Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2008 May 8: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
→Image:Virgin Killer.jpg: the result was delete |
|||
Line 72: | Line 72: | ||
====[[:Image:Virgin Killer.jpg]]==== |
====[[:Image:Virgin Killer.jpg]]==== |
||
<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color:#f3f9ff; margin:1em 0 0 0; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #aaa;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section. '' |
|||
The result of the debate was never lively to bear any relation to the fascinating, but totally irrelevant, moral panic seen below. I include the heroic defenders of free speech. It's only a bloody album cover on a wiki people. Bathos surely. Anyway, I asked myself "Does this image meet my understanding of [[WP:NFCC]]?" I'm fairly sure it meets most people's standards, but I take 8 quite seriously. No free passes for album and books covers. This is not a significant (Blind Faith, Abbey Road, Never Mind the Bollocks) album cover. The article lacks meaningful discussion of the cover. "Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding." It doesn't, it won't. [[User:Angusmclellan|Angus McLellan]] [[User talk:Angusmclellan|(Talk)]] 21:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
<!--Template:Ifd top--> |
|||
[[Category:Archived image and media for deletion discussions]] |
|||
{{notavote}} |
{{notavote}} |
||
This may be child porn and the FBI is reviewing the image for possible violation of US law. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63722] --[[Special:Contributions/204.78.9.12|204.78.9.12]] ([[User talk:204.78.9.12|talk]]) 12:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
This may be child porn and the FBI is reviewing the image for possible violation of US law. [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63722] --[[Special:Contributions/204.78.9.12|204.78.9.12]] ([[User talk:204.78.9.12|talk]]) 12:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC) |
||
Line 298: | Line 307: | ||
*'''Strong Keep''' - Pornography or not, it is tasteless. However, that tastelessness is a part of this artists history. Deleting this image would be like only selling censored versions of albums. Same concept, right-wing panic. {{unsigned|76.123.238.77}} |
*'''Strong Keep''' - Pornography or not, it is tasteless. However, that tastelessness is a part of this artists history. Deleting this image would be like only selling censored versions of albums. Same concept, right-wing panic. {{unsigned|76.123.238.77}} |
||
** These last two votes seem surprisingly similar in tone and appeared on top of each other. Both IPs have just this single contrib. Just a heads-up. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<font color="#000">Equazcion</font>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)''</small> |
** These last two votes seem surprisingly similar in tone and appeared on top of each other. Both IPs have just this single contrib. Just a heads-up. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap">[[User:Equazcion|<font color="#000">Equazcion</font>]] [[User talk:equazcion|•''✗'']]/[[Special:Contributions/Equazcion|''C'' •]] ''21:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)''</small> |
||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this section. <!--Template:Ifd bottom--></div> |
|||
====[[:Image:Jack Thwaites.jpg]]==== |
====[[:Image:Jack Thwaites.jpg]]==== |
Revision as of 21:15, 9 May 2008
May 8
- watermarked,OR,NE SkierRMH (talk) 00:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Ashleyjaross (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic self-pic BigrTex 01:42, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution), likely Unencyclopedic BigrTex 02:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sideeffect138 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution), likely Unencyclopedic self-pic BigrTex 02:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sundevilesq (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Per item 7 of Wikipedia:Non-free_content#Images_2, a football card should not be used to illustrate an article about a football player unless the card is notable and discussed in the article BigrTex 02:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's also not a poster, so the license tag is wrong. ~ BigrTex 01:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The purpose is to identify and illustrate the subject of the article to the reader. It is a low quality scan of a 45-year-old trading card and and of such a size and quality to be of no commercial use and not impact the copyright-holder's ability to use the original work for profit. The subject of the article is deceased and no free-use image is currently available or foreseen to be available. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I concur wholeheartedly with DoubleBlue, this is a low resolution scan of a 45-year old football card of a deceased CFL HOF player that is NOT replaceable. PLEASE do NOT delete. Sundevilesq (talk) 06:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Have you tried contacting the team and/or the estate to request that they release an image for us to use? ~ BigrTex 01:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Strong keep - Relevant to the article at hand, and if this was not used, a copyrighted image of him would probably be claimed under fair use anyway. asenine say what? 16:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- In that case, we'd have a copyrighted image of the subject of the article, not an image of a copyrighted artwork that pictures the subject of the article. If you have a publicity photo of Bernie Faloney, it would be fair use for us to use it to illustrate the article about Bernie Faloney. The picture of the football card is fair use to illustrate an article about the football card, not the football player. ~ BigrTex 01:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Mrmysterious (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, looks like a screenshot which would likely be a Copyright violation BigrTex 02:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned, Absent uploader (only remaining contribution), Unencyclopedic (uploaded for Jason david heer) BigrTex 02:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- L-shapedroom (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, no context to determine encyclopedic value BigrTex 02:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I_am_Paranoid (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, Unencyclopedic, possible Copyright violation BigrTex 02:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Orphaned. Was meant to be used in an template cannot accommodate it due to Fair Use policy. Clueless (talk) 05:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Sreerajarasa (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Orphaned, Absent uploader, possible Copyright violation --Chech Explorer (talk) 10:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Peter_Eisenburger (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Decorative image that fails WP:NFCC#8. Rettetast (talk) 12:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Keep. Has been discussed and decided before. The discussion seems to have vanished from the archives, and the templates seem to have changed. I only find this. However, the photo can't be "replaced by free images in other contexts" and since, as I pointed out before, it is a historic photo, it can't be taken again by anybody either. I don't understand why it is listed again.--Peter Eisenburger (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Firefoxman (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Wrong license, see the end of the template. 'This tag is not appropriate for images and media found on websites; it should be used for screenshots of websites only.' asenine say what? 16:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fix license tag and speedy keep. Did this really need an XfD? xenocidic (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment. The licencing tag was fixed. (Disclosure: I uploaded the PNG version of what was originally a JPEG) ffm 16:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- License fixed by author. asenine say what? 20:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- I still don't understand why you couldn't have just fixed the license yourself, rather than bringing this to XfD. xenocidic (talk) 20:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Comment/Possible Delete nod I think the license upload is wrong. The license clearly states This is a screenshot of a copyrighted web page, which the image clearly doesn't show. Rather, it shows only a portion of a website. Ergo, the upload license needs to be fixed further.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- The fair-use licenses now cover both the image of the video and the partial screenshot of the website. there's no need to distinguish between a screenshot of an entire website and a portion of it. its a screenshot either way. xenocidic (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's still a portion of a screenshot of a webpage. I don't see Portion in the fair use tag. So, either a new file has to be uploaded to comply with the tag parameters, or just the music clip tag should be used instead. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Common sense. A screenshot, by definition, will always be some portion of a website. It would be impossible to have a screenshot of the entire page of the Rick Roll video, it would be way too long. xenocidic (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- It's still a portion of a screenshot of a webpage. I don't see Portion in the fair use tag. So, either a new file has to be uploaded to comply with the tag parameters, or just the music clip tag should be used instead. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 23:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- See the end of the boilerplate tag. 'This tag is not appropriate for images and media found on websites; it should be used for screenshots of websites only.' This clearly contains a still from the original video, so it is not merely a website that you must claim under fair use. asenine say what? 16:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Fix license tag (
Done) and speedy keep. Did this really need an XfD? xenocidic (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Poor nomination rationale. Qst (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. Appears to be fixed now. Cirt (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- non-free (and supposedly color-altered, but more on that later) image that does not meet the requirements of non-free use and has a contradiction in sourcing. The principle of non-free use means that the picture fulfills a few needs: "To illustrate the subject in question" - no, because what you see is the end of a barrel of a gun, more so than the subject, and there's a perfectly good fair-use booking photo further up the page to illustrate the subject. "Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information" - it's already pretty clear from the article that he was a neo-Nazi with a weapons interest, so I'm not sure this "adequately gives information," and again, there's a booking photo above. Furthermore, and (perhaps more importantly) the links given to support sourcing either don't work or don't return the source photo. Also, this blog claims the photo was not "uploaded and color-reversed by a user at Queerty" as claimed on the image page, but rather "taken directly from Robida's Myspace," but the article on Southern Poverty Law Center says the negative was on the Myspace. So, we don't actually know with any certainty where this came from. My personal opinion (which doesn't really factor in) is that this photo places the subject in such a light that the viewer is either negatively horrified or positively impressed, and I don't think we should be either trying to evoke a reader reaction like that with sensationalistic media, or to be at all glorifying his actions, however indirectly. MSJapan (talk) 17:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete, the source is dubious, and I agree with your rationale for this image not meeting our FU policy. -- lucasbfr talk 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Superseded by better Commons image (Image:Velos D16.jpg). Sandstein (talk) 18:19, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- ConstantineChernabog (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- uncredited fan art, not an actual production image. Cna't responsibly be used anywhere on Wikipedia. ThuranX (talk) 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- ConstantineChernabog (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- from Deviantart without permission or credit, unusable for articles. ThuranX (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Speedy Delete. Per l9. Rgoodermote 18:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Uploader doesn't appear to own copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Untrusted uploader already caught lying about ownership of another imaged uploaded at the same time. See Image:Lori_Loughlin.jpg for details.--NrDg 22:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright violation refer [8] linked from page [9] MilborneOne (talk) 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Uploader doesn't appear to own copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 21:27, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Untrusted uploader already caught lying about ownership of another imaged uploaded at the same time. See Image:Lori_Loughlin.jpg for details.--NrDg 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright violation refer [10] refer from [11] (image has had copyright statement cut of bottom!) - MilborneOne (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Uploader doesn't appear to own copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Delete: Untrusted uploader already caught lying about ownership of another imaged uploaded at the same time. See Image:Lori_Loughlin.jpg for details.--NrDg 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Copyright vlation refer [ http://a69.g.akamai.net/n/69/10688/v1/img5.allocine.fr/acmedia/rsz/434/x/x/x/medias/nmedia/18/35/88/22/18740997.jpg] from page [12] - MilborneOne (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
- Francisco81a (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Uploader doesn't appear to own copyright. PhilKnight (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- DeKreeft27 (notify | contribs). - uploaded by
- Img with a non free use rationale and a liscense that contradicts the rationale. Undeath (talk) 22:08, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
- Keep The uploader replaced the self license with non-free logo tag compatible with the rationale. —teb728 t c 21:09, 9 May 2008 (UTC)