with them during the making of the project, she was aware the information would not be copyrighted. The picture doesn't appear to be published anywhere else. -N 01:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you are making assumptions here. It's equally possible that NASA was granted an exclusive license to use the photo that does not extend to third parties. howcheng {chat} 18:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- I did not consider that. I am not striking my !vote but I agree my argument is weakened considerably. -N 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you are making assumptions here. It's equally possible that NASA was granted an exclusive license to use the photo that does not extend to third parties. howcheng {chat} 18:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete We don't know the copyright status. The copyright begins with the photographer not the subject. (SEWilco 03:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC))
- Delete I would have voted keep in the last IFD, but with this new info it's delete. Garion96 (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete, sadly. I would really like to keep this image, and I think it would pass NFCC#1 and #8. But without source and copyright info, we just can't. – Quadell (talk) (random) 14:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- We have a source, Shirley Temple, and a copyright, her. -N 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Only if she took the photograph. Seeing as how she was on the other side of the camera at the time, I doubt she created this image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please nominate my personal photo for deletion. I did not take it and I did not receive a formal copyright release from the photographer and I obviously have no right to authorize Wikipedia to use it. -N 02:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I realize you're being sarcastic (I'm perceptive like that), but the truth is, you don't hold the copyright to your image if you didn't create it. If the photographer wanted to press the issue in court, he/she would own the copyright and could dictate the terms that the image is used under. That may not matter much in your personal image, but the creators of quality photos of celebrities will frequently fiercely protect their copyrights. We don't know who created this image, and we don't know who holds the copyright. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think if your photo was taken by your friend using your camera, you would own the copyright to it, because your friend is essentially creating a work for hire. howcheng {chat} 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- Unless you're an employee (not an independent contractor), your work isn't a WFC unless you've signed a written statement to that affect. See here for an overwhelming amount of detail. – Quadell (talk) (random) 04:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
- I think if your photo was taken by your friend using your camera, you would own the copyright to it, because your friend is essentially creating a work for hire. howcheng {chat} 22:01, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
- I realize you're being sarcastic (I'm perceptive like that), but the truth is, you don't hold the copyright to your image if you didn't create it. If the photographer wanted to press the issue in court, he/she would own the copyright and could dictate the terms that the image is used under. That may not matter much in your personal image, but the creators of quality photos of celebrities will frequently fiercely protect their copyrights. We don't know who created this image, and we don't know who holds the copyright. – Quadell (talk) (random) 03:13, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Please nominate my personal photo for deletion. I did not take it and I did not receive a formal copyright release from the photographer and I obviously have no right to authorize Wikipedia to use it. -N 02:36, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- Only if she took the photograph. Seeing as how she was on the other side of the camera at the time, I doubt she created this image. – Quadell (talk) (random) 02:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
- We have a source, Shirley Temple, and a copyright, her. -N 20:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Obsolete (Image:Donscolours2.png) BigrTex 22:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, summary says it's an advertisement in a "gay magazine" from 25 years ago. Uploader's claim of self-authorship is dubious, and 25 years is not enough time for things to fall into the public domain. —Bkell (talk) 22:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- The photo is just an old photo, taken in 1976 (over thirty years ago) of two items purchased and laid down on a table and photographed. There is no copyright claim. It's just an old photo. Munatobe7 13:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
- Orphan, looks like a professional photo, so uploader's claim of self-authorship is dubious. —Bkell (talk) 23:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
- - uploaded by Burningabyss1000 (notify | contribs).
- Orphan, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use. —Bkell (talk) 23:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
