Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 17 April 19 >

April 18[edit]

Image:College culture.jpg[edit]

Image:College culture.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Archibald Primrose, 5th Earl of Rosebery (notify | contribs).

Image:UCTemplateLogo.png[edit]

Image:UCTemplateLogo.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Jarwulf (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopedic. Fake logo that is only used in the {{University of California}} template. It creates a false impression that this is the actual UC logo and serves no encyclopedic purpose. ~ trialsanderrors 04:44, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I strongly disagree with the deletion proposal. The template is valuable for navigating through the University of California's campuses and prominent facilities. The main complaint seems to be the image used as a visual marker to help pick out the navbox if there are several similar boxes present at the bottom of a page. The image is claimed to be unencyclopedic because it is unofficial, but using an official logo on a navbox wouldn't be consistent with fair use. It's a Catch-22: make it official or have it deleted, but make it official and have it deleted anyway.
Encyclopedias are not just about having information, but also about having information that can be found. The template itself has served that purpose by having UC's major divisions laid out in an unambiguous and easy-to-navigate fashion. The "useless" image at the source of this editorial conflict actually serves as a visual marker the reader can use to quickly find the navbox he or she is looking for, and I think whoever came up with it managed to put together a pretty creative compromise between the often-conflicting needs of user-friendly layout and fair-use doctrine. Having this sort of navbox is a consistent practice for groups of articles having to do with major universities. Wikipedia gains nothing by deleting the template, but readers of UC articles will lose quite a bit of functionality.--Dynaflow 07:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per trialsanderrors. The navbox is fine, it's visually well-represented even without the image. Besides, should we create a fake Microsoft logo for use on their navbox? - Chardish 07:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Why not just use Image:UC_seal.gif in the navbox? —Ben FrantzDale 13:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please note that the UC seal is not fair-use compatible when used in templates like this. --Dynaflow 13:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • We can't have fair use logos in template space, but there is no reason to include an image in the first place. Everything you want to express about the identity of the UC system can be expressed with colors and text. ~ trialsanderrors 16:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, Change: Delete to Strong delete. I changed the template accordingly. Other major universities don't have a non-logo either (e.g., Template:SUNY). It doesn't add anything: it takes up space and is deceptive for being a non-logo. —Ben FrantzDale 00:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Trialanderrors above. ThuranX 21:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS Picture is orphaned now after redesign of the {{University of California}} template. ~ trialsanderrors 06:29, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chris_charlesworth.jpg[edit]

Image:Chris_charlesworth.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Connordayne (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, unencyclopedic, used in now-speedy deleted article "Chris charlesworth" (see log) Iamunknown 02:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dancepuppets.jpg[edit]

Image:Dancepuppets.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Para82 (notify | contribs).

Image:HaluskeinIMG.jpg[edit]

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


Image:Google-maps-blotchy.png[edit]

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.
Image:Google-maps-blotchy.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by BenFrantzDale (notify | contribs).
The result was keep per consensus. Sr13 (T|C) 03:22, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • CV, not fair use. Does not demonstrate "intentional obfuscation by Google Maps" as this claim is not verified by any reliable secondary source — Chardish 03:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I don't really care either way, but are you seriously suggesting that the people of Noordwijk aan Zee just happened to turn their town into a giant Voronoi diagram? —Ben FrantzDale 03:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepSeriously -- I'm not sure how an entire town can suddenly create a giant Voronoi diagram without their being manipulation by google. I think its hard to verify this because... its so clearly apparent and no one felt the need to make a comment about it before this. Also I feel your bordering on WP:POINT since your already asking for a WP:Deletion_review#Satellite_images_censored_by_Google_Maps. MrMacMan Talk 04:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was it Google that changed the image, or the satellite data company? Was it even intentional censoring, or was it a momentary error in the rendering process? I don't know, and neither do you. That's what verifiability is all about. - Chardish 06:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair use! An error, surely not, for this is a known pattern in mathematics, not an artifact from corrupt data. And Google, however legal or illegal their action, putting up such a cover without mention of reason are just as guilty of censoring whoever did it in the first place. Irashtar 12:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's an awfully POV statement to make, especially when you use a judgmental word like "guilty." This is Wikipedia. We leave our personal feelings out of it, and find and report only verifiable facts. Things we observe for ourselves from primary sources are not verifiable. - Chardish 12:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the context of this image-for-deletion discussion, I make no clam that this is even censorship. It documents that there are strangely distorted satellite photos in Google Maps and as such it seems like it's fair use. —Ben FrantzDale 13:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This is exactly what fair use is for. The OR is not a problem, because the fact that Google does in principle do these things is well sourced; once that's established, the fact that this particular extract is an instance of it is trivial enough not to require separate sourcing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • We know that the American military has bombed buildings in the past. But if you upload an image of a building "bombed by the American military" you better have a source for that statement. You cannot draw conclusions from primary sources and post your conclusions on Wikipedia - that is the definition of WP:NOR and it is non-negotiable. - Chardish 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • First, your analogy is wrong. A more analogous case to this one would be if you used this image and claimed it was showing a cow. In the absence of a reliable source saying that the object depicted is in fact a cow. Can we do that? Of course. The difference between the cow example and the google example on the one hand, any your bombed building example on the other, is one of common sense. In the cow and google examples, there is no reasonable alternative. What else could it be other than the thing claimed? In your bombing example, there are obvious alternatives (a bombed building could always have been bombed by somebody else.) - Besides, second, the original-research claim has nothing to do with the no-fair-use claim. You want to argue this is not fair use? Be my guest. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I already explained a few possible other solutions. The image claims that the obfuscation was "intentional" and "performed by Google Maps." It is evident from the picture of the cow that the picture is of a cow. However, it is not evident from the map image that the obfuscation was intentional (unless you have an understanding of the technologies involved with satellite photography, including image processing and signal resolution.) Nor is it evident that the obfuscation was performed by Google Maps (it could have been a rogue hacker who corrupted some of the map data, it could have been the satellite image provider that obscured it, etc.) I agree that it is the most likely solution that Google Maps intentionally obscured the data, but it is not the only solution. The other problem with the cow analogy is that saying "This is a picture of a cow" is not a POV statement, but "This is a picture intentionally censored by Google Maps because there's something they don't want the public to see" has clear, strong POV implications. Besides, if it's so very obvious that Google did this intentionally, shouldn't there be a reliable third-party source somewhere stating it? You could find one right now and put an end to all this. - Chardish 02:07, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Way to keep us on our toes. Still, I see two issues: copyright and article verifiability. It seems like it's fair use to say "This is an example of something odd in Google Maps" because the screenshot is talking about Google Maps. The verifiability issue seems like it's something that belongs on pages that include it. I'll tone down the claim on the image page. —Ben FrantzDale 02:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The issue of the article it's used being OR isn't relevant to the image. This seems to be suitable for fair use, and the deletion request appears to me to be entirely an attempt to work around a AFD result the nominator did not like by picking away at anything related to the article. Wibbble 23:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - this is a real hard one as the defect in the image looks artificial as opposed to some artefact of the satellite imagery equipment BUT I'm nowhere near competent to judge this. I think this is a problem of all editor sourced images in Wikipedia i.e. if I take a photo of 'x' (animal/bug/flower/building) and claim it is 'x' I have to do a bit of research as no-one notable took the photo (i.e. no notable architect took the photo of a building and claims it is 'x' but me !). Any editor who takes a photo and claims it is 'x' we could claim they are not a WP:RS. That would be perverse as images are the one area where the desire to grow Wikipedia allows for editor -produced content. Wikipedia needs photos/images so really to resolve this we have to simply argue the caption as that is where the OR claims would lie. If the caption says simply the location and the type of defect then leave the conclusion to the reader when they read the main text body then I see no problem. Ttiotsw 03:22, 20 April 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.


Image:Indiana_Jones_1.jpg[edit]

Image:Indiana_Jones_1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Postdlf (notify | contribs).
  • No evidence to support the claim this is a promotional image. Withouth knowing when/where/why was this image released, we can't assert our use won't replace the original market role for the image (regardles of the tag we choose). A screenshot could be used to illustrate this fictiona character. Abu badali (talk) 06:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "No evidence" -- ?? This image was uploaded by an admin who, as a lawyer, has an expertise in fair use issues; are you calling him a liar? A very weak case for deletion, and given the deletion-nominating editor's history, this is more likely a "gotcha" nomination than a good faith attempt to remove non-replaceable fair use material. The argument a screenshot could... seems like a classic half-dozen of one, six of the other argument; how unfree do we want our unfree content? I'd rather us use images intended for distribution and reproduction - genuine promotional photos, of which we have no reason to believe this isn't one - than screenshots. Jenolen speak it! 06:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment: Are you saying that (1) the uploader is right because he's a lawyer and (2) I am wrong because of my "deletion-nominating history"? I'm afraid the first is an appeal to authority, and the second is an ad hominem argument. --Abu badali (talk) 15:42, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      Response: (1) The uploader is not right BECAUSE he's a lawyer, but I'm saying he is LIKELY to be right (and certainly more likely to be right than the nominator) because he is both a lawyer AND a Wikipedia Administrator with a long and verifiable edit history indicating a tremendous understanding of fair use issues, as they apply in both the real world, and here on Wikipedia. (2) Again, it's not that BECAUSE of your history, you're wrong. Unfortunately, you DO have a history of "gotcha" deletion nominations and various mischief, but that's not what makes you wrong here, and I think it's entirely appropriate for an uninvolved, neutral admin to "consider the source" of this nomination before acting on it. Jenolen speak it! 08:01, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted. If you want a picture of Indiana Jones, use a screenshot. howcheng {chat} 18:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Erdogan&KingAbdullah.jpg[edit]

Image:Erdogan&KingAbdullah.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by DADASHIM (notify | contribs).
  • Invalid fair use claim (uses "historicphoto" for a simple press image of a routine diplomatic visit between two politicians; the specific event of that visit is not even mentioned in the article it accompanies; hence fails "significant contribution" clause of fair-use policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, but note that this should be speedied for having no proper source, and not giving copyright holder information, even though the tags noting this have been removed by the uploader. Jkelly 18:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SilvercrestSL65_1.jpg[edit]

Image:SilvercrestSL65_1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Arpcpro (notify | contribs).

Image:Marc_pizzzuti.jpg[edit]

Image:Marc_pizzzuti.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Marq70 (notify | contribs).

Image:Jeff_Weise_5th_grade.jpg[edit]

Image:Jeff_Weise_5th_grade.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Anynobody (notify | contribs).
  • Unencyclopedic; copyrighted image provides no significant contribution to article than image already present — pd_THOR | =/\= | 13:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wasn't the original uploader, there were two other students in the image that I removed. I don't care one way or another whether it is deleted. Anynobody 21:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chris Worrall.jpg[edit]

Image:Chris Worrall.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Bat2daface (notify | contribs).
  • Private photo: Wikipedia is not myspace — rimshotstalk 14:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:KOS 150.jpg[edit]

Image:KOS 150.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Bat2daface (notify | contribs).

Image:redtruck.jpg[edit]

Image:Redtruck.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Sharpd0526 (notify | contribs).
  • copyright violation — HokieRNB 14:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:HG-alchemical.PNG[edit]

Image:HG-alchemical.PNG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Seth_Ilys (notify | contribs).

Image:Whatrestaurant.jpg[edit]

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

Image:Indusvalleyexcavation.jpg[edit]

Image:Indusvalleyexcavation.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Gerald Farinas (notify | contribs).
  • Old non-commercial license image with no Wikipedia:Non-free content claim or rationale. Should be deleted unless someone makes an Non-free content claim here. — Jkelly 17:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Image:Flare EIT195 256px.gif[edit]

Image:Flare EIT195 256px.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Eequor (notify | contribs).
  • Old non-commercial license image with no Wikipedia:Non-free content claim or rationale. Should be deleted unless someone makes an Non-free content claim here. Note that we seem to be using the entire work here, as opposed to a portion of it. — Jkelly 17:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - SOHO is a division/project of NASA, the image is PD. Anynobody 05:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JacquesHenriLartigue.jpg[edit]

Image:JacquesHenriLartigue.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by SteveHopson (notify | contribs).
  • hardly any relevance to the article where it's used as "fair use", the person in the article was a man and in the photo, two women are depicted. Yonatan talk 19:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image is a book cover showing a photograph taken by the article's subject, Jacques Henri Lartigue. SteveHopson 23:52, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That won't hack it, Steve. However, the book cover shows a lot more than that; please see the newly tweaked caption within the article. According to which, retain. -- Hoary 00:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: in recognition that the photo was too high resolution to qualify for fair use, I've reduced the photo and uploaded the lower-resolution copy in its place. SteveHopson 03:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. howcheng {chat} 18:58, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Derafsh.gif[edit]

Image:Derafsh.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Amir85 (notify | contribs).
  • NC license Yonatan talk 19:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It missed the speedy cutoff by ~a month. We've had enough time to get a replacement. Delete it. --Gmaxwell 14:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Naqsh-e_rostam.jpg[edit]

Image:Naqsh-e_rostam.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Amir85 (notify | contribs).

Image:Naqshe_rostam.jpg[edit]

Image:Naqshe_rostam.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Amir85 (notify | contribs).

Image:Flag of Pakistan (bordered).jpg[edit]

Image:Flag of Pakistan (bordered).jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Zaidiwaqas (notify | contribs).

Image:Manchester Metrolink logo small.gif[edit]

Image:Manchester Metrolink logo small.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by DrFrench (notify | contribs).

Image:McCaslin.PNG[edit]

Image:McCaslin.PNG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Cranston lamont (notify | contribs).

Image:Logistic-burification.png[edit]

Image:Logistic-burification.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Ap (notify | contribs).
Not deleted. howcheng {chat} 19:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:IranianRevolution1.jpg[edit]

Image:IranianRevolution1.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by TheSunTheSea (notify | contribs).
  • for wikipedia use only permission — Yonatan talk 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Archie1.PNG[edit]

Image:Archie1.PNG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Poor Yorick (notify | contribs).
  • orphaned image, I don't know enough about math to know what this diagram is of, if it is acurate and where it could go. User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 20:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Konigsburg.png[edit]

Image:Konigsburg.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Mark Foskey (notify | contribs).

Image:Mount_Lyell_and_Lyell_Glacier.jpg[edit]

Image:Mount_Lyell_and_Lyell_Glacier.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Hydrogen Iodide (notify | contribs).
  • it's not fair use seeing how we already have a free picture that's already being used in this article Yonatan talk 20:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Delete it. --Gmaxwell 14:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It turns out that the article didn't need this picture, so delete it. Hydrogen Iodide 03:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Leylines12of98.png[edit]

Image:Leylines12of98.png (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by The Anome (notify | contribs).
Please feel free to delete this image. -- The Anome 13:38, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Terraformed_mars_from_nasa_public_domain.jpg[edit]

Image:Terraformed_mars_from_nasa_public_domain.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Reaverdrop (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned image, don't think it should be moved to Commons as it lacks proper source Nazgul533 22:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Dftj.jpg[edit]

Image:Dftj.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Michi713 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, not encyclopedic, not myspace MECU≈talk 22:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Michelle_A._C..jpg[edit]

Image:Michelle_A._C..jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Michi713 (notify | contribs).
  • Orphaned, not encyclopedic, not myspace MECU≈talk 22:47, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Temp072006.gif[edit]

Image:Temp072006.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Johnpribaudo (notify | contribs).

Image:2lt.jpg[edit]

Image:2lt.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Fadu (notify | contribs).

Image:Acentejo.JPG[edit]

Image:Acentejo.JPG (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Polylerus (notify | contribs).

Image:0305amw.gif[edit]

Image:0305amw.gif (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 (notify | contribs).

Image:1bn-12reg_crest.jpg[edit]

Image:1bn-12reg_crest.jpg (delete|talk|history|logs) - uploaded by Looper5920 (notify | contribs).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_April_18&oldid=1143363978"