Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 August 28

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 28

Uploaded by Tomruen (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Tile 46b.svgWwagner 03:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Eliashc (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:US 45 Star Flag.svgWwagner 04:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Mwhs (notify | contribs). OB by Image:Flag of the Republic of the Congo.svg. Was used on a single article, Mami Wata, which I switched it out for the larger and higher quality image version in a premade country template. Thus the image is also orphan now too. Kevin_b_er 05:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Throw (notify | contribs). Flickr page says has no CC license, making it fair use, which has been replaced by free image Image:Reginald_Fils-Aime.jpg Hbdragon88 05:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Redbuster (notify | contribs). Inappropriate juppiter talk #c 05:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as vandalism-only image. I have tagged it as such. BigDT 16:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by ßytes (notify | contribs). Orphaned by the deletion of its likely parent article, ExoSee. The uploader is absent I believe as well. See also Image:Exoseeimg.png, and Image:Exoscreen.PNG, which are also orphan, but pending deletion because they're orphaned fair use. Kevin_b_er 05:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by nharmon (notify | contribs). Image is not low resolution, is in GIF format, and includes a slogan, all of which violate Wikipedia guidelines on logos, which must be taken very seriously for fair use images. Grindingteeth 06:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "Electronic Town Hall" is not a slogan. "Just do it" is, as is "Don’t Leave Home Without It.". Further, since the logo does not exist without the words "Electronic Town Hall", one can conclude that the words are part of, and not seperate from, the logo. Further, the formatting, while not the same as suggested by the logo guidelines, does meet its intent in looking professional. If it is determined to violate Wikipedia's policies, then I can change the formatting. And the image is 188x97px; 5.73kilobytes. How much further "low resolution" do you want? - N. Harmon 16:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If the Political Graveyard image contains a slogan where a version without a slogan is available, that is a reason to delete it, not to keep Grex's image. Grindingteeth 21:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not deleted. I don't see how this violates and policies or guidelines. howcheng {chat} 17:58, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by RedHotHeat (notify | contribs). OB by Image:Ecb copyright.svg and OR -Рэдхот 12:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Storm05 (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) scan of a map+timeline from a newspaper, obviously not fair use, WP:FAIR#Counterexamples #5 BigDT 15:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Note: uploader consents to deletion [1] -- BigDT 15:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Veneto 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Friuli-Venezia Giulia Map.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Aosta Valley 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Piedmont 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Lombardy Map.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Liguria 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Emilia-Romagna 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Tuscany Map.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Marche 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Umbria 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Latium 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Abruzzo 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Molise 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Apulia Map.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Campania 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Calabria 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Basilicata 220px.png. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Sardinia Map.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Ahoerstemeier (notify | contribs). OR, OB by Image:Italy Regions Sicily Map.png on Commons. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Italian map images speedily deleted as redundant, moved to Commons. -- ChrisO 18:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Vezaso (notify | contribs). This image is clearly factually inaccurate and POV and trying be a 'crystal ball' (it shows Serbia's borders changed to not include Kosovo) and there is already a NPOV and accurate image. This user has already use a similar images (will list them all soon) to vandalize the Serbia article.Lowg 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Vezaso (notify | contribs). This image is clearly factually inaccurate and POV and trying be a 'crystal ball' (it shows Serbia's borders changed to not include Kosovo) and there is already a NPOV and accurate image. This user has already use a similar images to vandalize the Serbia article.Lowg 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Dardanv (notify | contribs). This image is clearly factually inaccurate and POV and trying be a 'crystal ball' (it shows Serbia's borders changed to not include Kosovo) and there is already a NPOV and accurate image. This has been used to vandalize the Serbia article. Lowg 17:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Lowg 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Dardanv (notify | contribs). This image is clearly factually inaccurate and POV and trying be a 'crystal ball' (it shows Serbia's borders changed to not include Kosovo) and there is already a NPOV and accurate image. This has been used to vandalize the Serbia article. Lowg 17:46, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted the above four images as redundant per WP:CSD, orphaned, factually inaccurate and non-encyclopedic OR. -- ChrisO 17:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Mohylek (notify | contribs). Same image in commons: Image:Mug_Kubek.JPG

--81.172.115.173 18:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OR — Wereon 19:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uploaded by Fabricationary (notify | contribs). Licensing reads "fair use for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question" -- this image is only being used on the Nadine Coyle page, which alredy has a free image in use on it (Image:Girl Aloud 1.jpg) T-rex 01:42, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - I, as the uploader, was shocked to see this screencapture I took of Girls Aloud member Nadine Coyle up for deletion. I have posted messages on the nominator User:T-rex's talk page asking why the image has been nominated, and this user has not responded to me in almost 24 hours.
This image is a screencapture of a music video for the Girls Aloud song "Whole Lotta History." From the moment of its upload, it has been licensed under "Music Video-Promotional screenshots," which allows for the posting of such pictures "for identification and critical commentary on the music video in question." There exists a free image for Nadine Coyle - which I have left displayed prominently at the top of the page - but it is not of the best quality and does not show her in much detail other than as a blurry girl in a night-club. The screencap I have uploaded does what the license says - provides an image so that the music video and one of its performers can be seen for critical commentary. Also from the moment it was uploaded, the picture has been accompanied with a brief fair-use rationale - that the video is copyright Polydor Records and I took the screenshot. If a more detailed fair-use rationale is needed, or if the picture needs to be scaled down more, I will be happy to provide or do it. Fabricationary 23:21, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there never was any problem with the process just that the fair use rational is dependent on there being "no freely avalible equivelent"--T-rex 00:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
T-rex, there is nothing in the template for music video screenshots that says that they can only be used if a free image is unavailable. There is such an item in the template for a promotional image, but that does not apply to the image at hand. There is wide use on Wikipedia of articles in which a free image heads the article but many other images, such as CD covers, music video screenshots, etc., are also present to illustrate the article (Kelly Clarkson, Britney Spears, Christina Aguilera, Mariah Carey...need I go on?) I believe the picture in question accents and expands the article, that there is a significant context for it, and that its deletion would be detrimental to the article. Fabricationary 03:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Would I be correct in assuming that you believe that the fair use rational is dependent on that the template doesn't say that "they can only be used if a free image is unavailable"? --T-rex 00:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In general, yes. The vast majority of articles with pictures on Wikipedia would be a lot worse off if all pictures that weren't free but fair use under approved licenses with stated sources were deleted. Fabricationary 13:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well thats where we disagree. I think that having fair use images in and of itself can be deteremental to an article... we really need to get some other outside opinions on this --T-rex 02:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. 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.

The result was not deleted. This really is outside the scope of IFD and should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:Fair use or Wikipedia talk:Logos. Once a decision is made there, then logos may be listed for deletion. IMHO the use of logos is permissible in the articles about the organizations themselves. howcheng {chat} 17:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Paddu, this is being a bit overzelous. I have never in my entire life seen any in the Category:Religious logos, and how many people in starving countries would recoqnize a CocaCola or McDonalds logo? How many people would recoqnize this? My point is that the logo must be recoqnizable for the people already familiar with the organization, you cant expect people *not* familiar with a organization to recoqnize its logo. --Striver 17:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My final thoughts on the matter - the operative Wikipedia guidelines and policy are Wikipedia:Fair use criteria points 5 and 8. Also, although I believe many of these don't qualify as "logos", the text "[g]enerally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)" at WP:LOGOS#Guidelines applies. Striver is correct that many, many of the images at Category:Logos are unnecessary. KWH 02:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, the in the case of Image:4chan.png, it meets the requirements for familiarity for the members of the organization (or website) it represents. Nightmare X 11:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't believe that logo is any more familiar nor interesting for design or artistic reasons than the others. KWH 01:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly, i see no reason for singeling out any particular logo as more interesting than any other. There is no reason to claim that the google logo is any more valid than a less known website logo. --Striver 21:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Google's logo is the trademarked logo of a (obviously rather large) publicly held corporation, not just a header graphic from a website. KWH 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no policy or guidline that states that only big and famous websites are entitled to have a logo. --Striver 19:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That and 4chan *IS* a big and famous website, with an Alexa rating of 2029 and at least 800 Unique posts at anytime merely on the /b/ section of the board, if you're going to delete image:4chan.png you might as well delete Image:YTMND_Logo_Transparent.png or Image:SAlogo.gif, also, your "artistic reasons" argument is absurd and POV, since it can basically be reduced to "I think the image needs to be deleted because it's ugly". -Nightmare X 21:33, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • You misunderstand, interesting "for design or artistic reasons" is not my argument, but exactly what the guideline at WP:LOGOS states! I am not saying it is ugly. And yes, those other two should probably be deleted too. Also, bear in mind that we are not talking about deleting the article (where general access statistics might apply per WP:WEB) but the copyrighted "logo" image (which is absolutely not familiar outside of the website and its frequent users). WP:LOGOS is the appropriate guideline to apply. KWH 23:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think any of these IFDs are listed properly and I object to the listing of Image:SAlogo.gif considering it was tacked on 4 days later and the rational isn't clearly listed. --waffle iron talk 01:34, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale restated: "I believe the majority of website "logos" (actually front-page headers and other site decor, not in most cases actual trademarked logos) do not qualify as fair use under our Logo guideline. … the operative Wikipedia guidelines and policy are Wikipedia:Fair use criteria points 5 and 8. Also, although I believe many of these don't qualify as "logos", the text "[g]enerally, logos should be used only when the logo is reasonably familiar (or when the logo itself is of interest for design or artistic reasons)" at WP:LOGOS#Guidelines applies." As to whether they are listed properly, the closing admin has the latitude to leave an item in the "holding bin" if discussion is still ongoing, or (obviously) not delete it if the rationale is not valid. KWH 01:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I'd give the Image:SAlogo.gif a little more credibility than most of the others; the site generates enough media which might be found on other sites, and also sells enough merchandise (t-shirts, hats) that the logo might have enough familiarity. KWH 02:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the listing of Image:Kuro5hin logo.png - this is the offical logo of Kuro5hin and an important and identifiable part of their website. It's being used legitimately. - Ta bu shi da yu 12:32, 3 September 2006 (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.