Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 June 17

Completely POV, made-up, personal/subjective opinion. Nuberger13 (talk) 04:46, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Same image on Commons showing through. -Nv8200p talk 16:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Boundaries on the image match neither the division between Union and Confederate States nor the boundaries between slaveholding and free states. It is original research and should be deleted. Edward321 (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. at the very least the image needs a fact tag. but it's probably just made up. The southern states here do, however, correspond to the CSA + 2 of the 4 union states that permitted slavery pre-war (not Delaware and Maryland). So it's possible there is some truth to that. However the onus is on the author to cite that, I think. Delete. [1] Brianski (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Given as a factual statement of allegiances at the start of the Civil War, it is NPOV as it represents, not the facts on the ground but rather the maximalist claims by the Confederate government. For instance, it includes West Virginia, which separated from Virginia in the interest of the Union cause, and Kentucky and Missouri, where pro-Confederate assemblies claimed secession, but were outnumbered by Union supporters, and which were never considered out of the Union. The United States territories (marked in orange, though with anachronistic modern state boundaries shown) were de jure and de facto part of the Union, though there was some Confederate activity early in the war in parts of what are now New Mexico and Arizona. RandomCritic (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Plymouthemblem.jpg[edit]

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

User claims to own image copyright, when it is the emblem of a car company. Even though defunct, copyright may still apply, and proper copyright must be given - no source or rationale for image, clearly not free use Ejfetters (talk) 05:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image kept. Changed tag to Non-free logo as this is a derivative work. -Nv8200p talk 02:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Magical_hippocopter.jpg[edit]

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Kelly ^hi! 12:36, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, of no use, orphaned, "I made this myself". NawlinWiki (talk) 13:19, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Justin_Seen_In_His_Lavalla_Uniform_as_a_propaganda_photo.jpg[edit]

Image:Justin_Seen_In_His_Lavalla_Uniform_as_a_propaganda_photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justin7942163 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Kelly ^hi! 12:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:May 2008.PNG[edit]

Image:May 2008.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Ryan (notify | contribs).

Old version. Soon to be no longer in use. -[[Ryan]] ^{(me) (talk)} 13:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:5yrNewSeal1.jpg[edit]

Image:5yrNewSeal1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sweetness46 (notify | contribs).

image of copyrighted logo, cannot be freely-licensed under GFDL; also from a website lacking GFDL release which may qualify for speedy delete JGHowes ^talk - 16:21, 17 June 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: keep. The comparison of the two images to show why one of the images was controversial has generally been accepted as significant to the article when supported by cited commentary as in this case. See Leibovitz v. Paramount Pictures Corp. for another example. -Nv8200p talk 02:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Brenda-song-escord-ad.jpg[edit]

Image:Brenda-song-escord-ad.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by J3ff (notify | contribs).

This copyrighted fair-use image is used in an article to illustrate a point that is sufficiently covered by the text. From WP:FUC point 8 "Significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic." I fail to see how this image meets the significance criteria. NrDg 18:59, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm on the fence on this one. Certainly this is a better case of image use than the vast majority of images in Wikipedia, in that it actually serves to illustrate a point instead of simply decorating a page. Does it "significantly increase readers' understanding"? It certainly increases it ... we now know that there was no effort to identify the escort service with Song, that the ad actively misrepresented the image as being that of another woman, that no effort was made to doctor the photo to make it erotic, etc. Is that significant? Could be.
Kww (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The significance issue is a judgment call, that is why I didn't delete the image and want a consensus opinion.--NrDg 20:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The image does increase the understandings of the reader and the screenshot from Song's site which by the way Song's official site does not state Brenda Song @ copyright. Which makes it easier for anyone to download anything for her site. And non free mean that the iameg can only be sued in Song's page. I think that the image should stay for the purpose of the readers undertsanding. The photo has not been doctored and seems like a fair screenshot from Song's site.IntoCreativeJan (talk) 20:10, 17 June 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:Nefretifi.2007.jpg[edit]

Image:Nefretifi.2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Canadasprincess (notify | contribs).

Unused, unencyclopedic personal photo. —Bkell (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTMYSPACE item 2 file storage areas. "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted."--NrDg 20:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:or no · 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[edit]

Image:Or no · 21:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC) (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Reverend X (notify | contribs).

This is the cover of Straight from the Lab, a bootleg EP. Since it's a bootleg, it really is impossible to determine who holds the copyright status, as the "Copyright held by the record company or the artist." can't be applied in this case. Do U(knome)? yes... Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 21:26, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:United_Earth_Logo.jpg[edit]

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

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Kelly ^hi! 21:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Eminem - Straight from the Lab.jpg[edit]

Image:Eminem - Straight from the Lab.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Reverend X (notify | contribs).

This is the cover of Straight from the Lab, a bootleg EP. Since it's a bootleg, it really is impossible to determine who holds the copyright status, as the "Copyright held by the record company or the artist." can't be applied in this case. Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 21:31, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The copyright probably belongs to Shady Records, Eminem's label... Reverend X (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. It's a bootleg, so there is actual proof that it belongs to any of Eminem's music or distribution labels Do U(knome)? ^yes...|_{or no} · 17:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pdxpedestrians.jpg[edit]

Image:Pdxpedestrians.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Duck25 (notify | contribs).

According to the terms for the source site, these images are CC-BY-NC-ND-2.5, which is not a free license by Wikipedia standards. Kelly ^hi! 21:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The following other images from the site should also be deleted as non-free - Image:Downtownpdx.jpg, Image:2002-12-27HatfieldBldg102-0.jpg, and Image:2004-05-29DignityVillage006.jpg. Kelly ^hi! 21:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Goldencalf.jpg[edit]

Image:Goldencalf.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Music2611 (notify | contribs).

Primary reason: replaceable image, simple image of the award, fails WP:NFCC policy #1. Secondary reason: incomplete non-free use rationale, fails WP:NFCC policy #10. – Ilse@ 22:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – Both reasons still hold. Rationale has been expanded by User:Music2611, but still doesn't contain a specific purpose of use description. – Ilse @ 15:59, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Gummow.jpg[edit]

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

replaceable image of a non-free person (and even if determined to be non-replaceable, redundant to the non-free official portrait currently in the article) Mangostar (talk) 22:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per this, this, this and this. --Damiens.rf 02:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]