Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 August 6

< August 5	August 7 >

August 6

Image:Zhao Perform.jpg

Image:Zhao Perform.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Mutakallim (notify | contribs).

Uploader claims ownership of image but image was most likely taken without permission from this site http://www.chinesemuslimthailand.com/printable.php?id=540 Abstrakt (talk) 01:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have got to have a better rationale/explanation for its inclusion in Wikipedia. This appears to be a copyvio. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BQZip01. Ejfetters (talk) 05:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising. Media is unencyclopedic. The image can be substituted by a free image of a picture of the upcoming mall itself. Xeltran (talk) 10:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ADVERT. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Spam and possible CV. Ejfetters (talk) 05:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Jtc mall2.jpg

Image:Jtc mall2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bobot313 (notify | contribs).

Advertising. Media is unencyclopedic and orphaned. The image can be substituted by a free image of a picture of the mall itself. Xeltran (talk) 10:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom. Spam and possible CV. Ejfetters (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:June_6th1535_copy.jpg

Image:June_6th1535_copy.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by InfoDesk (notify | contribs).

Uploaded for an article that has since been deleted PhilKnight (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kelly13.jpg

Image:Kelly13.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bob987654333 (notify | contribs).

The uploader has a bad uploading log; No metadata; he is definitely not the author. O sama K 14:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Delete Highly unlikely this is the author of the picture. Likely Copyvio. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:17, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Shea relation Citi Field.jpg

Image:Shea relation Citi Field.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Zimbabweed (notify | contribs).

Improper non-free use template. ViperSnake151 17:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not per nom. This image (and its intent) are replaceable with images within the gallery and an artist's conception is no longer needed for a structure that is almost 100% complete (at least externally). In short, the image may have been fine at one point, but it is now replaceable, so it needs to go. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Paulknewsweek.jpg

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

Non-free image fails WP:NFCC#1 and NFCC#8. Having the image does not increase the reader's understanding of the topic. The image shows two living people and is replaceable by free images of the individuals or by the text already in the article. Nv8200p talk 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia:NFC#Images_2 #8. This kind of image is explicitly prohibited. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Replaceable with free use image. Ejfetters (talk) 05:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:032806_francelaborprotests2.jpg

Image:032806_francelaborprotests2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by AscendedAnathema (notify | contribs).

Image fails WP:NFCC#2 as its source is listed as a Fox News photograph. Also fails NFCC#8 as the way it is used in First Employment Contract does not significantly increase the understanding of the article. A free image of a protest (Image:Manif cpe19.jpg) is available on the Commons. Nv8200p talk 18:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
obviously speedy delete under WP:CSD I7 or whatever the right number is. Commercial news source images are a total no-no. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This image is a clear copyvio and is replaceable by a commons image already contained in the article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed image from article. Now it is also orphaned. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 05:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFCC#1. --Ipoellet (talk) 15:31, 7 August 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 debate was

- Delete - consensus is clearly that the image fails WP:NFCC#8 in that it does not significantly add to reader's understanding. I note as well that the image has been orphaned for the past week and is close or overdue for deleting on this basis as well - Peripitus (Talk) 00:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Pausch google.png

Image:Pausch google.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by C S (notify | contribs).

Non-free screenshot of a google search page showing a special "in memoriam" notice at the footer in memory of a recently deceased individual, Randy Pausch. Used in the article about that person to illustrate public tributes at his death. Clearly fails WP:NFCC#1, replaceability, since the change to the google page can easily be described in words; the addition is only a single brief line of text with no special artistic or visual effects. Originally tagged as speedy, but brought here because there were objections on the talkpage. Note that this or that apparent precedent of similar images is not a good argument for keeping. NFCC#1 is not optional; if text can cover it, it must be deleted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing that words can't replace (heck, if needed, you can probably get it in the same font...) — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ejfetters (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is simply an irreplaceable screenshot of a commercial website. As google rarely changes the text on the homepage, it is certainly notable. Further, there is precedent for Google Screenshots here: Image:Google_earth_hour.PNG, Image:Google_search_stylish.png, and Image:MarcChagallGoogleLogo.gif. Unfortunately, simply mentioning the event in the text as some editors have suggested severely understates the event's weight. The general consensus on the main article's talk page is keep -- please review that page for more opinions. Jheiv (talk) 07:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, but (a) whether the event is notable is not at issue; the only thing at issue is whether the image is necessary for understanding the event (which it is not); (b) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument, as pointed out above; (c) a mere wish to give a topic extra editorial weight is not a compelling reason for the image in the sense of NFCC8. The only relevant factor here is whether it's needed for understanding. (d) NFCC is mandatory and overrides local consensus. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ As the person who encouraged CS to upload the screenshot I would like to state the intent:
- 1) The screenshot is irreplanceable.There is no way to know where the line was displayed on the google home page also this is the first time that this kind of memorial has been displayed.

- 2) Google does not put memorials on its home page as a practice and google is one of the most visited pages on the internet hence the importance of this memorial is not comparable to other memorials(this was given as a reason to remove the screenshot).

However, its upto the experts to decide the legality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Itsjustajoy (talk • contribs) 08:09, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. after considering the reasons below i think its best to remove it.ajoy (talk) 19:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? There's no way to know where the line was displayed? "It was displayed centered, in a small non-serif font, one line below the normal copyright notice, the lines separated by c.20pt". Do you want it more precise, like, measured in pixels? Can do. Now tell me why this information is crucial for the article. – And as for your repeated argument why the event was notable, I just explained above why that is not the issue here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If the legality is an issue, couldn't that be minimized through a cropped image showing the area between the Search Query line and the in memoriam text? Although we are already trying to deal with a lower quality image, we will also be omitting the Google logo. Or what are the chances that we can get some sort of okay from Google for noncommercial use of the screenshot? Let's think outside the box for the answers. MMetro (talk) 08:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- A non-commercial-only or Wikipedia-only permission wouldn't help at all, because the image would still count as non-free. Cropping the image to get the logo out might help some, but even that way there'd arguably be significantly more copyrighted content in the image than what is strictly needed. The only way would be to reduce it so radically that the amount of copyrighted material shown would be no larger than the relevant textual quote, i.e. basically just the memorial line itself in isolation. But why would anybody want to look at that? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The photo proved very valuable for WP:Verifiability as I did not even know where on page to look, based on the text alone. The photo also demonstrates that the tribute was a clickable link, and places the text in a relatable context to the rest of Google's content. MMetro (talk) 10:40, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point about "verifiability". We normally don't accept hosting non-free images as "proof" of the existence of a source. You can of course just say: www.google.com, accessed on such-and-such a date. That's just what we do with other websources, allowing for the fact that they don't stay forever. If you go by a stricter standard, you might actually ask yourself: if the fact that this google page existed is sourceable only to the google site itself as a primary source, is it even notable? Is it OR? Shouldn't we expect that the fact was recorded and commented on in independent reliable sources? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A lot of the arguments here seem to center around how remarkable it is that Google did this and how Google never does that and how we have to capture this event on the Google search page. But the fact is that Google is just one company, and not the subject of the article where this image is used (i.e. Randy Pausch), and not even particularly related to the subject of that article. All this talk of the notability of Google making this exception to their business plan may be relevant in the context of a discussion of Google as a company, but not in the context of Randy Pausch. In this latter context, it's just one of a large number of media tributes on the occasion of his death, and not a particularly visually impressive one. An appropriate inclusion in the Randy Pausch article would be a discussion of the range of the various public tributes in the aggregate. But no one of those tributes is going to so add to reader understanding of the impact of Randy Pausch on society as to overcome our NFCC criteria, especially #8, and certainly not an image that amounts to a line of minimally-formatted text with a link in it. --Ipoellet (talk) 16:07, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BQzip and Ipoellet. This screenshot does not help me understand Randy Pausch any better than a line saying that google put this on their homepage. Mangostar (talk) 16:36, 7 August 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:Ostroleka coa.png

Image:Ostroleka coa.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Halibutt (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image with higher quality raster version (Image:Ostroleka.png) and vector version (Image:POL Ostrołęka COA.svg) available on Commons. - AWeenieMan (talk) 22:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mybuzz logo.png

Image:Mybuzz logo.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by X201 (notify | contribs).

Orphaned. It has been agreed with the uploader that the infobox that image was used in is unnecessary and has been removed
Delete per nom. Request uploader nominate for speedy deletion. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Timetable.bmp

Image:Timetable.bmp (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marcschulz (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image with duplicate image in alternate file format (Image:Timetable.png). PNG version is 7 KB compared to BMP version of 488 KB. - AWeenieMan (talk) 22:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Timetable2.bmp

Image:Timetable2.bmp (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marcschulz (notify | contribs).

Orphaned image with duplicate image in alternate file format (Image:Timetable2.png). PNG version is 6 KB compared to BMP version that is 351 KB. - AWeenieMan (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:MelleLocatie.png

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

Orphaned image, superseded by near identical Image:GemMelleLocation.png. - AWeenieMan (talk) 23:01, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Spotlightfanart.jpeg

Image:Spotlightfanart.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by MAPM (notify | contribs).

What's the point of a fan-made album cover? This serves no purpose. Furthermore, I doubt the image that was used to create it was in the public domain, meaning that this is a copyright violation. J Milburn (talk) 23:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom + image is orphaned. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete likely CV and orphaned. Ejfetters (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]