Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2014 February 17

< February 16	February 18 >

February 17

File:ING.svg

There is a free image, File:ING logo.png, on Commons. I'm not sure whether the logo information constitutes a "different work" in the meaning of CC-BY-SA 2.0 (see Commons:COM:VPC#File:Trabalhos.jpg), and there is furthermore no source for the SVG code or permission from the SVG coder, which may be required per Adobe Systems, Inc. v. Southern Software, Inc.. Therefore, we should assume that this image is unfree and replaceable by the one on Commons. See WP:NFCC#1. Stefan2 (talk) 00:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Beyoncé album.jpg

Redundant file, as it is available in higher resolution at Commons. Fails WP:F8 because it is in a different file format. Adabow (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:MichaelJacksonMoonwalk.ogg

Invalid FURs--in the article on Moonwalk, it can be replaced by a free alternative. In the article on Billie Jean, it is not discussed critically and there is already a piece of non-free media for the music video which shows some of Jackson's dance and style in promoting the song. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:11, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's the free alternative? Wadewitz (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Without a free alternative, I don't see the logic is removing this from Moonwalk, since this demonstrates the signature move of the article. Wadewitz (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Originally nominated here:Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2013 November 18

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Acather96 (click here to contact me) 13:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The purpose of the file is apparently to display what a specific dance technique looks like. The file can therefore be replaced by any other film showing the same dance technique, for example a freely licensed film. See WP:NFCC#1. --Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as replaceable with a freely-licensed or public-domain alternative, unless a strong argument can be produced in favour of retention in the case of Billie Jean. The Moonwalk (dance) article establishes that while Jackson is most commonly associated with the move, he did not originate it. Therefore, in the case of the second article, a video clip of any amateur dance routine displaying the move would serve the same encyclopaedic purpose. Super Mario Man 05:56, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Eva Hesse - Repetition Nineteen III (0.1 MP reduction).jpg

Lacks licence from the photographer. Images like this should have two copyright tags: one for the artwork and one for the photograph. Stefan2 (talk) 13:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No issue of substance. Nothing on the file page that says there should be two copyright tags. This is a Fair Use file and it's not in dispute either that the work is in the artist's copyright nor that the photographer has rights. In this case the photographer is credited as the museum staff at the Museum of Modern Art, New York.

Can you give me an example please of where there are two copyright "tags" (indeed what do you mean by that?). I've seen quite a few of these Fair Use rationales for contemporary art works and none of them have anything of the sort. For example Francis Bacon's File:Study for a Self Portrait -Triptych, 1985-86.jpg which has been on Wikipedia since 2009 and which was tagged as {{non-free 2d art}} as recently as June 2013 by User:Sfan00 IMG (another of your multiple accounts by any chance?)

Will you please make it explicitly clear why you don't challenge that file but do challenge this file of mine.

Of course you and I have recently crossed swords over my Da Silva detail. This is yet another woman artist an image of whose work you are now challenging. My project on Wikipedia is to improve its coverage of women artists and of contemporary art in general. But my enthusiasm for this project is being eroded by your interventions. I frankly thinks you're badgering me because I'm a newbie and because of my project. No one likes being bossed about like this, and in your case I feel stalked. I find your intrusions creepy and I am considering retiring from editing at Wikipedia because if it.

I ask you at least to ensure that any further intervention is based on a solid issue and not some passing invention of yours. There is indeed work to be done policing Commons and Fair Use. I've marked a few files for deletion at Commons myself (for example Lucien Smith's Murmur of the Heart, a serious infringement of copyright) but there's nothing to see here from me. Really. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 15:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Study for a Self Portrait -Triptych, 1985-86.jpg is not a photograph of a 3D artwork, so I'm not sure why you are bringing up that image. All photographs of 3D artworks need permission from the photographer, and we currently don't have that for this photograph. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still a keep. Photographer's rights not an issue for Fair Use. File:Beuys-Piano.jpg is an example of a 3D artwork that's been on Wikipedia since 2008 and which doesn't have a photographer's license. There are numerous examples of similar files as you well know. The question of photographers having rights for 3D artworks is relevant for PD claims and for Commons, but not for Fair Use uploads which are necessarily predicated on the assumption that the work is copyrighted, whether vested in the artist or photographer irrelevant. The only issue to address here is replaceability, and I indicated in my file details that I had searched for free alternatives and had found no suitable images. I repeat there is nothing on the file pages to indicate that a license is needed for the photographer's rights. If you had indicated in your original post (but of course that would have been "being helpful", which I don't really think you do) that your issue was photographer's rights for 3D artworks, I would have set you right. As for the da Silva that was to alert your badgering me. You do do that. You (or an associate) have been bugging me (and there were seven others like it at my start at Facing the Modern: The Portrait in Vienna 1900) from the moment I set up my account. Stop stalking me. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 17:40, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still an unambiguous delete Pictures like this should always have two copyright tags, normally indicated using {{photo of art}}. The photographer's contribution fails WP:NFCC#1 as someone else could take a picture of the same artwork. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:36, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still simply not so. I made a good faith substantial time and effort attempt to address your issues here, precisely that one about someone else taking a picture of the artwork yu've just mentioned, in providing you a free photographer's image for non-commercial use and within seconds you had tagged it thus Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2014_February_17#File:Eva_Hesse_-_Repetition_Nineteen_III_.280.1MP_cc-by-nc-sa-2.0.29.jpg. As I explain in my response there, I'm no longer interested in stepping into the same lift with you Stefan because I'm pretty sure now it doesn't go all the way up to the top. I really don't know who or what I'm dealing with here, but I do know I'm done finished with you Stefan. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 00:48, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part of Commons:COM:ART#Photograph of an old sculpture found on the Internet, or in a book is it that you don't understand? Furthermore, a non-commercial licence is in no way a free licence. See for example mailarchive:wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what part of it didn't you understand here when it comes to the image of a Chilkat blanket uploaded by this user? You assumed it was a sculpture because this user normally uploads works of art. But the user is a also a noted expert in folk-art textiles and was devastated when you marked it for deletion weeks after it was uploaded, plainly a spiteful response to issues that had arisen between you both. User has retired from editing, freaked out by being stalked and harassed by you like this. Fantes 007 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Whatever the technical issues involved here, User:Stefan2's interventions were vexatious, non-constructive and aggressive. Fantes 007 (talk) 21:40, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, replaceable fair use. Stifle (talk) 14:59, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Lizabeth Scott's star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame.jpg

Invalid PD reason. Stefan2 (talk) 13:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tungchow Mutiny corpse head on table.jpg

Replaceable by published images. Chinese images of this incident which were published before 1946 are in the public domain, see {{PD-China}} and {{PD-1996}}. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not published until recently, hence likely still non-free. According to the source (ultimately [1]), this also appears to have been from a different incident altogether, something that happened near Shanghai, not in a suburb of Beijing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:49, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Tungchow Mutiny, women with intestines gorged out.jpg

Replaceable by published images. Chinese images of this incident which were published before 1946 are in the public domain, see {{PD-China}} and {{PD-1996}}. Stefan2 (talk) 13:59, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, may be a falsification anyway. Not found in the source cited by uploader, and other websites display it as allegedly from a totally different event, the Nanking massacre (e.g. [2].) In the absence of a reliable source saying where this is really from, this is unuseable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://mshks1318.iza.ne.jp/blog/entry/1849213/

http://blog.goo.ne.jp/mannizawa/m/201307

http://genzou704.blog107.fc2.com/blog-entry-240.html

http://blog.goo.ne.jp/inoribito_001/e/c86e150be47dc49de366168a257e8722

http://www.logsoku.com/r/poverty/1347880569/

http://takao-sato.seesaa.net/archives/201204-1.html

http://hinoe-410.seesaa.net/archives/20110422-1.html

http://sakuramochi-jp.blogspot.com/2012/05/new-jersey-towns-monument-to-korean-sex.html

All of these sources say it's from the Tungchow Mutiny. It's from the Tungchow Mutiny. Banzaiblitz (talk) 23:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- Not a single one of the above is a reliable source. They are cheap political propaganda blogs, some of them apparently verging on anti-Chinese hate sites. (Not to say that most of the sites that I've seen attributing it to Nanjing are any better, but that's neither here nor there.) Bring us a reputable academic source written by a professional historian, telling us who took that picture, where and when, and how it was preserved and published. Nothing less than that will do. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Le Guess Who?

File:Poster Le Guess Who 2007.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Le guess who 2010 poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:Le guess who poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

File:2008 le guess who poster.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Unreasonably many posters, see WP:NFCC#3a. Only one should be enough. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Enugu Rangers.png

Fails WP:NFCC#8: former logo without critical discussion. Stefan2 (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Drunk in Love.png

This is {{PD-text}}, but at Talk:Drunk in Love#Cover art some users dispute whether this is the real cover. If it isn't the real cover, then it is out of scope for Wikipedia and should be deleted. Stefan2 (talk) 16:03, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:KingSheharyarMirza Press Relese.jpg

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 Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not a logo, not protected by British Crown Copyright and not suitable in the infobox. Fails WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#10b. Stefan2 (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2014 (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:Jeffrey Teejay.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Jeffrey Teejay) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeffreyparks.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (no page Jeffrey Parks and uploader has no other contributions -- deleted or otherwise) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:JeffStaflund.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Jeff Staflund) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:JeffSwaimPhoto.jpg

orphaned userphoto Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeffvogel.jpg

Orphaned, released under NON-COMMERCIAL ONLY license per source page Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeevan kumar from hyderabad.JPG

orphaned userphoto (user's only contribution, in 2008) Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:55, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff child.jpg

no source, doubtful that this yearbook-type photo would be public domain Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff Harr.jpg

orphaned userphoto Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff Hilimire.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Hilimire) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:02, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jeff montage.jpg

extremely dubious own work (collage of ~40 photos, many of them professional promo photos) Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Clubfashion.jpg

dubious own work -- see user's other uploads Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Diisobutylamine 3D.png

Unused, difficult to use (gradient background), and nonstandard representation (skeletal structures only omit H on C, not on N) DMacks (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Line structure for diisobutylamine.png

Unused, nonstandard representation (skeletal structures only omit H on C, not on N). Have File:Diisobutylamine line structure.png that follows standard. DMacks (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dog and pony show drew carey show 1997.jpg

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 28bytes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 06:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails WP:NFCC#8. Not helping the reader at all, they can easily visualize men. Beerest 2 Talk page 20:16, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This image is intended for readers oblivious about this episode. Are you saying that this image is easily summarized without the image? And that it is "replaceable" by free text? --George Ho (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is very easy replaced by text. We can say "naked men but the nudity is covered by microphones" and its the same thing. Oh and BTW we also dont think "people dont know the episode" is reason to keep it. Beerest 2 Talk page 20:42, 18 February 2014 (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:Magnesium oxalate line structure.png

Unused, low-quality graphically (resolution and margins) and chemically (might suggest Mg is specifically on one of the two O). Have File:Magnesium_oxalate.svg that is more correct chemically and is up to current CHEM MOS. DMacks (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jessecollins.jpg

Orphaned, unencyclopedic -- originally used in WILI (AM) but apparently he no longer works there and is not independently notable - http://www.linkedin.com/pub/jesse-collins/5/41a/452 Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jessereno.jpg

Orphaned, no source, not a photo (as stated), not clear if this adaptation of the photo is public domain, anyways we do have a photo at Jesse L. Reno so not particularly useful now Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jesseschell.jpg

sourced to university website (but not any particular page), no indication of any free licensing on university page Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:JesseVentura.JPG

Orphaned, low quality, cspan's licensing does not appear to be compatible with wikipedia's requirements http://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing/ (This does not fall under the one usable part: "Video coverage of the debates originating from the chambers of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate is in the public domain and as such, may be used without restriction or attribution.") Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jessica Higgins LFG.jpg

Orphaned, Unencyclopedic (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Higgins) plus if we were going to keep it would probably need OTRS authorization given artwork in photo Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:38, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jesus meets the women of Jerusalem (Holy Week Processions in Marikina City, 2007).jpg

orphaned, photo of presumably copyrighted figurines/statues, no freedom of panorama in the philippines Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:45, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jesus enters Jerusalem (2) (Holy Week Processions in Marikina City, 2007).jpg

orphaned, photo of presumably copyrighted figurines/statues, no freedom of panorama in the philippines Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Mary, Mother of James (Holy Week Processions in Marikina City, 2007).jpg

orphaned, photo of presumably copyrighted figurines/statues, no freedom of panorama in the philippines Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Mark the Evangelist (Holy Week Processions in Marikina City, 2007).jpg

orphaned, photo of presumably copyrighted figurines/statues, no freedom of panorama in the philippines, some of uploader's photos credited to ronnie reyes while others are credited to myron mariano Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jesus meets his mother for Holy Wednesday (Holy Week Processions in Marikina City, 2007).jpg

orphaned, photo of presumably copyrighted figurines/statues, no freedom of panorama in the philippines, some of uploader's photos credited to ronnie reyes while others are credited to myron mariano Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Saint Susanna (2) (Holy Week Processions in Marikina City, 2007).jpg

orphaned, photo of presumably copyrighted figurines/statues, no freedom of panorama in the philippines, some of uploader's photos credited to ronnie reyes while others are credited to myron mariano Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]