Jump to content

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 July 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 23 July 25 >

July 24

[edit]

Image:Cfa2.PNG

[edit]
Image:Cfa2.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kaka12o (notify | contribs).
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 

--Peripitus (Talk) 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:L Ron Hubbard.jpg

[edit]
Image:L Ron Hubbard.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bellpepper (notify | contribs).

Does anyone here have the artistic skill to create an original drawing or something of Mr. Hubbard that's GFDL/CC acceptable? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 20:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was that easy and acceptable, there'd certainly be all kinds of sketches around. I think Wikipedians drawing pictures of people would be pushing it. Images are one area where the content policies such as WP:V and WP:OR are reduced, but I can't imagine a hand-drawn sketch of Hubbard staying on his article long. Though I may be wrong. --- RockMFR 01:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is a bit of a precedent if no photos are available. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 01:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The commons image is no longer, so it seems there's no free image available. I think when you rule out replaceable, the rest of the fair use rationale is viable. Vickser (talk) 04:20, 27 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 Keep 

--Peripitus (Talk) 03:32, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stephanie Studebaker.jpg

[edit]
Image:Stephanie Studebaker.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Asbl (notify | contribs).
  • I don't think there is anything particularly notable about this booking so much so that it needs to be illustrated. Mug shots shouldn't just be used to visually prove that someone was arrested. --- RockMFR 18:49, 24 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:BushandSingh02Mar2006.jpg

[edit]
Image:BushandSingh02Mar2006.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Natrajdr (notify | contribs).

Image:The Greatest Name (1).jpg

[edit]
Image:The Greatest Name (1).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ahwa85 (notify | contribs).
Comment - Sorry. Not rash or hasty judgement. Documented evidence. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Worldyouthday3re9.jpg

[edit]
Image:Worldyouthday3re9.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eternalsleeper (notify | contribs).

Image:Nightviewfromv peak.jpg

[edit]
Image:Nightviewfromv peak.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Normalchaos (notify | contribs).

Image:O Spann.jpg

[edit]
Image:O Spann.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by KF (notify | contribs).

Image:1412.jpg

[edit]
Image:1412.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cloud26 (notify | contribs).

Image:Malcolmxmartinlutherking.jpg

[edit]
Image:Malcolmxmartinlutherking.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by PDTantisocial (notify | contribs).
  • Keep per NFHI. The image is not of sufficient quality to compete with print versinos from the holder, and the meeting of the two is a historic part of the civil rights movement. Further, I note the iimage page has rationales for two pages it's used on, and can probably be removed from the other three. ThuranX (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete - I concede the meeting of the two is a historic part of the civil rights movement, but I can read about and understand the history of the civil rights movement without looking to this AP photo. --Damiens.rf 17:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Seems like this would be considered an "iconic" image? I am pretty sure I've seen it before... I think... I dunno, I am not quite sure I feel strongly enough to !vote "keep", but we typically allow iconic photos.. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Iconic photos in and of themselves are not allowed. It could be allowed if there is significant commentary about the photo in the supporting article (backed up by reliable sources, of course). howcheng {chat} 18:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reading that Malcolm X left the Nation of Islam and tried to make nice with mainstream civil rights leaders is all well and good. Seeing Malcolm shaking the hand of Martin Luther King, with big smiles on both men's faces, conveys much more than text alone can. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really, but even if we accept your argument, this still fails NFCC 2: AP owns this photo, and if you contact them for usage rights, they charge you a nice fee. Why should Wikipedia be able to use this for free when other outlets have to pay money for it? We aren't using it in a transformative context, but simply illustrative. howcheng {chat} 02:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the image is more information. But text is "enough" information. --Damiens.rf 13:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Delete I concur that the image should not be deleted but that {{Non-free historic image}} templates should be applied. I note at least two articles have non free rationales already on the image page. The image should be removed from other articles where rationales have not been provided. Deletion would not in my view be appropriate given that rationales have been provided. If there is a dispute about the rationales then that argument should be mounted separately but I think they are both significant figures - a photo of them together is significant and in the right article (or articles but not too many) use of the image makes sense. The image probably doesn't need to be in the article Black people.--Matilda talk 23:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed from keep to delete on the basis that a free alternative has been found and uploaded. The rationales no longer apply as it is not an iconic image but rather an image of an important event that can be adequately illustrated by an image that is freely available --Matilda talk 21:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. The image bears no informative value: Only emotional one: "seeing is believing" or similar. Mukadderat (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreeing with Matilda that {{Non-free historic image}} can be applied here. It was a historic moment after all, noone can doubt it. Of course, as said already, it should used under {{Non-free historic image}} only in those articles that cover the moment captured. So#Why 15:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "historic moment" != "historic image". Common mistake. --Damiens.rf 16:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima is a historic image. The Falling Man is a historic image. This is not. howcheng {chat} 22:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ...to you. It's a very well-known historic image among African-Americans. Have you ever seen Do the Right Thing? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I have (although it's been years). A historic image will have lots of commentary about the specific image and what impact that image in and of itself had, as opposed to the event which is depicted in the image (which is the case here -- the act of Malcolm X and MLK making nice is far more important than the photo). Regardless, you still haven't addressed why Wikipedia gets to use this image for free when other outlets would have to pay the Associated Press for rights to use it in the same context. howcheng {chat} 03:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't addressed your question because I think it's a red herring. WP:NFCC #2 doesn't involve a comparison between Wikipedia and paying customers. It simply requires that non-free content be used in a manner that won't damage the market value of the original media, i.e., the ability of the copyright holder to profit from it. I fail to see how the very selective use of this image infringes on AP's ability to sell it to paying customers. Maybe you can explain that, or how you found your interpretation in the language of WP:NFCC #2. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Because our usage as it stands now is a copyright infringement. One of the four factors of fair use is whether the usage is transformative -- i.e., is the work used in a way that was different from its intended purpose? The intention of any press photo is to illustrate the event being discussed (which is what we are doing). That's the role of this copyrighted media; our usage of it in exactly that manner is depriving AP of a market opportunity. It's also right there in WP:NFC#Unacceptable use (Images section #6) -- press photos that are not the subject of sourced commentary themselves are not allowed. Let me also give you another clear example of unacceptable use: We disallow Time magazine covers when all the article says is, "So-and-so appeared on the cover of TIME"; nobody needs to see the cover for that to be understood. This is exactly the same case. howcheng {chat} 05:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware of a specific "unacceptable use" for press photos. Maybe this image falls into the second half of item #6: "This applies mostly to contemporary press photos and not necessarily to historical archives of press photos"? Or is that wishful thinking? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 06:20, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, but yes that's wishful thinking. I also apologize for not pointing you there earlier; it's been a while since I've done NFC enforcement so I'm a little rusty. howcheng {chat} 18:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The wording of Template:Non-free historic image doesn't reflect the arguments above - it is clearly not confined to iconic images such as that of Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima. It quite clearly allows for both a non-reproducible historic event or historically notable person(s). This photo is the subject of commentary in the article on Malcolm X at a time when he made a break from Islam, made a significant speech on human rights and in that period met with Luther King. They met once and for only a minute and their encounter was seen as significant by a number of sources [2] + various sources in this link The meeting (or rather lack thereof) has been the subject of an award winning play [3]. It may be that the Malcolm X article needs expansion to justify the ongoing use of the image. In the article on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 the caption explains both men had come to hear the passage of the bill which in itself is significant. It doesn't explain it was their only brief meeting but could be expanded to do so. So to deal with WP:NFC#Unacceptable use (Images section #6) perhaps additional and sourced commentary might be required - that doesn't need deletion it needs additional info. --Matilda talk 00:32, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be there is a free alternative of the same event at [4] --Matilda talk 00:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First of all, it doesn't really matter what the wording is on {{Non-free historic image}}; WP:NFCC takes precedence over that. Secondly, like I've said above, the meeting of the two individuals was significant, not the photograph itself. That being said, I congratulate you on finding the USNWR photo, which is now uploaded as Image:MLK and Malcolm X USNWR cropped.jpg. Thus, this particular image should now be deleted on the grounds that it is replaced by a free alternative. howcheng {chat} 16:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it is important that if the wording on the template is inconsistent with the policy that issue is followed up. Editors should be able to rely that the templates for free use comply with policy or they need appropriate caveats.
    I didn't up-load the image myself as I did not have time to investigate that it was indeed free as the website claimed. It was asserted to be free but I wasn't sure. I noticed it had also been uploaded to Flikr as believed free but ... The link Howcheng has provided on the image page does indeed satisfy me that it is freely available. But I must confess to not understanding why images from U.S. News & World Report have "No known retrictions [sic] on publication" per The Library of Congress >> Prints & Photographs Division catalogue entry . The magazine is not a Government publication .--Matilda talk 21:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    U.S. News and World Reports magazine released much of their archives to the public domain. See [5]. howcheng {chat} 23:10, 28 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 - On balance the delete arguments hold sway here. A note about the definition of "significantly" for NFCC#8 , the text of the policy reads "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." and there are not strong arguments this photograph meets this criteria - Peripitus (Talk) 11:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Savioursday041.jpg

[edit]
Image:Savioursday041.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gorgeousp (notify | contribs).
  • Non-free image used in three articles. None of the usages conforms with WP:NFCC #8 -- it is not at all necessary for reader understanding. howcheng {chat} 16:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Non-replaceable image of two deceased individuals. Commentary in one article alludes to this image and its status is useful in describing the actions of the pictured individuals. FURs are required for usage outside these two articles. — BQZip01 — talk 19:30, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't really show "interaction"; merely that they shared the stage. There have to be better images that meet #8. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete we don't need to see copyrighted images of people together to understand they were once together. --Damiens.rf 05:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Despite widespread misuse, the word "significantly" does not mean "greatly"; it simply means "non-negligibly" or "measurably" or "worthy of notice". Thus NFCC#8 can fairly, if informally, be reworded "Non-free content may be used if it adds to the article" - a lower threshold than folks seem to be applying here. In the Malcom X and Nation of Islam articles, the image in question does give some sense of the mode of presentation of the subject person/organization, how they interacted, and how the public/their followers would experience them. It is a subtle, not earth-shaking, addition to the article - but an addition it is, and the reader experience would be measurably (i.e. significantly) diminished without it. (In Black supremacy, the pic is just used in a section about the NOI, with a cross-reference to NOI's own article where the image is also used. Thus it doesn't seem to add to the understanding of "Black supremacy" per se, so the use of this image in the Black supremacy article does violate NFCC#8.) I believe this image does bear continued scrutiny under NFCC#1 - specifically, are there other, free images that accomplish the same understanding, depict the same individuals, etc? --Ipoellet (talk) 15:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No, no, no. Copyrighted material is to be kept to a minimal, and should not be used when its help is just "non-negligibly", "measurably" or "worthy of notice". --Damiens.rf 16:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec) You're arguing semantics; the point of all of the NFCC is to keep out any non-free material that we don't really need -- the bar for inclusion is deliberately set to be high. It is not enough that reader understanding is subtly improved; the material needs to be critical to the article, thus the second portion of #8, which requires that the lack of the image makes the article more difficult to understand, not just that their experience might be diminished in some vague way. howcheng {chat} 16:14, 29 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 

Deleted.  Unused, EWM hasn't felt the need to comment. WilyD 17:20, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:001.jpeg

[edit]
Image:001.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by EvilWendyMan (notify | contribs).
I'm not going to explain it, for fear of further compromising this young man's privacy. Anyway, it's a moot point; the image does not have licensing info and I am quite confident EvilWendyMan does not understand how to add licensing info and is either unwilling or incapable of learning (I do not say this lightly; I say it based on a long history of image uploads from EWM), so it will be deleted soon enough. I just thought that people would see the uselessness and potential harm of this image and delete it sooner. But oh well, whatever... --Jaysweet (talk) 00:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Serves no purpose. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Provisional delete. Privacy is not a concern here - it is a pretty anonymous image. But the lack of a copyright tag is a clear cause for deletion, and a quick glance at EWM's talk page shows he doesn't grasp the need for copyright information. Still, for form, he should be given a couple more days to add the copyright tag. If he does, it should be kept. If he doesn't it should be deleted. --Ipoellet (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> Okay, at the risk of further compromising privacy, I feel the need to explain myself. The user is a minor. He previously disclosed his full name, the town he lived, and the school he attends, before it was oversighted (twice!). Should some nefarious individual have gotten some or all of that information, that individual now has a picture of his family's car parked apparently at their house. Perhaps I am being oversensitive about this, but given EWM's penchant for disclosing personal information, I want to nip any possible additional disclosure in the bud. ---Jaysweet (talk) 15:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not necessarily saying I disagree, but this line of reasoning troubles me. Specifically that a user should have otherwise responsible contributions deleted now, just because they have made irresponsible contributions in the past. Smacks of blacklisting, though I recognize that is not the intent here. Wikipedia has procedures around blocking to address such situations - taking this approach could be seen as an end run around "due process". Still, the history of irresponsibility can reasonably lower our threshold for waiting for the user to address problems such as the lack of copyright tag, and he has already had several days to fix it. I'll change my input (see strikeouts), but on the basis of the lack of copyright info, not privacy. I'll have to ponder my opinion on your privacy argument further. --Ipoellet (talk) 16:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not so much blacklisting, as it is that because of previous disclosures this information is more dangerous than it otherwise would be. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:12, 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 

- Keep - Almost certain based on the below that the image is PD now - Peripitus (Talk) 11:27, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alec McNab.jpg

[edit]
Image:Alec McNab.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Libro0 (notify | contribs).
BQZip01 is referring to criterion #1 of the Non-free content criteria (NFCC). The NFCC are the list of conditions under which copyrighted material is allowed on Wikipedia under the US doctrine of fair use. --Ipoellet (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if it's a "list of conditions", it means that any image must fulfill every condition, and not just one condition at choice. If the nomination is complaining about not fulfilling condition #2, it doesn't helps much to know that the image fulfills condition #1. --Damiens.rf 16:09, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you there. But forgive me, I don't see where anyone has addressed NFCC#2 before this. Can you expand on why you believe this image "replace[s] the original market role of the original copyrighted media"? --Ipoellet (talk) 22:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
St. Louis Post-Dispatch would probably allow the use of their images on Wikipedia if enough money is involved. --Damiens.rf 01:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BQZip01. MARussellPESE (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Very likely is PD at this point. But in case it isn't we have BQZip01's fair-use argument to fall back on. To be conservative, it should be treated as a non-free image, complete with {{Non-free use rationale}}. And if another, free image becomes available, this one should be deleted. I nominate BQZip01 to spiff up the image page in line with WP:NFC. :-) --Ipoellet (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I apologize if I was not clear. I actually spoke with the St. Louis Post-Dispatch and they do not allow any use of their images for any time period. The person I spoke with used a very loud and stern tone when speaking about this. I felt like I was being scolded. Damiens is correct in assuming they want to be paid for the use of their images. Libro0 (talk) 01:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment that's neither here nor there. Fair use makes our use valid even if they expressly forbid it, the far more likely case that its in the public domain means its not their image anyhow. If they're concerned, ask them to point you to their copyright renewal for 1936 publications, which they would've had to renew in 1964 or 1965 to retain copyright over this image. WilyD 14:00, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And in the case it turns out to be copyrighted, what would be our fair use defense? "We couldn't find a better image for our purposes" ? --Damiens.rf 14:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, that's exactly what we are saying. There isn't a better image. In fact, there isn't another image at all. If there were, as I indicated above, this image should be deleted. A fair use image is, by definition, either a copyrighted image or a free one with restrictions. The publication of an image allows it to be used under fair use criteria. — BQZip01 — talk 04:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • We'd probably still be fine for legal fair use as an "academic" or "news" exercise. Fair use in law is much broader than we allow, but ...
  • Keep. See [6] for copyrights renewed between 1950 and 1977 on periodicals. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch is not among them, neither are any previous incarnations. The author claims that no newspaper outside New York renewed copyrights on their pre-1940s materials. The image is in the public domain. WilyD 15:01, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2008_July_24&oldid=1257889535"