Wikipedia:Files for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Wikipedia:Images for deletion)
Jump to: navigation, search

Files for deletion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

Examples of what you may request here


  • Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
  • Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
  • Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
  • Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
  • Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
  • NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.

What not to list here[edit]

  1. For speedy deletion candidates, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
  2. Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
    1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated
    2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information
    3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but isn't used in any articles
    4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but could be replaced by a free file
    5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright tag but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed
    6. {{subst:frn}} if a file has no non-free use rationale
    If the source or licensing information of an image marked as being freely licensed is disputed, please list the file on Possibly unfree files.
  3. Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
    1. {{isd|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
    2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
  4. For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}
  5. Suspected copyright violations shouldn't be listed here.
    1. If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
    2. For other suspected copyright infringements or licensing issues, use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files.
  6. Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
  7. Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
    1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
    2. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2; use {{db-nofile}}.
    3. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
    4. Any other deletion of a description page with no local file should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
  8. If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
  9. If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for deletion

To list a file:

1
Edit the file page.

Add {{ffd|log=2015 May 28}} to the file page.

2
Create its FfD subsection.

Follow this edit link and list the file using {{subst:ffd2|File_name.ext|Uploader= |Reason= }} ~~~~

Leave the subject heading blank.

If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons.

For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use {{subst:ffd2a|File_name.ext|Uploader= }}

3
Give due notice.

Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using {{subst:fdw|File_name.ext}}

  • Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media
  • For multiple images by the same user, use {{subst:fdw-multi|First_file.ext|Second_file.ext|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~ (can handle up to 26)

If the image is in use, also consider adding {{ifdc|File_name.ext|log=2015 May 28}} to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted. Some common reasons are:

  • Obsolete - The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name (often abbreviated OB)
  • Orphan - The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}} . (often abbreviated OR, not to be confused with original research which generally doesn't apply to images)
  • Unencyclopedic - The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos). (often abbreviated UE)
  • Low quality - The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns. (often abbreviated LQ)
  • Copyright violation - The file might be used in violation of copyright. (often abbreviated CV)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to delete a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

Since abbreviated deletion reasons will not be familiar to most Wikipedians, especially newbies, please consider using full words. A few extra keystrokes now can save paragraphs of explanation to a panicked uploader wondering what's wrong with their image.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Contents

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions[edit]

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions[edit]

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

  • (None at this time)

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Recent nominations[edit]

May 22[edit]

File:Mariah Carey Butterfly image.jpg[edit]

File:Mariah Carey Butterfly image.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Petergriffin9901 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 no contextual significance as well as easily replaceable by words (Carey peering through a dirty window). Does not require a non-free image —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 09:07, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Mariah-carey-the-roof.jpg[edit]

File:Mariah-carey-the-roof.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Petergriffin9901 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8 no contextual significance as well as easily replaceable by words. Does not require a non-free image —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 09:12, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:BudPoile.jpg[edit]

File:BudPoile.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Graeme08 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Obsolete. There are two free images of this person on Commons. Also, images of Hockey Hall of Fame plaques have been deleted in the past because "Canadian freedom of panorama applies to 3D works only, not 2D", see this and this. Parkfly20 (talk) 13:41, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Brother bear 2 005.JPG[edit]

File:Brother bear 2 005.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jason Palpatine (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The screenshot is used in the plot section of Brother Bear 2 against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

From past experience, I KNOW how this will turn out, so anything I say will mean nothing to any of you so why should I say anything at all? Already more than HALF of the images I had uploaded to Wikipedia have been deleted -- including the very first image I ever contributed. Given past history, and what I already KNOW is going to come about, I see there to be no reason for discussion or delay. I was the uploader of this file, and I say GO AHEAD AND DELETE IT RIGHT NOW! -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 00:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Confused-tpvgames.png This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

File:Brother Bear 09.jpg[edit]

File:Brother Bear 09.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jason Palpatine (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The screenshot is used in the plot section of Brother Bear against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 22:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

From past experience, I KNOW how this will turn out, so anything I say will mean nothing to any of you so why should I say anything at all? Already more than HALF of the images I had uploaded to Wikipedia have been deleted -- including the very first image I ever contributed. Given past history, and what I already KNOW is going to come about, I see there to be no reason for discussion or delay. I was the uploader of this file, and I say GO AHEAD AND DELETE IT RIGHT NOW! -- Jason Palpatine (talk) 00:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC) Confused-tpvgames.png This User fails to understand Wikipedia's Systematized Logistical Projection of its Balanced Policy Contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)

May 23[edit]

May 24[edit]

File:The Co-operative Pharmacy.png[edit]

File:The Co-operative Pharmacy.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cloudbound (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Unused logo. Superceded in use now that company depicted has been renamed. Cloudbound (talk) 20:16, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Aldicarb.jpeg[edit]

File:Aldicarb.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by FractalRipple (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is made obsolete by Aldicarb-3D-balls.png. This file is linked to by eight pages, while this one is orphaned. Additionally, the other file provides a clearer molecular representation of Aldicarb than this image. Hampton11235 (talk) 21:26, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

File:250px-US-CT-Coventry.png[edit]

File:250px-US-CT-Coventry.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Beepackman (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is made obsolete by File:Coventry_CT_lg.PNG, which is already in wide use and is more informative. Hampton11235 (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

May 25[edit]

File:38th parallel structures.png[edit]

File:38th parallel structures.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kbh3rd (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is made obsolete by the more informative and higher quality image, File:38th_parallel_structures_loc.svg Hampton11235 (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:AAAAAA Bullet.png[edit]

File:AAAAAA Bullet.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Ævar_Arnfjörð_Bjarmason (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is orphaned and has no foreseeable use. This image also seems to have been deleted in 2011, so I am not sure why it is still here. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_July_3#File:AAAAAA_Bullet.png Hampton11235 (talk) 01:34, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:AachenGospelsFourEvangelistsPage.jpg[edit]

File:AachenGospelsFourEvangelistsPage.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Dsmdgold (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This images is of poor quality and is made obsolete by File:Karolingischer_Buchmaler_um_820_001.jpg Hampton11235 (talk) 01:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:AACXiuh.jpg[edit]

File:AACXiuh.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Grae Bear (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is orphaned and made obsolete by the already in-use image File:AACXiuh.1.jpg Hampton11235 (talk) 02:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete It says 'illustration created by Richard Graeber' but it doesn't say who Richard Graeber is, so we can't tell if he has given permission to using the file under the indicated licence. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:AACTonal.jpg[edit]

File:AACTonal.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Grae Bear (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is orphaned and made obsolete by File:AACTonal.1.jpg. Hampton11235 (talk) 02:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Aaevp-audacity noise levels.jpg[edit]

File:Aaevp-audacity noise levels.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Martinphi (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is orphaned and has no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Hampton11235 (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Aaron Harris.jpg[edit]

File:Aaron Harris.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Amitsbagga (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is orphaned with little foreseeable encyclopedic use. Hampton11235 (talk) 03:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:AaronStunkardp.jpg[edit]

File:AaronStunkardp.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Doctor Hexagon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is orphaned and has no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Hampton11235 (talk) 03:48, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Abducens nerve.png[edit]

File:Abducens nerve.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Btarski (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is made obsolete by the already in-use image File:Abducens_nerve1.png. Hampton11235 (talk) 04:12, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete Seems to have been taken from an unidentified book and we have no evidence that the copyright holder to the book has agreed to license the picture. --Stefan2 (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Original Doge meme.jpg[edit]

File:Original Doge meme.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Britannic124 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Violation of WP:NFCC#3b: this file is 500 × 371 pixels but the purpose of the file is to use a thumbnail in an article which only uses 300 × 223 pixels. These extra pixels should be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 09:03, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Abbasid gen.gif[edit]

File:Abbasid gen.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Bless sins (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is orphaned and made obsolete by the more detailed image, File:Abbasids.png. Hampton11235 (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Abbey comparison2.jpg[edit]

File:Abbey comparison2.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Neddyseagoon (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is low quality and has no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Hampton11235 (talk) 14:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Abby Sterry in primary school.jpg[edit]

File:Abby Sterry in primary school.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Hanawasakura (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is orphaned and has no foreseeable encyclopedic use. Hampton11235 (talk) 14:58, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Abandoned gas station arizona.JPG[edit]

File:Abandoned gas station arizona.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Cascadia (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is orphaned and has little foreseeable encyclopedic use. Hampton11235 (talk) 15:02, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kelly Monaco.jpg[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: Delete; deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 06:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Kelly Monaco.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Imaginator88 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Uploader's rationale includes the argument that it is "very difficult" to get a picture of the subject. "Very difficult" is not the same as 'cannot be created' as NFCC#1 basically says. It's very difficult to capture many people on film due to their desire for the spotlight, that doesn't make it impossible.

The uploader goes on to say that they feel that they have the right to use the photo. I don't think that their feelings would matter to the photographer's lawyers. Dismas|(talk) 19:31, 25 May 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Aberdeen station sign b.jpg[edit]

File:Aberdeen station sign b.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jackofhearts101 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is orphaned and made obsolete by the already in-use image File:Aberdeen_Station_sign_c.jpg. Hampton11235 (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:1958 Chevrolet Yeoman 2-Door.jpg[edit]

File:1958 Chevrolet Yeoman 2-Door.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Russ Davis (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Similar (but slightly different) crop, superior resolution at File:1958 Chevrolet Yeoman 2Door (cropped).jpg. Magog the Ogre (t c) 22:29, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Abetomb02.jpg[edit]

File:Abetomb02.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by SenorAnderson (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

This image is blurred, orphaned, and made obsolete by the already in-use image File:Lincoln%27s_Tomb,_Interior.JPG. Hampton11235 (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Boels Dolmans Cycling team jersey 2015.jpg[edit]

File:Boels Dolmans Cycling team jersey 2015.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sander.v.Ginkel (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#1 or at least WP:FREER: the clothes do not seem to meet the threshold of originality, but the artist refuses to license the drawing of the clothes. Stefan2 (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Knightmasonsgrandcouncilchamber.jpg[edit]

File:Knightmasonsgrandcouncilchamber.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by PeRshGo (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8: the room is not critically discussed, nor is the photo of the room. Stefan2 (talk) 22:39, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Source Family LMTL Photo.jpg[edit]

File:Source Family LMTL Photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Stefan2 (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:The Source Restaurant, Los Angeles circa 1970.jpg[edit]

File:The Source Restaurant, Los Angeles circa 1970.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Potentially also WP:NFCC#1, but I can't tell if the building still exists or not. Stefan2 (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

File:56,000 K blackbody color.gif[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: Delete; deleted as F7 by Diannaa (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 06:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:56,000 K blackbody color.gif (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by I am. furhan. (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Useless image. Can be replaced with markup. Eeekster (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

@Eeekster No, I need this image to illustrate the actual color of the star, and not markup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by I am. furhan. (talkcontribs) 2015-05-26T00:00:06

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.

May 26[edit]

File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg[edit]

File:Stellar Spectral Types by NOAO.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Jcpag2012 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

An image used under a claim of fair use depicting spectra of different classification of stars and sciency stuff that I don't understand. It was tagged as replaceable fair use by Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs) and disputed by Ruslik0 (talk · contribs), who said "I do not think that 16 spectra can be easily replaced. All published spectra are copyrighted." This seems sufficiently complicated that it should have an FFD, not a unilateral decision, so that people who understand such things can explain it.

There are at least two issues to consider: (1) are the spectra themselves subject to copyright? This seems odd, but for a while (until the Supreme Court struck it down 9-0 in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc.), you could patent naturally occurring gene sequences, so courts rule odd things sometimes. (2) If the spectra themselves are not subject to copyright, does this image pass the threshold of creativity? If I create a simple representation of a mathematical or scientific reality where there was no creative thought process involved, then there is no copyright.

So the four possibilities are (a) the spectra are copyrighted, any representation of them would be a derivative work of that copyrighted work, but we should be able to make a WP:FREER version; (b) the spectra are copyrighted, but this representation is a non-creative representation of the underlying reality and so there is no need for a WP:FREER version; (c) the spectra are not copyrighted and we can make a free content version; (d) the spectra are not copyrighted and this representation is PD-ineligible. B (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

  • My argument was nothing to do whether the spectra were PD-ineligible, but due to the claim of fair use. There are PD spectra available from before 1923 in the US. Also photos taken in Australia prior to 1955 are public domain, and US certainly recognises these if taken before 1946. Commons is not deleting those prior to 1955 any more either. There would also be crown copyright expired images available for stellar spectra. (1964 and before). These may all take a bit of work to invert and colour and fatten up to a nice looking bar, but the point is that with a bit of work this cold be assembled from public domain sources.
  • On the topic of copyright of spectra, someone else could also make a new spectrum of the same source, and it could look very very similar to the previously taken one. Only differing in noise, linear shift or minor spectral line changes to to star-spots or variability, eclipsing etc. It would be very hard for the earlier spectroscopist who had a similar image to cl,aim copyright over the new image. But I suppose the point is whether the practice is for people to ask for permission to use spectra (answer seems to be yes) so there is an assumption that they are subject to copyright. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:31, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
Color gradient illustrating a sorites paradox.png
    • @Graeme Bartlett:Thank you for replying and this is where I don't know enough about the science to make a judgment call and so I wanted to bring it here. Consider this scenario: there is a mathematical formula that defines the gradient to the right. We would all agree that neither the list of color values nor the gradient generated by those values is subject to copyright because it is not creative. If I understand what you are saying correctly, the image we are considering is a different scenario because there was skill involved, correct? The standard for creativity is that if two people set out to do the same thing, would their works be indistinguishable from each other. And I think from what you are saying, the answer is no, their works would not be indistinguishable, and so this image is copyrightable. So then as a follow-up question, what spectra are needed to show here in order for the reader to understand the topic? Is it sufficient to show old spectra or could you not understand this without seeing the more modern, still subject to copyright, spectra? --B (talk) 01:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I don't know the legalities and I don't know the genetics science well, but I think there's substantial work involved in just identifying a gene sequence, and that effort is what makes the discovery itself copyrightable in genetics. Anyone with a cheap telescope and a spectrograph can go out and (re)discover the spectrum of any of these stars, so the spectra themselves aren't reasonably subject to copyright. And even if they were, the basic properties of the spectra of each type of star have been known since the 19th century, so the copyright on the spectrum itself would have long since expired. But I think that almost certainly any particular representation of the spectrum, and probably any particular measurement of the spectrum of a particular star (irrespective of the representation), would be subject to copyright.
  • Old spectra would be fine for demonstrating the basic properties of each stellar classification. However, the detailed descriptions in Stellar classification#Spectral types are probably only reasonably illustrated by a fairly modern image. eg The sentence "O stars have dominant lines of absorption and sometimes emission for He II lines, prominent ionized (Si IV, O III, N III, and C III) and neutral helium lines, strengthening from O5 to O9, and prominent hydrogen Balmer lines, although not as strong as in later types." is talking about many of the faint bumps in the spectra evident in the image we're discussing; an older replacement image would not show the detail necessary to visualize what the text is talking about. (Of course, the non-free use rationale should explain this need. The current rationale, "OBAFGKM", is not a reasonable purpose of use.)
  • (Putting on my practicing professional astronomer hat.) This is, in practice, not something that astronomers think about much; once a set of data is published, it's normally considered available for anyone to use with a citation, although it's quite rare for astronomers to bother with a proper license. The major journals have two different sets of licenses: some journals have authors retain the copyright, while others sign the copyright over to the society that publishes the journal. —Alex (Ashill | talk | contribs) 01:28, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Perhaps we can find some professional astronomers that do own copyright that can release their images for use. Perhaps there are also amateurs that have the equipment to make spectra. But may be the can only spectrograph the brighter kinds of stars. Also if NASA has published spectra then they will likely be public domain. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Copied from WT:AST That depends on your threshold of 'replaceable'. In principle a user could do so, provided that they a) have access to a large (for amateurs) telescope, probably 24-inch or above, b) have a medium-resolution spectrograph which can be attached to it (beyond most amateurs), c) can conceivably observe stars of all those spectral types for sufficient time and d) have the necessary data analysis and graphical skills to convert the raw data into a useful diagram. I think that's pushing things - it's certainly beyond the ability of most amateur astronomy groups. I suppose a university-level observatory might be able to do it as a teaching exercise. Modest Genius talk 10:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
    • To add to my earlier comments: I find it unlikely that suitable data exist in the public domain for someone to generate the figure without new observations. They would need to be uniformly obtained by the same instrument, of a suitable resolution and signal-to-noise, cover the right range of spectral types and be in a useful machine-readable format. Even if the data are available, you would still need an expert (probably a professional astronomer) to do it. Certainly if the file is kept it needs a better rationale. Modest Genius talk 10:44, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Relisted to get a better consensus on the status of this image. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Again. TLSuda (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TLSuda (talk) 11:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Chijioke with Minister of Finance.jpg[edit]

File:Chijioke with Minister of Finance.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Idris10 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Replaceable low quality image...all key content is out-of-focus. Have File:ChijiokeU in 2011.jpg as a substantially higher quality image of the key person; the combination here with another blurred person doesn't seem to have added value. We also have:

which is cropped down to focus on the key individuals if that aspect has value. But I'm actually including it here as FFD nom for the same lack-of-quality/lack-of-value as the original. DMacks (talk) 19:52, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

File:SkinTrade.Lundgren.Jaa.fight-scene.png[edit]

File:SkinTrade.Lundgren.Jaa.fight-scene.png (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Metal121 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The screenshot is used in the plot section of Skin Trade (film) against WP:FILMNFI in that the plot section describes the film and is not critical commentary of the image itself. There is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per WP:FILMNFI, plot summaries are not critical commentary and do not need to be illustrated. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

File:SkinTrade.ProductionSet.jpg[edit]

File:SkinTrade.ProductionSet.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Metal121 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The screenshot is used in the production section of Skin Trade (film), where there is no critical commentary of the image itself in the article, it does nothing to increase the reader's understanding of the film and its exclusion is not detrimental to the understanding of the film, thereby failing WP:NFCC#8. If the image is to show the two actors in the film, that is already accomplished by the film poster in the infobox thereby failing WP:NFCC#3. Aspects (talk) 23:48, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

May 27[edit]

File:TheNighttimePriceisRight.jpg[edit]

File:TheNighttimePriceisRight.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Kyle C Haight (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Image replaced by File:Tpir 40 logo.png. Unnecessary to have multiple versions of the show's logo within articles. AldezD (talk) 13:26, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

File:James "Oklahoma Jack" Clark mugshot.jpg[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: Delete; deleted as G7 by TLSuda (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 04:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:James "Oklahoma Jack" Clark mugshot.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by TLSuda (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

The person depicted in the image does not appear to be James Clark, as per here where the image is linked to someone else. So the fair use rationale is invalid, and we do not have an article about the other person where we could re-target the usage criteria. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 18:40, 27 May 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

May 28[edit]

File:Drogba photo.jpg[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: Delete; deleted as F9 by Stifle (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT 10:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Drogba photo.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by James ala-baster (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Copyright violation - this is from the Daily Mail without any permission to use. Egghead06 (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

  • Speedy delete per CSD:F9 obvious copyvio. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2015 (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 media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Donnie Yen Young.jpg[edit]

File:Donnie Yen Young.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by China's Tiger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Also lacks evidence of publication more than 50 years ago, as required by the {{PD-China}} tag. If published more than 50 years ago, then one of the teenagers on the photo was less than two years old when the photograph was first published, due to the birth year of one of the teenagers. Stefan2 (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)


The above image was over 3 decades ago, portraying Donnie Yen, his mother and his sister, it was taken for a company, which has now folded. Hence there is no actual copyright for the image. The photo depicts a younger Donnie Yen hence a picture from that time seems to be the best depiction of him growing up. As an official member of the Singapore Donnie Yen Fan Club, I have spoken to DY personally and he has allowed me to use this image for this purpose.

Thank you for your kind understanding. China's Tiger (talk) 10:19, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Donnie Fitness.jpeg[edit]

File:Donnie Fitness.jpeg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by China's Tiger (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Also lacks evidence of publication more than 50 years ago, as required by the {{PD-China}} tag. If published more than 50 years ago, then the adult on the photo was less than two years old when the photograph was first published, due to the birth year of one of the adult. Stefan2 (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for perhaps the wrong tag for being 50 years ago, what I meant to say was that the company what took the picture was established more than 50 years ago, but right now it does not hold any copyright anymore as the company has folded, hence it is released to the public domain. Perhaps you can advise me on what tag(s) should be used?

As mentioned, the above image was taken 5 years ago while Donnie Yen was doing modelling for a company, which has now folded. Hence there is no actual copyright for the image. The photo depicts a younger Donnie Yen, about the time where he was at his physical prime, hence a picture from that time seems to be the best depiction under his fitness and health routine. As an official member of the Singapore Donnie Yen Fan Club, I have spoken to DY personally and he has allowed me to use this image for this purpose.

Thank you for your kind understanding.

China's Tiger (talk) 10:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Bandpicture.jpg[edit]

File:Bandpicture.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Sectionq (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Low-quality picture of a band. Nemo music was deleted. No foreseeable use. Stefan2 (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Asad Khan.JPG[edit]

File:Asad Khan.JPG (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by JKhade (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

Copyvio from source. damiens.rf 13:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

File:Funeral of María Inés Ortiz.jpg[edit]

File:Funeral of María Inés Ortiz.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs) – uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs | uploads | upload log).

No evidence this picture "is a work of a U.S. Army employee, taken or made as part of that person's official duties". The image shows some army people, but it doesn't follows that the photographer was from the army. The source says "all rigths reserved". damiens.rf 13:48, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Footer[edit]

Today is May 28 2015. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 May 28 -- (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===May 28===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for deletion page (the one you're on now) work.