Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 July 22
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 July 22)
July 22[edit]
Image:Negroid Caucasoid Mongoloid.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Nordic Crusader (notify | contribs).
- Image uploaded by a user who has been blocked for promoting racist Ideology Muntuwandi 14:11, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. It was traced from this image, Image:Morton drawing.png used as a criticism in this article's section Craniometry#Criticisms and revival of past cranial theories in the 20th century, to promote a racist ideology in the Negroid article. See Talk:Negroid. - Jeeny Talk 18:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is not a true representation of a Negroid nor Mongoloid skull, and could actually be that of another species, Homo erectus. To have this image in it's current state is to misrepresent the subject and totally distort scientific evidence. See here. - Jeeny Talk 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above
- Delete as self-made racist hogwash; any fool can draw up little misleading images of skulls. This is pseudoscientific and completely contradicted by medica science. VanTucky (talk) 21:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - misleading nonsense, used solely to promote a particular view. If we're going to talk about racist views, we can at the very least not openly use misleading or false images. --Haemo 05:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Barroso-younger-Expresso.jpg[edit]
- When you have these many free high quality Barroso pictures, why have this low resolution one that does not depict any special or irrepeatable moment? — Serte [ Talk · Contrib ] 00:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Carmeloanthony.gif[edit]
- - uploaded by Drewinmaine (notify | contribs).
- sports illustrated cover being used to depict a living subject, replaceable fair use Bleh999 02:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Arroyo_355_040815.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Coburnpharr04 (notify | contribs).
- non free image used solely to depic a living subject Bleh999 02:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep - The image is supposed to be used to illustrate the historic moment it was taken in, not the image of Arroyo, the same way several of them are used in Michael Jordan's article. It should also be noted that the main use of the image is on the Puerto Rico National Team article not Carlos Arroyo's page. -凶 21:31, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. In no way does this meet WP:NFCC #8 in any of the three articles it's in. howcheng {chat} 18:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually that's not correct, this image has gained some sort of 'legendary' status in Puerto Rico, the action in it has been mimicked in tv commercials, paintings and has been used in several articles in newspapers becoming one of the most widespread images in the island, as far as becoming to a certain extent a patriotic image. -凶 00:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- That's interesting. However, none of the articles actually say this. Here's what you need to do: create a section in the Carlos Arroyo article about what you just described (naturally citing reliable sources to prevent the appearance of original research). That's what will make the use of this image pass NFCC #8. Also, it should probably be limited to Arroyo's article then. howcheng {chat} 22:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Actually that's not correct, this image has gained some sort of 'legendary' status in Puerto Rico, the action in it has been mimicked in tv commercials, paintings and has been used in several articles in newspapers becoming one of the most widespread images in the island, as far as becoming to a certain extent a patriotic image. -凶 00:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Young_Son_and_2003_Nobel_Peace_Prize_Winner_Shirin_Ebadi_(150_Size).jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Minnesotaundergroundmusic (notify | contribs).
- Neutral listing. Declined speedy because: "Uploaded solely for use in deleted/salted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young son." But|seriously|folks 02:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Soul_Inspired-Hip_Hop's_Revial_Cover_(JPEG_Format)(Thumbnail_Size).jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Minnesotaundergroundmusic (notify | contribs).
- Neutral listing. Speedy declined because: "Uploaded solely for use in deleted/salted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soul Inspired: Hip Hop's Revival." But|seriously|folks 02:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:YYHt-010.jpg[edit]
- Lack of source information and missing fair use rationale, bsent uploader. — -- SilentAria talk 05:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:YYHt-016.jpg[edit]
- Lack of source information and missing fair use rationale, bsent uploader. — -- SilentAria talk 05:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mike_Reppin_the_Cross_and_Praying_Hands_Close_Up.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Michaelhannah (notify | contribs).
- Neutral listing. Declined speedy because: "Uploaded solely for use in deleted/salted article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Young son." But|seriously|folks 05:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- 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:Microformat-logo.png[edit]
- - uploaded by Pigsonthewing (notify | contribs).
- Released under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license, which prohibits commercial use. As such, this image can be used on Wikipedia only under a claim of fair use. However, it serves a purely decorative purpose in the article Microformat; it does not provide any useful information. Hence it fails point 8 of the non-free content policy. —Bkell (talk) 05:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep It is not "purely decorative" on that article - it s the logo of the microformats commnity. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep Re-tag as logo. Useful for identification. Jheald 19:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment: If this is kept, it needs to be explained much better. I don't know anything about microformats, and to me the article seems to be about a general concept in knowledge representation, like attribute-value systems or XML schemata. It doesn't make sense for a general concept to have a logo, and the logo doesn't help to explain the concept at all. If the organization represented by the logo is important, then it should be discussed in the text of the microformat article. Is this the logo of an official standardization organization? —Bkell (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete unless explained better. I'm with Bkell. The only similar concept I can think of is the RSS icon
which has become a de facto standard representing RSS. Is that what this is supposed to be? howcheng {chat} 00:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
(Thumbnail_Size).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
(Thumbnail_Size).jpg&action=delete){kind=link}
(Thumbnail_Size).jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
(Thumbnail_Size).jpg&action=history){kind=link}
(Thumbnail_Size).jpg){kind=link}
Kept but retagged as a logo. Warofdreams talk 03:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
- 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:Mirvat_Najmeddine.jpg[edit]
- Unencyclopedic, Orphaned, apparently an image of the uploader. But|seriously|folks 05:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mumexico.png[edit]
- Orphaned, unencyclopedic Bleh999 06:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mwmexico.png[edit]
- orphaned, unencyclopedic, no sources for map Bleh999 06:46, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:States_of_Mexico.png[edit]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, no descripton or caption Bleh999 06:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think you can really call it "unencyclopedic". The question is whether this is useful at Political divisions of Mexico, or whether the existing material there is sufficient. And whether there would be any value in a transfer of this to Commons. Jheald 19:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Looks to have been superseded by Image:Mexico states map.png and {{Mexico Labelled States}}. Might be worth sending to Commons though. howcheng {chat} 00:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Send to Commons Whether or not that particular article needs the image is neither here nor there - but there might be other projects that could find it useful, such as Commons:WikiProject Atlas. - 52 Pickup 13:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
- Moved to Commons and local version deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mexico_Heart.png[edit]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Bleh999 06:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Btech_June_29_5_7.pdf[edit]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 12:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bubblegumromance.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Myworkhereisdone (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bubenberg-Denkmal.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned Nv8200p talk 12:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Alternative to Image:BubenbergDenkmal_8406.jpg that is currently used at Adrian von Bubenberg. Personally, I prefer this one, with the sky as background. de.wikipedia says if transferring to Commons, please mark {{Picswiss}}. Jheald
- Moved to Commons and local copy deleted. howcheng {chat} 23:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:BuchanansHotel.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:44, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Buddiespack.gif[edit]
- - uploaded by Surfingpikachao (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Buddy128.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:BuddyJesus.jpg[edit]
- Copyright violation, Orphaned Nv8200p talk 12:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Buffalo_Chips_-_ChipsBagofusCD.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Copyright violation, Unencyclopedic Nv8200p talk 12:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Buffalo_Chips_-_ChipsUnpluggedCD.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Buffalo_Chips_-_ChipsWhat_JustHappenedCD.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Building_1_.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by APREVOT2002 (notify | contribs).
- Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 12:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Burandonu.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Chakarastring (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned Nv8200p talk 13:16, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Burgos_CF.gif[edit]
- - uploaded by Raymond Cruise (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Copyright violation, No evidence uploader has authority to release image under the GFDL. Nv8200p talk 13:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Redundant with Image:Burgos CF escudo.gif, which is a better image. Delete. Jheald 18:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:BuryStEcath.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Petepetepete (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 13:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bushkiller.png[edit]
- - uploaded by Googlehoax (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 13:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bush-killer.png[edit]
- - uploaded by Googlehoax (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 13:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bush-killer2.png[edit]
- - uploaded by Googlehoax (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 13:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bushkiller-small.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Googlehoax (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 13:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bushchimp2.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 13:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Business_Control_Systems.pdf[edit]
- - uploaded by Parag Bhadra (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 13:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Bustertherabbit.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by Shindo9Hikaru (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 13:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Butter_fly.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 13:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Buxfer-logo-high-resolution.gif[edit]
- Orphaned, Ue, Absent uploader, User's only upload. Nv8200p talk 13:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Byebyebennies.jpg[edit]
- Orphaned, Unencyclopedic, Absent uploader, User's only upload Nv8200p talk 13:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Byuientrance.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by BYUIdahoPublicRelations (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 13:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:C_0001.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by EADS CASA Espacio (notify | contribs).
- Orphaned, Copyright violation, Absent uploader Nv8200p talk 13:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Map of Europe after Treaty of Westphalia 1648.gif[edit]
- - uploaded by Raymond Palmer (notify | contribs).
- claims to be adapted from original source, however is almost the same image with minor text changes original — --Astrokey44 14:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Rabies_Free_Countries_No_Text.svg[edit]
- - uploaded by myself (User:DTR).
- Orphaned, Superseeded by Image:Rabies Free Countries.svg --Dave the Rave (DTR)talk 14:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Mistulalogo.gif[edit]
- - uploaded by Silentaria (notify | contribs).
- Mistulalogo.gif obsoleted by Mistulalogo.png. — -- SilentAria talk 18:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Loa4.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by (Automated conversion) (notify | contribs).
Image:NonNudeExample1.jpg and Image:NonNudeExample2.jpg[edit]
- - uploaded by User:Cgros841 (notify | contribs).
- - uploaded by User:Cgros841 (notify | contribs).
- Note from Jimbo: Per BenB4, the user has a history of copyvios and therefore I see no reason at all to accept his claim to have created the images. That's enough right there, and there was really no reason to even have a discussion, these could have and probably should have been speedy deleted as soon as the guy was caught on the other copyvios.--Jimbo Wales 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- These images both appear to show children in sexually-suggestive nonnude poses. Uploader has a string of images deleted for copyvio according to his talk page history. He was asked back in February to present a model release but has so far not done so, even though he edited in April. The absence of a model release from a parent or guardian for such images of minors presents a very serious legal issue (see below.) BenB4 19:34, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Wikipedia image use policy does not require model releases (in fact, they are not mentioned in the policy), and they are not commonly in use; my check of a number of Wikipedia images of recognizable persons did not turn up any on the image description pages. --MCB 17:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- However, these are not notable people but children. There are ethical and legal concerns here that over-ride policy. --John 18:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I uploaded an alternative found with a creative commons license on flickr. ←BenB4 20:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete; without a proper model release these images are too risky to use. --John 04:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep; No to censorship and totalitarianism, yes to freedom and liberty.--Notototalitarianism,yestofreedom 05:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: user indef blocked as sockpuppet. ←BenB4 06:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: ad hominem and lie by BenB4.--71.108.60.17 01:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Note: user indef blocked as sockpuppet. ←BenB4 06:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Not used in any articles, blatantly unencyclopedic, and images that are potentially of minors without a model release. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 07:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- The image is used in the article Non-nude photography, and has been there quite a while. --MCB 07:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Only one of them. And I'm sure we'd do better if it were replaced. -- Thesocialistesq/M.lesocialiste 05:56, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. First of all, the images are valuable to the article as illustrations of the genre of photography that is the subject of the article; the article would be of much less value without an example. (Consider other articles on genres or movements in art.) Hence actual encyclopedic value as an exemplar of a type. Secondly, there is no Wikipedia policy requiring a model release for the subjects of images, and Wikipedia images do not customarily feature model released (feel free to cite examples or counter-examples). As the photo is not sexually explicit (or even of a sexual nature) the age of the subject is unlikely to present any special legal issues. As the photo has been released to the public domain by its maker, those who assert a legal issue should provide actual legal arguments rather than conclusions like "a very serious legal issue" or "too risky to use". --MCB 07:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Legal issue as follows: A 1994 decision by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, U.S. v. Knox, ruled that language in the Protection of Children Against Sexual Exploitation Act of 1977 prohibiting the “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area” can include “non-nude depictions.” The court upheld the conviction of defendant Stephen Knox on the grounds that videotapes he had purchased showing children posing in leotards were marketed as being sexually exciting.[1] Since the uploader added one of the pictures to an article which wikilinks "sexually suggestive" to "erotic," it would not be hard to show that the intent was to show lascivious imagery. Felony charges have been filed in Arkansas, Missouri, and Colorado against operators of "child model" web sites, for example, "engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium," and "employing and enticing a minor to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing a visual depiction and for operating a preteen “model” Web site that transmitted the images across state and national borders." ←BenB4 21:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep, photos have encyclopedic value, and there is no evidence these models are underage. —Angr 17:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment Other than the obvious fact that they look underage from their photos. Are you prepared for the media roasting us if (when) the real copyright holder and the subjects see the image on Wikipedia? The uploader has a history of misusing and mislabelling images. --John 17:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per BenB4 and per John. ElinorD (talk) 01:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. I don't think these women look "obviously" underage in the least, they look like average college students to me. Apparently to some people, anyone under 25 looks like a "kid" to them. wikipediatrix 01:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- These pictures must be deleted at once, at least until some serious questions are answered. The subjects appear to be minors, there is no model release, they are sexualized or titillating, the models are identifiable (but not formally identified so we have no way of knowing that they are aware that the photographs have been made public), and the uploading editor is not currently available to answer questions. --Tony Sidaway 07:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- What makes them "appear to be minors" in your opinion? Seriously. I don't think you know what you're talking about. And since when do we need a "model release" for pics on Wikipedia? I can point you to thousands of pics on Wikipedia where we neither know nor care who they are or whether they signed a release. That these women are aiming their posteriors at the camera and showing less skin than anyone would see at the beach shouldn't make a difference. wikipediatrix 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- What makes them "appear to be minors"? In Florida law a minor is a person under the age of 18. I have a teenaged daughter, and I cannot tell whether any of the people depicted are over or under her age. That being the case, I think the law would expect us to prove that either the models were over 18 or their parents consented to their partially dressed images being published. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well exactly. Nobody can tell because the uploader has not told us and is unavailable to tell us. Images like these are highly replacable and in the presence of doubt about what ages they are or whether they actually gave consent to their (identifiable) likenesses being used on Wikipedia, we delete. If we need images like this in the future we get them properly sourced and attributed.--John 18:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why don't we get an example of nonnude photography where the subjects are clearly adults instead? ←BenB4 19:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- What makes them "appear to be minors"? In Florida law a minor is a person under the age of 18. I have a teenaged daughter, and I cannot tell whether any of the people depicted are over or under her age. That being the case, I think the law would expect us to prove that either the models were over 18 or their parents consented to their partially dressed images being published. --Tony Sidaway 18:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- What makes them "appear to be minors" in your opinion? Seriously. I don't think you know what you're talking about. And since when do we need a "model release" for pics on Wikipedia? I can point you to thousands of pics on Wikipedia where we neither know nor care who they are or whether they signed a release. That these women are aiming their posteriors at the camera and showing less skin than anyone would see at the beach shouldn't make a difference. wikipediatrix 14:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Comment To be honest, my best guess is that one photo might depict a set of minors, and one definitely doesn't. In Example 1 those girls are very clearly over 18. Example 2 is less clear. That said, these photos are the definition of replacable, and there's reasonable suspicion on whether the uploader actually holds the copyright to them. It's probably better to just play it safe and find some nice young ladies who'd be happy to replace them. WilyD 16:13, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. For once, I completely agree with Tony Sidaway on this. I think we need to be very careful in cases like this. While I'm quite aware that Wikipedia is not censored, I think there are serious legal and ethical concerns here; we have no evidence that the girls depicted in the pictures are adults or that they have given permission for their images to be used. Any potential benefit to Wikipedia by keeping these pictures is, IMO, outweighed by the risk of publishing suggestive pictures of minors without their consent, a practice which is illegal in many countries and somewhat unethical. WaltonOne 17:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete These images have sat, improperly accounted for on several levels, in an article for months. This is completely unacceptable, and the time for an assumption of good faith is over. The uploader has been given ample time. Not only are there serious ethical issues when it comes to the dubious age of the models, but there is not a shred of evidence that they ever consented to these being released on the web.There is also a good chance they are copy vios. VanTucky (talk) 21:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete for reasons eloquently expressed already, SqueakBox 21:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete they sure look underage. In the UK, just making a (sexually provocative) picture *look* like it is of children under 16 is an offence. Why take the risk when there are so many better alternatives? MurunB 22:51, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete keeping them is an unnecessary risk. —Anas talk? 23:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. When in doubt, throw it out. Why bother to risk a copyvio (or even an offence) when the images can stay deleted? Sr13 06:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Image:Nike(c).png[edit]
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- - uploaded by Kay Körner (notify | contribs).
.png&action=delete){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=history){kind=link}
- A vector version of this file is now available. OsamaK 22:22, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
