Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 30 September 1 >

August 31[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.

The result of the discussion was:

Image:CruiseShipPacificSky.jpg[edit]

Image:CruiseShipPacificSky.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by ChrisW (notify | contribs).
  • Claims to be a self-taken image, yet the image lacks metadata and other specific information about where/when the image was taken. Almost all of the uploader's previous image uploads have been deleted due to reasons such as copyright violations, lacking source info, etc. according to the uploader's log. Nevertheless, image is also orphaned and is not even used in the encyclopedia.- –Dream out loud (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Have to assume Public Domain, as per WP:AGF. If we want to delete as orphaned, though, that is okay. --Knulclunk 21:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So tagged. SkierRMH 05:32, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted on Sep. 7 IFD. As far as i can tell uploader was not notified of listing -Nv8200p talk 22:07, 7 September 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 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 discussion was:

Image:Voyage logo.jpg[edit]

Image:Voyage logo.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Taco38 (notify | contribs).
  • There is a free image of the actual roller coaster (The Voyage (roller coaster)), which invalidates the fair use claim of this logo. ALTON .ıl 07:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't think so; use of logos for illustration purposes is generally considered acceptable. The IBM logo and a photo of IBM headquarters are not equivalent images, either. Or am I mistaken? - Mike Rosoft 12:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, you're right, perhaps I worded my nomination incorrectly: it just seems unnecessary at the moment when compared to the popular strain of roller coaster articles. There are all the logos for all the universities for example, even though we have many pictures of most of them (Johns Hopkins University, UCLA, Harvard University) so that would align with your statement. But the roller coaster articles don't conventionally have logos (Kingda Ka, Maverick, Xcelerator). And there are derivative photos of the logos in some articles (El Toro, Goliath, The Demon), but most, except the last I mentioned, don't use FU images. ALTON .ıl 21:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image kept. Official logos for identification are generally accepted fair use. If the logo should be removed from the article can be decided on the article talk page and the orphaned fair use image can be deleted. -Nv8200p talk 22:16, 7 September 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Image:Jesuspwningwood.jpg[edit]

Image:Jesuspwningwood.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cheezeman (notify | contribs).
  • Non-encyclopedic, potentially offensive humor image uploaded by a vandalism-only account. --Ginkgo100talk 03:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PopeRock.jpg[edit]

Image:PopeRock.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cheezeman (notify | contribs).
  • Non-encyclopedic, potentially offensive humor image uploaded by a vandalism-only account. --Ginkgo100talk 03:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Neg 6.jpg[edit]

Image:Neg 6.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Michelle1 (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed to be released into public domain, no evidence of this, appears to be fair use publicity image, and is orphaned. 74.204.40.46 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What evidence would be needed? Daskill 13:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is what should be filled out:

[edit] Declaration of consent for all enquiries Due to the large number of ambiguous answers to enquiries concerning a permission of reuse for an image, text or similar (such as "I allow Wikipedia to reuse my photos") it is advisable to attach to your enquiry email a standard declaration of consent (and point to it in the email), which can be returned by the author/copyright owner in the email reply. The precedent below should be amended, as necessary, with the required additional information:

I hereby assert that I am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of WORK [ insert link ].

I agree to publish that work under the free license LICENSE [choose at least one from http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Copyright_tags ].

I acknowledge that I grant anyone the right to use the work in a commercial product, and to modify it according to their needs.

I am aware that I always retain copyright of my work, and retain the right to be attributed in accordance with the license chosen. Modifications others make to the work will not be attributed to me

I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the image may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER

The WORK, LICENSE and DATE, NAME OF THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER need to be filled out for this to be acceptable. This also helps clarify to the owner what they are agreeing to. Ejfetters 08:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Though this needs to be filled out by the photo's copyright holder. Ejfetters 08:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AdamsCropped.JPG[edit]

Image:AdamsCropped.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Daskill (notify | contribs).
  • Claimed to be released into public domain, no evidence of this, appears to be fair use, also is just a cropped image of Neg 6.jpg - which has no reason to be uploaded twice. Replaceable with free use, or maybe documentation that its copyright holder released it? 74.204.40.46 04:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image was uploaded by someone who works for Adams, and has obtained his permission to release it as such. Daskill 13:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this is true, this is a cropped version of a file already on Wikipedia - the file listed above. There is no need to crop an existing file and reload it, the original file should be sufficient. Do we have proof also that this is permitted by the copyright holder of the photo? If it truly is permissable, we should move it to Commons, not this one, but the original one. Ejfetters 20:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've replaced this dubious image in the Bryan Adams article with one taken from Flickr that is licensed under the CC 2.0 attribution license instead. Exxolon 22:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I cropped the image because the original was too big for the infobox. The original image was uploaded by User:Michelle1 who has proven that she works for Adams. Daskill 01:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then delete the original image, there is no use for both. Ejfetters 05:50, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Alyson Hau.jpg[edit]

Image:Alyson Hau.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by WildWorks (notify | contribs).
  • From [1], by-nc-nd license which is incompatible with GFDL as stated ✉ Hello World! 04:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a different version of the image in the history - perhaps that one is GFDL-licensed. - Mike Rosoft 13:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That different version of the image was copied from the web site of her radio programme. --✉ Hello World! 02:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, and it has been uploaded by Alysonhau (talk · contribs). Perhaps somebody should e-mail her to find out whether or not the image is actually GFDL-licensed ... - Mike Rosoft 06:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • "This user has chosen not to accept e-mail from other users." Too bad. Should this be moved to WP:PUI? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:22, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:GretzkyFA.png[edit]

Image:GretzkyFA.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by RasputinAXP (notify | contribs).

Image:New Jersey Devils FA.png[edit]

Image:New Jersey Devils FA.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bsroiaadn (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 discussion was:

Law & Order Publicity Images[edit]

Various studio publicity images, no verification they have been released for promotional use, same as discussed in prior listings for other TV publicity shots. Better replaced with screen caps. Ejfetters 06:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No doubt that these are professional promo shots taken by NBC studios. No reason to assume the opposite. --Kudret abi 06:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. They seem to be professional promo shots.Ferrylodge 22:06, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Seem" to be, we have no evidence these were released for promotional use, as discussed previously on Star Trek and Dawson's Creek images of the same nature. They were such deleted because no evidence could be found that they were intended for promotional use. Yes, I will concede they are publicity shots, but we don't have any evidence they have been released to the public for promotional use in this manner. Ejfetters 04:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are a bunch of links from archive.org. What kind of proof do we need that these were released for promotional use?
http://web.archive.org/web/20060627221153/www.nbc.com/Law_&_Order/photo/161.shtml
http://web.archive.org/web/20070905231044/http://www.nbc.com/Law_&_Order/photo/160.shtml
http://web.archive.org/web/20070905231044/http://www.nbc.com/Law_&_Order/photo/156.shtml#photo
http://web.archive.org/web/20070905231301/http://www.nbc.com/Law_&_Order/photo/154.shtml
http://web.archive.org/web/20070905231333/http://www.nbc.com/Law_&_Order/photo/153.shtml#photo
Ferrylodge 23:19, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nothing in these links that say the photos have been released for promotional use, these are just the image sources. This has been discussed at length for publicity photos from Star Trek, and Dawson's Creek. Ejfetters 08:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to agree with Ferrylodge. The links show that these images are from NBC Law & Order site and I cannot think of any reason why such a site would exist other than to promote Law & Order. This is enough to justify that the images are professional promo shots. Cannot expect them to write "this image is a promo shot, please post it everywhere" under every image. And please try to avoid further references to other cases and previous debates, see WP:ATA. Regards, --Kudret abi 21:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The references to other cases where the images were found to not be allowed are cited to show example of why they aren't cited. We do need proof they are released for promotional use, we can't assume just because it looks promotional it is. Yes, they clearly are publicity shots, and we have sources, it isn't questioned that they have no sources. It is questioned that we dont have proof that they are released for promotional use. I don't see the problem directing users to other examples of these types of images that were deleted so they can get a better understanding of the debates that went on in the past, avoiding them to draw out long debates that have been made before. In a legal case, examples are often cited, why shouldn't they be cited here? Ejfetters 03:19, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Citing just what i was trying to get across, several promotional-looking images for the entire cast of Star Trek: The Next Generation were proposed. I initially thought what was argued above, they clearly look like they are released for promotional use, but it was decided that since there was no official proof of this, no matter how convincing the images looked, they were deleted. Afterwards screen caps were uploaded of the characters, and haven't been challenged since, as these are acceptable, and verifiable, and they don't claim to be released for promotional use in the copyright tag. Ejfetters 03:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the NBC image from the Fred Thompson article on Wikipedia, just to be on the safe side. People were saying that there were too many images in the article anyway.Ferrylodge 18:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Unfortunately, there's no way to determine how these images were originally used/licensed without a specific source. It is certainly possible that these images were designed only to be used by NBC, to attract readers and advertising dollars to that website, and our use would then be competitive (failing NFCC#2). That's why it's so important to have a specific and verifiable source for non-free images. Screenshots would be less problematic for many legal reasons (e.g., we'd only be using a portion of the work instead of the entire work, and Wikipedia doesn't compete with TV shows). – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:09, 9 September 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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

X-Files Publicity Images[edit]

Various studio publicity images, no verification they have been released for promotional use, same as discussed in prior listings for other TV publicity shots. Better replaced with screen caps. Ejfetters 07:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unused images[edit]

Mike Rosoft 08:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete these please[edit]

Non-encyclopedic. Please delete these and all history as they have been uploaded in error. Mgillaus 09:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedily deleted both on uploader's request; you could have simply marked them with {{db-author}}. - Mike Rosoft 13:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Cindy Nelson - Singer.jpg[edit]

Image:Cindy Nelson - Singer.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Furvus (notify | contribs).
also Image:Smaller Cindy.JPG

The Amazing Race screenshots[edit]

These are non-free screenshots from The Amazing Race, all of them uploaded by the same user (see here for proof of notification). A non-free use rationale is given on the talk page of each image, but I feel that the images fail criteria 5 and 8 of the non-free content criteria, which require that non-free images be encyclopedic and "significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic". These images, for the most part, show people standing around, driving around, talking, or doing other trivial things. In no case are the events depicted specifically discussed in the article. Indeed, there is no reason to reason to mention this trivial information. Despite the fair use claim, I contend that these images are being used solely or primarily for a decorative purpose.

Please note that I have not nominated all non-free images in Category:The Amazing Race contestants as there are some that may require separate discussion (i.e. for which a stronger case for non-free use could be made). — Black Falcon (Talk) 17:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Georgereynolds.gif[edit]

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

Image:Joeyftribbiani.jpg[edit]

Image:Joeyftribbiani.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Tokttk (notify | contribs).
  • Publicity image, no proof released for promotional use, better replaceable with screen cap as per other TV publicity discussions Ejfetters 20:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jamesmichaeltyler.jpg[edit]

Image:Jamesmichaeltyler.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Crumbworks (notify | contribs).
  • This publicity image again should be replaceable with fair use screenshot. Realize it was previously nominated, but with recent deletions of Star Trek and Dawson's Creek among other publicity images, felt renomination was in order. Can't we just get a screenshot? Ejfetters 20:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It should be deleted because of the "Courtesy NBC" watermark, which implies NBC has provided it directly to Wikipedia, when really it was provided to another site (CNN, I believe. [2]). As for replacing it with a screenshot, there's really no need to add a new image just for the sake of it. Brad 21:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Björk and Lars von Trier (Cannes Film Festival).jpg[edit]

Image:Björk and Lars von Trier (Cannes Film Festival).jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Luis María Benítez (notify | contribs).
  • Primary reason: this non-free image doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the article (fails WP:NFCC #8), because it does not contain any significant information that is not already in the text. The image is merely used as decoration. Secundary reason: very poor fair use rationale (if there is one at all). Ilse@ 20:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pinochet-Thatcher.jpg[edit]

Image:Pinochet-Thatcher.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Cantus (notify | contribs).
  • Primary reason: this non-free image doesn't significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic of the article (fails WP:NFCC #8). For both the articles Margaret Thatcher and Augusto Pinochet's arrest and trial, the image does not contain any significant information that is not already in the text, it is merely used as decoration. Secundary reasons: no source information, no fair use rationale. Ilse@ 21:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no source. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PA190099.jpg[edit]

Image:PA190099.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Deror avi (notify | contribs).
This can be decided at WP:PUI. -Nv8200p talk 20:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pepe Le Pew.JPG[edit]

Image:Pepe Le Pew.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by SNIyer12 (notify | contribs).
  • First reason: image resolution is too high (1024 × 768 px), image should be maximally something like 300 px wide. Second reason: no fair use rationale. Reason for article Looney Tunes: Back in Action: appearance of charachter Pepé Le Pew is not critically discussed in the article and image one of many non-free images, it is superfluous. Ilse@ 23:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2007_August_31&oldid=1141916536"