Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 July 15

< July 14	July 16 >

July 15

Image:Joseph_Smith_Seer_Stones_Hat.jpg

Image:Joseph_Smith_Seer_Stones_Hat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by %C3%89crasez_l%27inf%C3%A2me (notify | contribs).

Speedy Delete Insufficient reason for use of copywritten material, image is not irreplaceable, image is not unique, image is of poor quality - does not add anything encyclopedic, looks like a drawing for a kids coloring book, image is not constrained in quality to acheive fair use rationale.
~~Keep Delete (see below).~~ The extensive fair-use rational is provided at the image page. Rather than "a kids coloring book," it is used by the journal Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought for the article Van Wagoner, Richard S.; Walker, Steve (Summer 1982). "Joseph Smith: "The Gift of Seeing"". Dialogue: A Journal of Mormon Thought. 15 (2): 48–68. As this reliable source journal article from 1982 discusses, the imagery associated with Joseph Smith's translation of the Golden Plates has not received widespread attention, and there are in fact very few representations of it. A Google image search yields only five representations, of which this image is one. To illustrate the object in question, I chose this one because it is used for the very same purpose in the cited reliable source journal article, and also because it would not likely replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media, as hard copy back issues of the entire journal are available for sale by the publisher for $15.00. The image itself is offered for sale anywhere, and if it were, this low resolution copy image would not replace the original market value, already appearing as it does on the publisher's website. As a counterexample of where these arguments would not apply, the image used for South Park's television episode "All About the Mormons?," seen here, could not be claimed to be fair use. For these and many other reasons enumerated here, this is fair use of this copyrighted image. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WARNING TO YOU SIR...QUIT EDITING TALK PAGES FOR YOUR OWN PURPOSES, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED...DO NOT EDIT MY CONTENT OR IT'S PLACE IN THE DISCUSSION
  My original comment has been restored to it's proper order:
It's really easy to offer up someone else's work for free...this image can be replaced by a simple explanation of the process Joseph Smith Jr. used...which already exists in all articles this image was inserted into. It's a simple concept that doesn't even need a picture to be conveyed - further proof of unfair use of image. Image was already removed from one article The Book of Mormon by another party. Twunchy (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That dispute involves wording, not this image. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 17:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The rationale looks good enough to me.--John Foxe (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But is the rationale good enough to keep a copyright infringment attorney from suing wikipedia? That's the issue here. Twunchy (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering why there is a democratic process to steal someone's work that is against fair use of copyright...this "vote" will line up on pro and not-so-pro-mormon lines just for anyone else who may come in here to the arguements...this is about copyright infringement - not "I like the picture because it fits my POV". If this were an 1885 UNCOPYWRITTEN wood carving I would have no qualms with the file, but it is an unnecessary breach of copyright for this picture to be here. Twunchy (talk) 18:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant delete. It's a rather graphic and effective illustration of the process as it was described, isn't it? But alas, I do not believe it satisfies either the letter or spirit of WP:NFCC. It doesn't really explain anything that the prose does not. Note that WP:NFCC is even stricter than fair use, and I am not convinced this even passes fair use: We are not commenting on the Dialogue article, we are commenting on the same subject as the Dialogue article, so therefore we can't really argue that it is being used for critical commentary. In fact, in a way, we are ripping off Dialogue by using the same illustration they used for our own discussion of this topic. I personally rather like the image, but WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument in deletion discussions, I'm afraid. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of course. Jaysweet has it spot on. Not legitimate fair use. It would be fair use if we used it for a critical discussion of the artwork (e.g. if there was a discussion in our article about the artistic style the artist chose to render the drawing in, or about the way the book it is part of chooses to present its message). But that's not what the articles are about. The image is used solely as an artist's illustration of an imagined scene. It could be replaced, without loss of information, by a free drawing you or I or Jimbo Wales could create, of a guy sitting on a chair and holding a hat before his eyes. Heck, that's not even very difficult to draw, I could do one in five minutes. But a verbal description could replace it just as well: "He was sitting on a chair holding a hat in front of his eyes" has all the information. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I agree in theory about the replacability of the image, if someone were to draw such an image themselves it would surely be seen as pov. The one thing that is nice about this image is that it comes from a reliable third-party source, so it is harder to say that someone has drawn it for the purposes of ridicule (which is surely what would happen if you or I drew such an image and uploaded it). So in practice, I think this image is probably irreplaceable. But like we agree, it fails NFCC and fair use on other grounds anyway. (And I have a pretty liberal interpretation of fair use) --Jaysweet (talk) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This image doesn't add anything to what the text already clearly explains. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep. There is a {{cc-by-nc-na}} image of this account, which is not acceptable for use on Wikipedia. Until we can get a free WP:NPOV image, I believe that the pro fair use arguments for this particular image outweigh those against fair use. I've requested a {{cc-by-3.0}} license on a similar image, and will swap the free version for this one if we obtain the necessary permission. Delete. I'm convinced by the arguments for deletion presented here, and do not wish to mess up the consensus. Another reason for deletion not mentioned is that a free representation of this event is readily available. I have provided one at the commons here, which is a derivative work licensed under CC and GFDL. Inspired by the picture at — BQZip01 —'s talk page, this free image is a photomosaic of puzzle shapes obtained from a Google image search for Book +Mormon. I hope that this free representation also meets with Jaysweet's WP:ILIKEIT spec too, but it also addresses the serious point, as he points out above, that it is a derivative work based upon "a reliable third-party source, so it is harder to say that someone has drawn it for the purposes of ridicule (which is surely what would happen if you or I drew such an image and uploaded it)." Oops, that's a copyvio. Never mind. Écrasez l'infâme (talk) 14:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 debate was

Kept.  All named concerns seem to have been addressed. WilyD 14:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Erinesurance.jpg

Image:Erinesurance.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by TotalTommyTerror (notify | contribs).

Unfree image claimed as released by the copyright holder, no evidence of this, CV 74.204.40.46 (talk) 04:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It should be noted that the entire section to which this image applies is completely unreferenced. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've fixed up the licensing, and also rewritten the section of the article where it appears, including adding a reference. (There's another likely reference, but it's behind a paywall... that would be enough to establish notability.) — PyTom (talk) 20:29, 21 July 2008 (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.

Image:965425966 b9dbbbb917 b.jpg

Image:965425966 b9dbbbb917 b.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bobcgir (notify | contribs).

Copyright Violation: Flick image description page indicates that this image was released as copyrighted, all rights reserved[1], but the uploader tagged the image here with {{PD-author}} Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:32, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jose Martin Caceres.jpg

Image:Jose Martin Caceres.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Serie2008 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned UE image. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:31, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 debate was

keep. Explanation of PD status seems satisfactory. Image moved to Image:Ted Easterly card.jpg, to make way for identically named image on commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ted Easterly.jpg

Image:Ted Easterly.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MusiCitizen (notify | contribs).

Copyrighted image of a man that was famous pre-1923: Free alternatives avalilable: commons:Image:Ted Easterly.jpg Damiens.rf 16:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:10, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Image is not copyrighted. Back of the image is visible here:[2] - no copyright notice. Guy died in 1951, and retired in 1915. In fact, this appears to be the 1909-1911 T206 series of baseball cards by Piedmont Cigarettes ... Published in 1909-1911 (certainly no later than 1916) = Public Domain. WilyD 14:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You can confirm my T206 guess here: http://www.martyspsagradedcards.com/pre_1960_baseball_cards_psa.htm given http://www.martyspsagradedcards.com/46899.jpg - I'll adjust the tag Wily D 14:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I can't see any reason to doubt that this card was printed in 1911, with apparently no copyright status, so it is clearly in the public domain. - Peripitus (Talk) 05:48, 30 July 2008 (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.

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 debate was No consensus

- defaulting to keep. Unlike the Emerson Dickman image there is no indication of a (c) notice - Peripitus (Talk) 07:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bill Regan.jpg

Image:Bill Regan.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MusiCitizen (notify | contribs).

Find a Grave not a valid copyright Damiens.rf 16:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Source" is not the same as "copyright holder". Merely where the person obtained it. I'm hesitant about deleting this one as it appears to be a legit photo that cannot be replaced. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So it should be deleted for not listing the copyright holder information. --Damiens.rf 14:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: since these baseball cards were apparently published without a copyright notice, and even if it had one, it is highly unlikely that anybody would have bothered to renew it, wouldn't it be pretty safe to assume it's public domain according to the rules at WP:PD#Published works? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:36, 4 August 2008 (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.

Image:Mike McNally.jpg

Image:Mike McNally.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MusiCitizen (notify | contribs).

The source is just some guy's website, and not the real copyright. Anyway, this guy lived before 1923 and some public domain picture of him are floating around. Damiens.rf 16:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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 debate was Delete

- the card is from the 1940 Play Ball Baseball Card series which has (c)1940 printed on the reverse. Unless we can be sure that the copyright was not renewed, it's in copyright - Peripitus (Talk) 07:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Emerson Dickman.jpg

Image:Emerson Dickman.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MusiCitizen (notify | contribs).

E-bay not the real copyright Damiens.rf 16:18, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As with the Bill Regan one above, wouldn't this be likely PD anyway? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:38, 4 August 2008 (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.

I doubt this was indeed self made. It appears to be official art. (And yes, I do liek mudkipz [sic].) Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 16:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I7 - official art. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:22, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:WWE SkySports.jpg

Image:WWE SkySports.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AlexJ (notify | contribs).

I do not feel that this image increases the reader's understanding of the article. ViperSnake151 17:35, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Um...what article? (it's an orphan) — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:19, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from Sky Sports. ViperSnake151 14:28, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:CitizensBankPark.jpg

Image:CitizensBankPark.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by NoseNuggets (notify | contribs).

CV: Google Earth images are not US Gov Public domain ccwaters (talk) 19:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'll see your not PD and raise you an orphaned image — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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: speedy keep per WP:SK#2 and lack of deletion rationale in the nomination (explain how it fails NFCC 8) Sceptre ^(talk) 00:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kirk Gaitskell-Kendrick.jpeg

Image:Kirk Gaitskell-Kendrick.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cbsite (notify | contribs).

Image fails WP:NFCC#8 β^_command 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stop your edit warring and your trashing of articles. There is NO CLEAR POLICY re:NFCC - or do you need to be blocked again?Cbsite (talk) 21:16, 15 July 2008 (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.

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 debate was

speedy keep per WP:SK#2 and lack of deletion rationale in the nomination (explain how it fails NFCC 8) Sceptre ^(talk) 00:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Julian.barratt.boosh.live.jpg

Image:Julian.barratt.boosh.live.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Thom (notify | contribs).

Image fails WP:NFCC#8 β^_command 20:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NFCC policy not clear on non-free images.Cbsite (talk) 21:17, 15 July 2008 (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.