Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 28: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:14, 4 April 2011

March 28

File:U.S.S. Lexington.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: Moved to Commons under the same name. Reh man 11:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused, subject obscured by row of cars in front. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons license is compatible. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 07:54, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Commons, agree with IP. Reh man 14:24, 29 March 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:Harry Coover.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 Athaenara (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Guy just Died, NFR is invalid since a reasonable search could have ealiy found the White House PD Image I am uploading shortly. The Resident Anthropologist (Talk / contribs) 03:06, 28 March 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:30 Rock season 1 episode 5.png

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 ⚡ 03:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free TV episode screenshot. Apparently random scene, not the object of analytical commentary, doesn't help to understand the article in any tangible way. Purely decorative infobox use. Fails NFCC#8. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:05, 28 March 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:Nakayama-ritsuko-12th-ball.jpg

Non-free screenshot of a bowling player rolling a ball. While the FUR argues this is a particularly noteworthy moment, the image itself reveals no additional concrete information about that moment than the text itself does – it just looks like a generic picture of a bowling player in a pose like any other. Therefore fails NFCC#8 – omission wouldn't detract from the information value of the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

take a closer look of the photo - the bottom right corner. It shows the score - 11 strikes, with two strikes in the 10th frame, and she's rolling the 12th ball that would result in a strike. It's not just a generic picture. Maybe generic for someone who doesn't know a thing about bowling. Groink (talk) 08:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The score doesn't need visual illustration to be understood either. It can easily be described in text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:40, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The score is only half of the significance of the imagery. The other half is the fact that the game was bowled on television - a visual experience. This was the very first 300 game bowled by a female on television. Important sporting events have occurred without any photos to show for it. When a photo becomes available that visualizes an event that happened over 40 years ago, you should actually embrace it, rather than say that the imagery can be explained in words. Remember Muhammad Ali's hit against Joe Foreman in Manilla? The photo alone explains the context of the event. Same with this photo. Groink (talk) 09:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is simply not the kind of information that needs imagery to be conveyed. Thus, the use of non-free material can not be justified. --Damiens.rf 19:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a random picture of some chick throwing a ball, it is an historic event, i.e. the first woman to score a perfect 300 ever. This just as historic as a picture of Bob Beamon jumping 8.90 metres would be. ^walk victor falk^talk 04:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When will people finally understand that in NFCC#8 discussions it is entirely irrelevant how important the event shown in the picture was? The only question that counts is: how indispensable is the image in order to understand the event? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly speaking no picture is ever indispensable to understand the event. This is a could opportunity to remind editors to write articles (and picture captions in particular) in such a way that people with handicaps such as blindness may benefit from wikipedia. The questions to pose are a) is it of an historical event? and b) does it convey information that is difficult or impossible to convey in words? a) yes (first perfect 300 from a woman) b) in athletic events it is difficult or impossible to describe things such as technique, poise, stance, which are much better relayed by a picture. ^walk victor falk^talk 17:28, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her technique, poise or stance is irrelevant to the issue, because it is not an object of discussion in the article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:08, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nakayama's main claim to fame is being the first woman ever to bowl a 300 on TV, so a screenshot of the TV program where she achieved it is obviously relevant and unrepeatable. To flip the claim on its head, I cannot think of any other image that would better sum the article, and hence it obviously adds to the understanding of the topic. Jpatokal (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your "hence" is a blatant non sequitur. Just because you couldn't imagine an image more useful doesn't change the fact that this one is not useful. Like everybody else above, you have still failed to explain what concrete, factual, sourced information this image contributes. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:05, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly of historic importance to the world of bowling. SteveBaker (talk) 11:31, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Dsdadomp.JPG

Unnecessary non-free image. It's a photograph of a notable man at an important event of his life and his country's history, nevertheless, seeing the image is not necessary for the understanding of the event it depicts. The article can do without it. Damiens.rf 18:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:2011-03-12 1800 NHK Sōgō channel news program screen shot.jpg

Free image File:Hydrogen explosion Fukushima Unit 1 cg visualization.png has made image obsolete. Currently not used in any articles. 293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 20:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

delete Yep, user did the work to make a free version, so case closed. I'd be lying if I said I didn't have some suspicion that he didn't make the computer graphic, but it looks like a legit upload. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does the computer graphic simulation/drawing have the required authenticity to be encyclopedic? Should it have the proviso of "artist's impression" for every usage? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 21:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe authenticity is the goal, as we are for educational use only. Wikipedia is not a historian, and the fact that the image was cropped and labeled shows that the goal was to illustrate something, and that illustration can be done with a free alternative. Labeling the "artist's rendition" is a matter of integrity, but it's clearly marked on the image. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I think adequate attribution also needs to be added to the boilerplate of the free image. --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Authenticity is necessary because we don't allow WP:Original research. Does the computer rendering have sufficient replication of the real appearance to qualify as a representation of the actual state of affairs (authenticity) or is it merely an inspired interpretation (artist's impression) ? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 03:33, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think you are asking the right questions. Yes, it does have sufficient authenticity IMO. The artist was representing the exact subject matter to the best of his/her abilities, provided that no other 'spin' can be identified, WP:OR has no chance. Now, where do we draw the line? Should a stick figure sketch on paper I make be enough to replace (and remove from servers due to copyright) the fair use images of the same subject? While this is a valid question, I don't find it applicable here because the computer image is of rather high quality IMO. And the question of where to attribute "artist rendition" isn't fully answered yet. Is the image caption sufficient, or is the image description page sufficient, or do you wish to require a note produced in the image? I think the last option is inconsistent with Wikimedia Commons style guidelines. Specifications should be contained in the captions, which I think is the correct place for this. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:10, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Poorly render computer drawing is not an encyclopedic replacement. Image cannot be retaken due to radiation exclusion zone. Rmhermen (talk) 15:57, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One can argue that the screenshot images are of poor quality themselves. Plus, Wikipedia bylaws do state that if a comparable free image can be obtained and used, then it should be used whenever possible. for example, CGI of plane incidents and/or accidents have been made and are accepted, or pictures of similar planes in the fleet involved in an accident/incident are substituted when the real stuff can't be found a/or located, for comparison.--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 22:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously not replaceable as it is forbidden to come closer than 30 kilometres to the object depicted. ^walk victor falk^talk 04:27, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep For a historic event, a copyrighted image is just fine.--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)--RaptorHunter (talk) 20:17, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per comment above. Jessy _(talk) ^(contribs) • 20:58, April 2, 2011 (UTC)
Keep Irreplaceable image of historic event. Perfectly reasonable fair use claim. Deletion would set a bad precedent. mgiganteus1 (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually the US Navy has been busy taking all kind of pictures of the reactor. These should all be public domain. For instance here is a bunch taken from a UAV [1]. We should be able to replace this picture with a much better free one.--RaptorHunter (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Commnet the photos you linked to are all provided by a Japanese photograph service which uses UAVs to make photos, not the US Navy, according to the "cryptome.org" website. If the USNavy has also been taking photos, have they been released, or are they classified? 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- ditto, I cant say how the owner feels about the release of these images linked, but they are plainly equally copyright.Sandpiper (talk)
Keep: CG visualizations can sometimes be better than the real thing - but it's clear that in this case it is a poor representation. Since perfectly good real-world photos are available (albeit under fair use rules only), the benefits of having the real thing outweigh the fair-use disadvantages. SteveBaker (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will simply observe that anyone who believes a drawing of a unique event which attracted the attention of the whole world is an acceptable alternative to an actual photograph, however poor, has missed the whole point of the invention of the camera. My own reservation would be as to the best choice of image, but whichever is chosen will have this same copyright issue and should remain. The article in question needs some more copyright images added. Therer were several unique events to document. Sandpiper (talk) 07:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Historic context justifies the use of actual fair-use image, not a hand-drawn substitute. Johntex\^talk 03:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mediamatters.png

Decorative screenshot, fails WP:NFCC #8. The article barely even mentions the site itself - the screenshot is not being used for critical commentary, nor is it necessary to identify them. The logo would suffice. B (talk) 22:12, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the uploader's purpose is to show how the site looks like as a media outlet, in the fashion of newspapers (e.g. The Sydney Herald, The Sun, USA Today). Perhaps this should be clarified in the fair use notice. ^walk victor falk^talk 08:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I want to avoid criticizing someone's interpretation of a current guideline, I think some editors are taking NFCC#8's definition far, far too literally. In the next coming days, I'll start developing an argument regarding NFCC#8's abuse at the guideline's own page. In the case of this very graphic, if you're going to allow an article about a web site to exist, it is important to at least show what the web site looks like. I believe having just one graphic visually illustrating a web site is within the spirit of NFCC. I think all articles deserve ONE non-free image, regardless of its purpose or further definition. With the current NFCC#8, one can easily remove, for example a photo of the handshake between Presidents Carter and Sadat, as by definition it doesn't help further define the event - it's just two guys shaking hands, and there's no proof the image was taken during a peace accord! But under a regular encyclopedia, removing such a photo contextually would be ridiculous! English Wikipedia will start turning into a 1980s Telnet-based web site if we stick with NFCC#8 to its very definition word-for-word. I believe NFCC#8 came about in spirit when editors were putting up just about any kind of graphic for no reason whatsoever, such as the fan-based articles. Therefore, I believe we can still use NFCC#8 to keep those images down to a minimum. We just need a few more editors to think like myself and to work with the spirit of NFCC#8, rather than taking it literally and eliminate what I would think would amount to 90-percent of all imagery on English Wikipedia. If after all I said and the editors still want to delete this photo, then I'll be bold and declare Wikipedia:Ignore all rules, as I do believe NFCC#8 prevents me and many other editors from improving Wikipedia. Groink (talk) 22:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:General alcazar.jpg

File:General alcazar.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs).

Invalid fair use claim. The image is not discussed in the article, and other free examples of Ligne claire exist eg Scott Mac 18:32, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from PUI - moved from Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2011 March 21 without prejudice. --B (talk) 18:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep – the article specifically discusses the personal style of Hergé as being "pioneering" in the development of the technique, which makes me think a representative example of his work should be legitimate. The fact that the comment is not about this particular frame doesn't concern me much. In fact, it would be even more informative if this image were contrasted with one that shows his earlier, non-ligne-claire style, as described in the relevant section. (Yes, sometimes, even with "minimality" in mind, two images together make for a better NFC case than a single one.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Anybody that knows the slightest thing about the "Ligne claire" would know that you don't need square quotes when saying that Hergé and his studio pioneered the technique. Any picture from any Tintin album published after ca 1950, when it was fully developed, would fit the bill for use in the article. Perhaps pictures from other ligne claire artists, e.g. Bob de Moor should be included for comparison. ^walk victor falk^talk 04:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "Ligne claire" was pioneered by Hergé therfore a deletion of this comics panel is not required since it is an example of the artistic style described.--Lynntoniolondon (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 69: / Line 69: @@
 * '''Keep''': CG visualizations can sometimes be better than the real thing - but it's clear that in this case it is a poor representation.  Since perfectly good real-world photos are available (albeit under fair use rules only), the benefits of having the real thing outweigh the fair-use disadvantages. [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 05:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I will simply observe that anyone who believes a drawing of a unique  event which attracted the attention of the whole world is an acceptable alternative to an actual photograph, however poor, has missed the whole point of the invention of the camera. My own reservation would be as to the best choice of image, but whichever is chosen will have this same copyright issue and should remain. The article in question needs some more copyright images added. Therer were several unique events to document. [[User:Sandpiper|Sandpiper]] ([[User talk:Sandpiper|talk]]) 07:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' - Historic context justifies the use of actual fair-use image, not a hand-drawn substitute. [[User:Johntex|'''Johntex''']]\<sup>[[User_talk:Johntex|talk]]</sup> 03:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 ====[[:File:Mediamatters.png]]====