Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 August 13

< August 12	August 14 >

August 13

Image:HawkgirlGoldenAge.jpg

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

The image runs counter to the information here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/copyright#Images which cannot be "fair use" and the underlying principle of not using material copied from existing encyclopedias and encyclopedia-like works. The image was created and used in such a context where originally published in Who's Who in the DC Universe. The uploader noted this initially. J Greb 00:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Nbriebrie.jpg

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

Orphan. Self portait for inactive editor. Pascal.Tesson 03:20, 13 August 2007 (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.

Deleted. Nonfree image, orphaned several days, can be replaced by text. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:40, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kurtcobainsuicidenote.jpg

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

False fair use and copyright violation. Image is not a publicly distributed image, and does not belong to the Seattle Police Department. The image is a copy of a fax that private investigator Tom Grant sent himself while in possession of Cobain's suicide note (hence the creases - it got caught in the fax machine). Grant has not released this image from copyright (and there are legal questions whether he truly could, given how it was obtained). -- ChrisB 03:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you got this information, can you cite it? According to his own website at [1] it states: "The note found at the scene by the police was immediately labeled as a "suicide note."" It specifically states that the note was found by police (reading other stories it was found by the electrician who found it next to an overturned flowerpot with a pen sticking through it). Once a case is closed, many parts of a case are considered public and can be released by the police department via public records excluding photos of the scene. --CobraBK 23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think it is not "fair use" to use Cobain's purported suicide note in an article about Cobain? What copyrightable creative expression belonging to Grant do you think might possibly exist in a FAX of this document (assuming for the sake of argument that it is Grant's fax) that is relevant to the fair use analysis? Crypticfirefly 04:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the copyright was held by Mr. Cobain, the author, and control of the copyright would have passed to his next of kin, his wife, Courtney Love. She didn't release this under a free license, so it's still under copyright. (No faxing or police investigation can change this.) As a non-free image, it doesn't pass our WP:NFCC #8, in that it doesn't portray any encyclopedic information that can't be portrayed by text. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:55, 20 August 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Usamexicanborder2.jpg

Image:Usamexicanborder2.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Justinpauloberg (notify | contribs).

Not free use; no copyright information given (although we all know it's stolen from Google) --Адам12901 ^T/_C 04:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Map of Oklahoma highlighting the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area.jpg

Image:Map of Oklahoma highlighting the Oklahoma City Metropolitan Area.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Native Boy (notify | contribs).

Low-quality JPEG replaced by Image:Oklahoma City Metro.svg on Commons.- —Scott5114 ↗ 06:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Holtek logo 1.jpg

Image:Holtek logo 1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Kevinglr (notify | contribs).

Corporate logo claimed to be licensed under the GFDL, but this would be highly unusual if not unheard of. The company's site contains a standard all-rights-reserved copyright notice with no indication that their logo is GFDL. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:SammoHung promophoto.jpg

Image:SammoHung promophoto.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gram123 (notify | contribs).

non-free promo photo removed from article, now orphaned. Gram123 10:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Time-Magazine_Yasser_Arafat.jpg

Image:Time-Magazine_Yasser_Arafat.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Al_Ameer_son (notify | contribs).

Non-free image of a magazine's cover used in an article that does not discuss the magazine not it's cover, and in an article about the magazine itself, where other images already do the job. Abu badali ^(talk) 13:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For use in Yasser Arafat article as magazine cover is discussed, being the West's first mainstream exposure to Arafat after the Battle of Karameh and the formation of Fatah. I have removed the image from the Time Magazine article as unneeded.--Knulclunk 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the magazine cover is not discussed. It's just briefly mentioned in a unsourced one-sentence passage, that doesn't needs an image to be understood. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - KeepYes the word Time magazine is written only in one sentence, but the particular edition of the magazine discusses the Battle of Karameh which has an entire passage in the article. It also gave the world their first look at the man and in triumph. Al Ameer son 16:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)Al Ameer son[reply]
    - Are you saying we need to use a non-free magazine cover just because the particular edition discusses an event (the Battle of Karameh) that has a section in the article? --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the argument is that the battle, along with the Time cover, were the "coming out" events for Arafat. The cover of Time was a pivotal point in his legacy as much as the victory. The cover of Time "legitimized" him as a leader and icon.--Knulclunk 13:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Keep! Researching Khomeini, I'm getting a whiff of a connection between himself and Arafat. One source makes a connection between Khomeini's first publication (an attempt to refute the views of a prominent & popular Iranian intellectual) and this intellectual's subsequent assassination, interestingly, at the hands of the "Fedayeen". This was in 1946. The Time Magazine cover, albeit in '68, depicts Arafat as it's leader and describes them as a regional force. The article ties Arafat's early support to that of regional stooges linked to the oil industry. This one paragraph will convince no one of anything. My opinion is that it's a very telling image and it's interpretation widely misunderstood.

Delete, I don't see anything here that isn't replaceable by free images and text. There is also still no fair-use rationale for the image as of this writing, and I don't see how a valid one could possibly be written. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Buendorf.jpg

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

Orphaned, absentee uploader; specifically, it's basically a CV and/or self-promotion. —Angr 15:02, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ford.circles.gif

Image:Ford.circles.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Michael Hardy (notify | contribs).

Orphaned and obsolete. Cannot form a thumbnail properly, has been replaced by Image:Ford circles.png —Angr 15:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall that I created this and then realized it had technical problems and replaced it with Image:Ford circles.png. Michael Hardy 16:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Enernoc Logo.JPG

Image:Enernoc Logo.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Dkhwang (notify | contribs).

It is very low resolution, not cropped to specifically contain the logo, and it has no liscensing or source. Jonjonbt 15:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image of a model modeling. Even assuminng that the model passes some notability criteria, this image seems to only show what the model looks like (there's no specific discussion about her work that could be aided by this illustration). Also, source info is unverifiable. Abu badali ^(talk) 15:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For purposes of this discussion we can assume the model in question is notable. The article about her explains that she was the "spokesmodel" for Estee Lauder at one time. It makes sense to include a picture of her modeling on behalf of Estee Lauder to illustrate this point, which is what the uploader claims this image shows, and I believe that a fair use justification could be made in this context-- it isn't just about "what she looks like" it is about how she was presented on behalf of Estee Lauder. I would further note that no new free images of a model at the height of her modeling career in the 1970's are going to be made. Even if she's still alive, she doesn't look the same anymore! But it would be nice if the uploader had cited which magazine the image came from. Crypticfirefly 05:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- There's no discussion about "how she was presented on behalf of Estee Lauder". The article is just a collection of unsourced trivia. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:02, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It says she was a spokesmodel for Estee Lauder, apparently her main claim to fame. (Image description: "The subject became renowned for her association with the Lauder company.") She is a MODEL. What she looks like is highly relevant to the article. I don't see how whether the article is sourced is relevant to whether the image is being fairly used here. Please look at Wikipedia:Non-free content. There is no free equivalent for this image. It is significant to the understanding of the article. You seem to think this is unacceptable as "An image of a living person that merely shows what s/he looks like." Since famous models are famous for what they look like, I question the specific applicablity of that policy as applied to fashion models. And not to put to fine a point on it, but it doesn't show what she looks like, it shows what she looked like when she was working as a model. Further, it is NOT "potentially replaceable with a freshly produced free photograph" because the picture shows what Ms. Casey looked like in the 1980's when she was working as a model, apparently the only thing she is famous for. As the policy states under #17, examples of unacceptable use, a non-free pictures of living people are easily taken as replacements, but only when such new pictures "would serve the same encyclopedic purpose as the non-free image." Over 20 years have passed since the picture was taken. Please explain how a picture of a supermodel (who is famous only for modeling) at the height of her carreer can be replaced by a new picture of her when she is no longer a model, taken 20 years later, would serve the same encyclopedic purpose of the original image. Crypticfirefly 16:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replaceable by a free image. There's nothing unique or iconic about this image that supports any commentary in the stub about the model. —Angr 19:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that your real issue here, as well as Abu badali's is that the article is unsourced. Even though I have no particular interest in this woman or the topic, I have added some references and information. I do agree that there might be more suitible non-free images of this woman, but I disagree that a picture of her is irrelevant to the article. Crypticfirefly 21:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the advertisement called "Great American Desert"? Because that ad is actually mentioned in the article, so most people would probably consider it nonreplaceable, and significant enough to meet WP:NFCC #8. If this isn't that ad, but some random photograph used to show what she looks like, or looked like at the height of her career, that's just not significant enough. —Angr 06:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know, as I am not the uploader of the image. My guess would be "no" because the copyright date on the image is 1982 and the Desert ad was in 1981. Agree that the Desert ad and/or the Helmut Newton French Vogue cover would be useful here. But can you explain why it is "not significant" to show her as she appeared while modeling for Estee Lauder, as discussed in the article? It is not a "random" image, but rather an image of that, specifically. Crypticfirefly 03:43, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replaceable nonfree image of a living person. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how this image is replaceable. Shaun Casey doesn't look like that anymore! And she didn't look like that in the first place without lighting, professional photography, and so forth. Crypticfirefly 21:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A free image need not be as good as the nonfree one it replaces, just adequate. In this case, text can easily convey the concept that she was a model, and a free image can serve as identification. The image is not one of iconic or historic status. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of her taken today would not identify her as she was a model, and therefore would not even be adequate. Crypticfirefly 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fabrikant.jpeg

Image:Fabrikant.jpeg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Formeruser-82 (notify | contribs).

Non-free image from a press agency showing a man being arrested, used to illustrate the information that he was arrested. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think that this is not a "fair use" of the image? There is a very clear rationale included on the image page. Crypticfirefly 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that this image is not necessary for the understanding of the text. --Abu badali ^(talk) 17:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-iconic photograph from a press agency; violates fair use criterion 2 as well as 8. —Angr 19:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see any indication that this photograph has reached iconic status, and the fact that he was arrested after the incident may be communicated by text. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Chabadnik_in_Kasket.jpg

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

tagged as PD, but description implies by-permission Abu badali ^(talk) 16:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The tag and note seem to say that the copyright holder has given permission for the image to be used by anyone for any purpose, thus allowing it to be used on Wikipedia. If I'm reading this right, then it's a free image. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It says "used here with permission". If the image was really released as free, at least a OTRS confirmation must be used. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:17June1953TankBerlin.jpg

Image:17June1953TankBerlin.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marc_Lacoste (notify | contribs).

Unnecessary non-free image showing a tank being used to beat a popular revolt , used to illustrate the information that tanks were used to beat this specific popular revolt. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This image appears to me to give encyclopedic information that words alone cannot convey, satisfying NFCC #8. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What would that information be? --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; not only does it fail NFCC#8, it isn't even clear what the original source is. The source given is just the website the uploader took it from, but that website certainly didn't exist when the image was taken. —Angr 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Captain_Bligh_mural_by_Olga_Lehmann.JPG

Image:Captain_Bligh_mural_by_Olga_Lehmann.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Pahuson (notify | contribs).

Non free artwork used in an article where it's not discussed Abu badali ^(talk) 16:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:17June1953StonesAgainstTanks.jpg

Image:17June1953StonesAgainstTanks.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Chris_73 (notify | contribs).

Non-free image showing protesters throwing stones at a tank is not necessary for the understanding of the topic. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Time_magazine_28-06-1954_Arbenz.jpg

Image:Time_magazine_28-06-1954_Arbenz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Clngre (notify | contribs).

Non-notable non-free magazine cover. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Arbenz.jpg

Image:Arbenz.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by 172 (notify | contribs).

tagged as gfdl, description says "public domain", source says nothing. Abu badali ^(talk) 16:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, Commons image showing. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Stanley_Kubrick_on_set_of_Paths_of_Glory.jpg

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

Non-free image of Kubrick working, unnecessary for the understanding of the article Abu badali ^(talk) 16:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Young_Stanley_Kubrick.jpg

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

Unnecessary non-free image of a young Kubrick (what he lookeed like at this age doens't seem crucial for the understanding of the article) Abu badali ^(talk) 16:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is unnecessary. It doesn't just show "what he looked like" but how he was dressed, how his mother fixed his hair, etc., even the way the picture is posed tells you something about his upbringing. Crypticfirefly 05:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way his mother fixed his hair isn't discussed in the article, because it isn't notable. This non-free image doesn't provide any encyclopedic information that words couldn't convey. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 15:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Parts_of_a_note.gif

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

Unuesd and obsolete OsamaK 17:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Fedor.jpg

Image:Fedor.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Moosh88 (notify | contribs).

Possible bad license and copyvio. [2] east.718 19:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who owns the liscense to this image? I doubt that it's the website you linked to.--Moosh88 20:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just the first place I found using GIS, it's a publicity photo that I've seen a bunch of times. Also, if you don't know the source of the image either, you shouldn't upload it, as per WP:IUP#Rules_of_thumb. east.718 at 00:09, August 15, 2007

Image:School photo.gif

Image:School photo.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Daseincog (notify | contribs).

Raplaceable fair use, disputed Wily D 19:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took this photo for the school's website back in 2001, and I'm trying to use it for its Wikipedia page too. I don't care how this image is used, there is no copyright, the school hasn't copyrighted it, and I would love it if someone knew how to tag this image properly would just do it for me so we don't have to keep on going through these deletion warnings! It's absolutely fair use!!! Daseincog 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you take it on your own and then donate it to the school? Or were you an employee of the school when you took the photo? Depending on the circumstances here, you may own the copyright to the image. howcheng {chat} 16:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Clearly replaceable, deleted. — Carl (CBM · talk) 18:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:FilmmakerDallasTanner.jpg

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

Non-notable subject, subject of article was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dallas Tanner). Only link to article is a notice on the uploader's user page about the image being nominated for speedy deletion (which was declined on the grounds that an orphaned non-notable image is not a CSD criteria). This image has no purpose on wikipedia Wingsandsword 19:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]