Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 6

April 6[edit]

File:Rally Sign on McPherson Square Floor.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 - fundamentally as the image has a rationale for an article that it is not in, and no rationale for the article it is in. - Peripitus (Talk) 02:27, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derivatve work of non-free advertisement. Would fail fair use because it is not the subject of commentary in the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:07, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about this picture: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rally_Sign_on_McPherson_Square_Wall.JPG It is the same design, but a banner instead of whatever that is that they put on the floor. Why isn't it listed for deletion. Also, my picture has been removed more than once from the rally to restore sanity page, while that one has stayed. What exactly is the issue with my picture? Why doesn't it fall into the same category as the other? Darkhelmet322 (Talk) 01:59, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That one was properly tagged as a derivative work (i.e. free tag for the photo, non-free for the subject), however, it fails WP:NFCC#8 as lacking critical commentary in the article. It is also now up for deletion, though via a different process. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, fine. Then on this WP:NFCC#8; are you saying that the picture doesn't aid in "readers' understanding of the topic". I would say having visual representation is always helpful. (Talk) 11:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Free visual representation, yes. For non-free images (which include derivative works), the criteria are strict, and the picture does not aid in illustrating a specific concept discussed in the article, nor is the ad itself the subject of sourced commentary in the article. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - The concept discussed in the article is the response to the rally and the coverage of the rally. Specifically Media Matters for America. Darkhelmet322 (Talk) 17:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also, where is the discussion for the other image? I'd love to defend it as well. (Talk) 11:35, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is no discussion for that image. It is orphaned, and therefore is subject to speedy deletion after seven days under WP:CSD#F5. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:29, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is orphaned because you deleted it from the article it was in. Darkhelmet322 (Talk) 17:45, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Correct. And with sound policy-based reasoning, I might add. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        So it doesn't have a discussion because you orphaned it? I just want to be clear about that. You orphaned it, and now there is no discussion on its deletion status. Darkhelmet322 (Talk) 18:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Tatischev Monument, Tolyatti - Long View.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: speedy close Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm listing this here to see if I can get some help figuring this out: this is an image, the photographer released the rights (under a CC license) but the subject is property of the Russian government, does anyone know if it legit to use this image or not? Here is a machine translation of the template used on the image on the Russian Wikipedia:

This work contains the image of a work of architecture, fine art or photographic, which is installed in a public place in Russia and is copyrighted. According to the fourth part of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation № 230-FZ of December 18, 2006:

Article 1276 (Free use of works permanently located in a place open to public access):

Allowed without the consent of the author or copyright holder and without payment of remuneration to play, a message broadcast or cable photographic works, architectural works or works of fine art permanently located in a place open to public access, except when an image works in this way is the main object of this play, the messages in the broadcast or cable, or if it is used for commercial purposes.

Use this work for commercial purposes may infringe copyright creator presentation of the work. If copyrighted works is the main object of this file, then

File must be used in the space of articles, but
File should not be used as the main object of any article or page.
File can not be moved to Commons .

Also, see Wikipedia: Freedom of panorama.

If there's a equivilant template or any advice whatsoever about how to handle Russian subjects like this, I can't find it. Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC) Herostratus (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How old is the statue? ^walk victor falk^talk 06:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, it appears to be quite recent, built in the 1990s, by a sculptor who's still alive (Alexander Rukavishnikov, apparently born 1950), so it's copyrighted. According to commons:Commons:FOP#Russia, we cannot assume freedom of panorama in such cases. A fair-use case could of course be made, if it was shown that an image of the statue is crucial for some article. The file is currently not used in any article, but the uploader indicates it's intended for an article specially dedicated to the statue. In that case, keep and tag as {{non-free 3D art}}, with an additional note mentioning the free licensing of the photographic work. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:38, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you so much Fut.Perf.! This is the kind of information I was looking for (I had also posted a copy of this at Commons but haven't received any reply yet). I should have been able to find it myself in Category:Non-free Wikipedia file copyright tags but I didn't know to look there... I really appreciate your pointing this out. Yes I do intend to create an article specifically on the statue (actually translate the Russian article), I have been holding off until I ascertain the status of the images. Herostratus (talk) 08:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Glad to be of help. Since you are yourself the nominator here and nobody has so far argued for deletion, and the fair use case is likely to be straightforward once the article exists, I guess we can close this discussion now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:If Love Were All.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A book cover should not be used to illustrate an article on the subject of the book. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:37, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NFCC Policy points 1 and 8. The use here isn't even up to the disallowed WP:NFC#UUI point #9. DMacks (talk) 06:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've {{sofixit}}ed a much better picture, from Latin wikipedia of all place: Image:Frances Stevenson 1916.jpg ^walk victor falk^talk 06:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Phoenixchris.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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV screenshot, used in article about TV character. Article already has another non-free image; this one is superfluous. Not embedded in analytical commentary, not necessary for understanding the plot summary it accompanies. Fails NFCC8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Benzothiazole.svg[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned an SVG bug. Leyo 07:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Bad image is bad. DMacks (talk) 16:03, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worth keeping. Ronhjones ^(Talk) 19:17, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Girl with scarf blushing.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: Wrong forum. The file is on Commons. Please nominate it for deletion there if you still feel it should be deleted. AnomieBOT ⚡ 09:04, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation, The picture being used in the article shows no signs of where the file was taken also due to the fact that the picture is belonging to me and in no way was I contacted for free public use of it. The picture has also further been violated on the fact the image has be irrevocably used on other wiki sites under the same situation and lack of permission. TheAllKnowingNobody (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:John Coltrane 1960.jpg[edit]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2011 May 21.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 because a free photo is available, even if it does look like a mugshot. If one likes, one can digitally remove the background and the numbers, but we do indeed have a free photo, which disqualifies any non-free photo that exists solely to show what the subject looked like. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Free alternative available. Damiens.rf 18:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Perfectly fine fair use; illustrating a famous jazz saxophonist with a conscript navy mugshot is a very good example of a free picture that is insufficient to do justice to the subject. ^walk victor falk^talk 07:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: we are dealing with a period from which PD photographs could easily exist, since US items published without copyright formalities, or whose rights were not renewed, would often have dropped out of copyright. Has any effort been made to locate such images? Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:CoatofarmsUW.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: kept, as apparently it is official. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the University of Windsor logo. 137.207.108.135 (talk) 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The logo, while not the clearest in terms of resolution, is an official logo of UWindsor [1]. While the "branding" of the university has changed, the CoA does not simply disappear. In accordance to the Canadian Heraldic Authority, the logo was re-registered in 2007, further showing it is an official logo. [2] --Cahk (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page for further evidence that the image is an official university logo.--Cahk (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:2-ethoxyethanol-Line-Structure.svg[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 SchuminWeb (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused near-dup of commons:File:2-Ethoxyethanol2.svg DMacks (talk) 20:27, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Image shows SVG bug. --Leyo 08:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.