Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 August 6: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:41, 8 August 2010

< August 5	August 7 >

August 6

File:NZ Regions Modification.png

This unused map has an error, the scale of the islands is mismatched, the North Island is too large. The file is redundant to File:NZ Regions.svg also. XLerate (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:MDEC.PNG

Low quality/resolution and orphaned chemical structure, replaced in Ethylone. Leyo 13:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Microsoft.svg

Poorly made (blurred) SVG image; orphaned/replaced in Microsoft and other articles by a better version. Leyo 13:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Charon plutoface.png

I previously tagged this image for deletion as replaceable fair use. Admin Fastily deleted it on those grounds. 9 hours later, admin Kwamikagami restored it (see deletion log), claiming it was acceptable because no free equivalent is available. He went on further to state "There is no comparable image of Charon, and no way of creating one short of making shit up". He then went on to clarify his stance stating "Hammersoft appears to have no understanding of the issues involved, and there was no community discussion". Just to clarify; the tag {{rfu}} does not require there to be community discussion. No policies or guidelines were violated in not having a community discussion. If Kwami objects to this, he may wish to place the {{rfu}} tag for deletion. As is, it's long standing practice and covered by Wikipedia:CSD#F7. I believe the image should be deleted because:

WP:NFCC #1 does not ask us to retain non-free content until free is available. It asks whether free content could be created. The Plutonian moon Charon is still in existence, and there's no reason to believe it's going away any time soon.
Hubble has previously imaged Charon, and the raw data from that work is still publicly available. Any other scientist, or indeed even the scientist Marc W. Buie himself who made this resulting image, could create a free image from this data. Scientists have contributed work to Wikipedia before.
The New Horizons spacecraft will be making a flyby of Pluto in July of 2015. It is extremely likely it will also image Charon, Nix, and Hydra on this mission. Given that imagery from many other NASA space probes has been available under free license, it's highly unlikely that this imagery will not be so available. We have a number of imprisoned criminals who will be released whose non-free images were deleted because at a point in the future it's reasonable to presume a free alternative could be created. We know for a fact that the New Horizons probe will fly by Pluto in five years.
There are other observatories in operation or planned which can image Charon. Herschel Space Observatory and James Webb Space Telescope for example. Though both observatories are infrared platforms, there's no reason to claim that an optical presentation of an infrared image by these observatories would not serve the same encyclopedic purpose of this image.
We already have other images of Charon available under a free license that serve the same encyclopedic purpose. This image is a highly pixelated image giving no significant information to the lay person. The encyclopedic purpose here, of depiction, is also served by File:Pluto-picture.jpg and File:Pluto system 2006.jpg.
Those looking at the source page of this image ([1]) might think the statement on the bottom of the page means this image is free. It doesn't. This image was previously deleted from Commons as not free enough (see deletion discussion). It does not appear either from Commons or here that any attempt has been made to contact Dr. Buie to ask him to release this image under a free license.

In summary, Charon isn't disappearing into history, free data already exists, free imagery already exists, more free data and imagery is coming. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The are no-high resolution images of Charon available. Marc W. Buie is the only recognized author that has done any research rendering accurate albedo maps of Pluto or Charon. Marc Buie allows free use. -- Kheider (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
During the flyby delete Marc Buie's image and upload one from NASA. Simple. -- Kheider (talk) 14:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am in contact with Marc Buie on a regular basis, and he has no problem with his image being used on Wikipedia. Commons deleted it because I did not push Buie to release it as a "creative commons free license image". Though he may not want you to modify the image and sell copies on the streets of San Fransisco for $19.99. -- Kheider (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't intersperse your comments into mine. I've moved your comments to the end of mine. To respond, again we do not retain non-free content waiting for the day when free content is available. We retain it if it can't be made...ever. Whether or not they are available right now is irrelevant. The salient point is CAN one be made. The answer here is a clear and emphatic "yes". Marc Buie allows free us, but as the Commons deletion discussion noted, not free enough. There's no clearance for derivative works or for commercial use. Why don't you contact him using Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission as guide? If he doesn't want commercial use, then it must be used as non-free here. There's no wiggle room on that. Sorry. "Permission to use on Wikipedia" is completely irrelevant to us, and is in fact even a speedy deletion criteria. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought inserting my comments would make the conversation flow better. But whatever, you are a great Wiki-cop and can do whatever you want since YOU have obviously already made up your mind that you know everything and make all the rules. We are only claiming a fair use statement for a non-profit website and wish Marc Buie to hold full copyright. Pluto and Charon are frequently visited pages on Wikipedia and Marc Buie's super-computer rendered image is the only one that really shows how limited our understanding of these two bodies are. -- Kheider (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you like to delete images you can also look at File:Pluto.jpg since I replaced it with Marc Buie's latest image File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg See also Deletion requests/Image:Pluto.jpg -- Kheider (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no Wiki-cop, and I don't make up any rules any more so than any other editor contributing to pages containing and discussing Wikipedia guidelines and policy. I supported my assertions with links to the relevant policies. You are supporting your assertions with attacks on me. I suggest you try a different approach. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My links are every bit as good as yours. I will bow out of this and allow other users to chime in. -- Kheider (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to my post as "wiki-cop bs" (edit summary) does not constitute a link to relevant policy and/or guideline. A relevant link in regards to your attack on me is Wikipedia:No personal attacks. It would behoove you to read it. Your link to the Commons deletion debate on the Buie produced Pluto image only serves as a replicate of the link I made to the deletion discussion for the Buie produced Charon image on Commons. Both debates ended in delete for the images in question. They are not considered free for our purposes. We must use them under WP:NFCC policy here because no release under a free license has been made by Dr. Buie for these images. Permission to use here is not sufficient, and as I noted is in fact a reason to DELETE the image on sight. I invite you to create a credible assertion as to how we can not make a free license version of Charon when the data/imagery exists in public domain form to do so, or if you can create such a credible assertion why we can't, why we're supposed make a special exception to retain this content until New Horizons flies by in five years when WP:NFCC does not permit such. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as Marc Buie's File:Pluto.jpg is on en.wiki (and we NOW have a newer free license version) there certainly is no reason to exclude File:Charon plutoface.png which was created at the same time from the same mutual eclipses February 1985 - October 1990. Since Buie's older and more recent images were created with a super computer using data that is not readily available, the image (albedo map) of Charon CAN NOT be ACCURATELY replaced until New Horizons flybys in 2015. Anyone can make a sphere and claim it to be any poorly known Trans-Neptunian object. -- Kheider (talk) 19:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do not retain non-free content waiting for the day when we have free content available. The question is can free content be created to serve the same purpose, and the answer is a resounding yes. We know for a fact that New Horizons will be flying by, as you acknowledge. We also know for a fact that we already have free content to serve the illustration purpose of this image. This highly pixelated image does nothing to add understanding to the article that the free images do not add. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an overly legalistic interpretation of policy lacking any common sense. Any image could be created; by that logic, there should be no free image use on WP whatsoever. And yes, it presumably will be able to be replaced, in about five years, but that again is devoid of common sense, as it would apply to all fair-use images which may some day be replaceable. That is clearly not the intent of the policy. One of the rationals of that policy is, "To facilitate the judicious use of non-free content to support the development of a high-quality encyclopedia." Not "To remove all non-free content with the argument that one could imagine a universe in which it were free." These images have passed deletion proceedings before, and Commons has different criteria than we do. The relevant question is, could one of us create a substitute image? and the answer is, no. Therefore free image use is appropriate: it is "judicious use". — kwami (talk) 17:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not overly legalistic and lacking in common sense. It's simple. Can it be replaced with a free license version? The answer is yes. We already have free licensed alternatives. It's common sense that Charon exists, and isn't disappearing. It's common sense that New Horizons is going to fly by in five years. We do allow non-free imagery when free imagery can not be made. Such is the case for logos of organizations, dead people, and the like. When we can create free imagery (whether it exists now or not), we don't accept non-free imagery. Sorry you find that lacking in common sense, but that argument doesn't undermine WP:NFCC in any respect. Further, Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy, an edict from the Foundation itself, states "An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". It doesn't say we allow it until there is free imagery, it says we don't allow it when we can reasonably expect there to be. We know for a fact that New Horizons is going to fly by, and it's reasonable to conclude (based on a slew of other NASA probe missions) that the imagery will be available under a free license. You claim this image has passed deletion discussions before. That claim was made before, and I went looking but couldn't find such discussions. Cite please? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We already have free licensed alternatives." Then please direct us to one and we'll use it instead. You're right, that would be simple--why haven't you yet done this?
Your "common sense" is irrelevant: It doesn't enable us to replace the image.
"An EDP may not allow material where we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose". The key term here is "reasonable", a word which appears to be unfamiliar here.
You also don't appear to understand what "is" means. The policy is written in the present tense.

Can't find cite for image, I just remember going through this before. But regardless, the policy is pretty clear, and this passes. — kwami (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re #1: I already have in my point #5 above. Re #2: Do you or do you not acknowledge that New Horizons will fly by in 5 years? Do you or do you not acknowledge that, like so many other NASA probes, imagery from it will most likely be available under a free license? Re #3: If you acknowledge what I said in Re #2, there's no debate. As to #4, I'm going to ask you, politely, to back off of your assertions of _me_. Comment on content, not the contributor. See Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As to not finding the cite, I can't find where it passed a prior deletion discussion before either. Had it been placed for deletion, it would have been tagged as such on the image description page. Looking at the image's history, no such tagging ever occurred. For our purposes it therefore didn't. This is the first time it's been brought for deletion. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re #1: No, you have not. You have provided no link to an equivalent image. The image in question shows details of Charon's surface. AFAIK, it's the only one which does. A point of light is not equivalent to a map of a world. That is common sense. It would be like replacing a portrait shot of a dead person with a distant shot of an unidentifiable blur of the back of their head in a crowd, just because the latter is free.

'#2 and #4: That wasn't a personal attack. Your comments show that you still don't understand that the policy is written in the present tense. Your WP:Crystal ball assertions of what will be reasonably possible are entirely irrelevant to policy re. what is reasonably possible. Here I need to comment on the contributor, because it's the contributor's lack of understanding that's the problem.

'#3: despite your attempts to make the policy go away, it's still there.

The debate wasn't over this file, but rather a composite of this image of Charon with Pluto. Same content, though. — kwami (talk) 19:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should New Horizons fail, this will remain the best REAL image (map) of Charon for quite some time. -- Kheider (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: your best argument appears to be that I lack common sense. I think we're done. @Kheider, the failure or success of New Horizons is speculative. The intention, and every effort of NASA is bent upon is, the success of the mission. So far, the mission is performing as planned. In fact, the LORRI system has already imaged (File:112806 pluto animation.gif) Pluto. Not surprisingly, the image is available under a free license. There's also another one from it that is available under a free license at File:Jupiter little red spot NH.png. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, my best argument is the policy.

"the failure or success of NH is speculative"! Have you read WP:crystal ball? It doesn't say that predictions of the future are an acceptable rational because alternate predictions are speculative! Common sense appears to have gone out the window. — kwami (talk) 19:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm eliminating the "see also" to the WT:NFC discussion, as centralized discussion on this image should happen here. As to your continued assertions of my lack of common sense, your insults serve only to undermine your own arguments. Please continue them. I enjoy insults, as you can see from my userpage. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It should be noted that this image lacks a fair use rationale for use here, making it non-compliant with WP:NFCC #10c. I'm not going to tag it as such, but will if the image survives this FfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would one of you kind souls, especially Kheider, please contact Dr. Buie using the instructions found at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission? All this debate is meaningless if Dr. Buie would be so kind as to release his work under a free license. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently reluctant to contact Buie simply because of typical Wiki politics. I only care to see a FAIR USE disclaimer for the image. Besides this scientific (but ugly and pixelated) image should be very obsolete in 4 years -- Kheider (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but, include the caption "Image(s) courtesy of Marc W. Buie/Lowell Observatory" at each use (in situ) per the licensing terms. –xeno^talk 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about contacting the author for release? --Hammersoft (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems he already released it as long as we credit it as requested. But there would be no harm contacting them for a cc-by-sa release as well. –xeno^talk 20:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Commons already (see deletion discussion) for failure to have a specific release for commercial and derivative purposes. I.e., it's not free enough. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why it's here. Commons has stricter criteria than we do. — kwami (talk) 20:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Commons' criteria for what is and what is not a free image is the same as here. There's no difference. If an image fails their criteria of what is a free image, it would have to be used here under terms of fair use. Any image here which is (appropriately) licensed such that it does not have to be used under WP:NFCC would be acceptable at Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Disruptive nomination of obvious fair use image. The fair use infobox says pretty clearly: Where no free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information. Can a free equivalent be created reasonably to give the same information? In theory, yes -in practice, it requires building your own space telescope. So, fair use it is. --Cyclopia ^talk 16:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an obvious case where fair use applies. No free alternative to this image is available or could possibly be made at this point in time, thus this is all we are left with. When New Horizons reaches the Pluto system, then a free version may be available, but it isn't there yet. Our non-free policy does not exclude topics which might be available at some point in the future, only those that are available for a free alternative now. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:13, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pluto.jpg

No longer used and replaced with File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg -- Kheider (talk) 23:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment does it show the same hemisphere? 76.66.193.119 (talk) 05:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

commons:Category:Pluto has 3 images (Pluto-map-hs*.jpg) that cover the different hemispheres. But keep in mind that Pluto has become significantly redder, while its illuminated northern hemisphere is getting brighter. So images taken at different times likely will not match. -- Kheider (talk) 05:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As Kheider points out, various faces of Pluto are available on Commons, thus IP's argument is irrelevant. The point is, free images adequately showing the surface of Pluto is available, making this non-free image obsolete for our purposes here. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg has been nominated for deletion at commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg . 76.66.193.119 (talk) 06:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Football kits with copyrighted aspect

All the following football kits have a copyrighted aspect, and make a noticable attempt to copy some logo (sponsor/manufacturer/club) that is copyrighted. Following discussion at WP:FOOTY it was noted that there are many other football kits that are redundant and useless. However, to ease the FfD process these are not listed here. All these are kits that can be deleted due to CV. Thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All uploaded by Nastictarragona (notify | contribs | uploads)

File:Kit body norwichome.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body norwich.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body bradfordcity10 away.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body timor-leste 2010 home.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body timor-leste 2010 away.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body b68 2010.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body b68 2010 away.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body faroe 2010.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body sant julia.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit right arm vanuatu.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body ohi2010home.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body sri10a.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body sri10a.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body hibshome.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body hibs.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body dingli.PNG (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body yeovil.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body yeovilaway.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body yeovil10a.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body syrA.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body jordania.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body jordaniaway.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body bpa.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body bpaway.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body reading.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body sol10h.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body sol10a.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body zambiaaway.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body zambia.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body capv.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body fuj.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body fuj2.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body nec.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body equ.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body capv.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body equ2.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body pobla.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body pobla2.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body nastic1011.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body twente.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body UTR.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body UTR2.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body kyiv2010.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body kyiv2010b.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body evertonfc1011.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body brom1011.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body brom1011b.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

File:Kit body eve2010b.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

Speedy delete all as copyvio. I've compiled a list at the discussion Rambo linked above to ensure that we can minimise the disruption. --W F C-- 11:41, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. Big Dom 12:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --W F C-- 14:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:300vic.jpeg

Unused and I doubt it can be used. MGA73 (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe very definition of an image of a garage band? 7 years later, just as non-notable now [2] as they were then. Zap. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ssr.jpg

Orphaned, superseded by File:SolidStateRelay-Diagram.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Virtuality Continuum.jpg

Orphaned, superseded by File:Milgram Continuum.png Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:GreaterSheffieldNumbered.JPG

Orphaned, superseded by File:Sheffield City Region.svg Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:20, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valentinrip2.JPG

I seriously doubt the uploader took this photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:29, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Valentinrip.JPG

I seriously doubt the uploader took this photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Manjunath in 2006.PNG

orphaned self-photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Darrel1.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elaragirl.jpg

orphaned self-photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Blurred dog 2009.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No chance of that pic ever being useful. Big Dom 12:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 :*[[:commons:Category:Pluto]] has 3 images (Pluto-map-hs*.jpg) that cover the different hemispheres. But keep in mind that [http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2010/06/full/ Pluto has become significantly redder, while its illuminated northern hemisphere is getting brighter.] So images taken at different times likely will not match. -- [[User:Kheider|Kheider]] ([[User talk:Kheider|talk]]) 05:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. As Kheider points out, various faces of Pluto are available on Commons, thus IP's argument is irrelevant. The point is, free images adequately showing the surface of Pluto is available, making this non-free image obsolete for our purposes here. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 23:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
+*'''Comment''' [[:File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg]] has been nominated for deletion at [[commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pluto-map-hs-2010-06-c180.jpg]] . [[Special:Contributions/76.66.193.119|76.66.193.119]] ([[User talk:76.66.193.119|talk]]) 06:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 ====Football kits with copyrighted aspect====