Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 May 4

< May 3	May 5 >

May 4[edit]

File:Davis at Birdland.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this image is not discussed in the CD article (it also formerly appeared in the Miles Davis article, where it was even less justified). Fails WP:NFCC8 - does not significantly increase readers' understanding. Just because this image is somehow associated with the record doesn't mean it has to appear in the article about the record Calliopejen1 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete err... it appears to be a generic non-free image used generically. Off with it. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:03, 7 May 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:Craig.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 as F8 by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) A file with this name on Commons is now visible. AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

this image is unused and there is no evidence as to its usefulness, also it appears to have been uploaded for use in a deleted article(which was deleted in 2007 under CSD A7). gz³³ (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now in use in the blue hair article. — BQZip01 — ^talk 03:57, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a goofy picture with limited value. Wikipedia is not Flickr. That it's being used in that artilce does not take away from that fact. I'd also mention that it adds absolutely nothing to that article that it's in, so I don't see that as mitigation of it's uselessness. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:06, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It illustrates a male with blue hair. What's wrong with that? Why not simply transfer it to the commons where other projects may use it as an illustration of hair dyeing, popular culture, retro culture, etc. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:45, 7 May 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:Synthesis of 1-cobaltocenyl-1'-rhodocenylferrocene cation.PNG[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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vector image available. Image not used in article space Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Vector looks right. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:07, 7 May 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:Bi- and ter-metallocenes containing rhodocenyl groups.PNG[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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused in articlespace , Vector Version available Sfan00 IMG (talk) 08:43, 4 May 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:Wp pi.png[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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image for which vector image exists Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:12, 4 May 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:MelbourneDesign.png[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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image , for which a Vector version exists Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:16, 4 May 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:Sotovelez 1.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free image redundant to File:Sotovelez.jpg from which it was cropped. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:22, 4 May 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:Spanish immigration to Puerto Rico.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: Kept (IAR non-admin closure, see below) Sven Manguard Wha? 06:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collage includes component image File:Luis Llorens Torres.JPG which was incorrectly tagged as PD. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:32, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I reverted to the 8 person version that did not have Luis Llorens Torres in it. Therefore this is fine. Closing administrator, please revdel the 12 person version. That should do it. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to make a new 8 person version, as the old one also had a copyvio in it. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right then. I built a new collage from scratch, updated all the description information, and double checked the copyright. Per IAR, I'm closing this; The reason this was placed up for deletion, the copyrighted element of the collage, has been removed, so there's no reason to continue the discussion. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:53, 7 May 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:NegroBlackLatinoLatinAmericanoAmerican.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: Keep (IAR non admin close, see below) Sven Manguard Wha? 07:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collage includes component image File:DeVillard.jpg which was incorrectly tagged as PD. Image also contains CC-By-SA components and so cannot be released under any less restrictive license. VernoWhitney (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, same deal as above. The offending image in the collage was replaced, so there's no need at all to keep this up for deletion. I IAR non admin closes this.
- A side note here, I did not redo this collage from scrap, so it's still a badly compressed .jpg. I suppose I can whip up a new one, but it won't have 25 people, I simply don't have that kind of time. If anyone's interested, shoot me a message and I'll do it. Sven Manguard Wha? 07:59, 7 May 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:Salt Lake Children's Choir - Advanced Choir.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 Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My primary concern is that this photograph contains the images of 20 children under the age of 18, and none of whom (presumptively) have expressed consent for their pictures to be put on the internet. A second reason I'm nominating this is that the article it's being used for is likely going to be deleted per this AfD, which means it will become an unused and useless photo. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:07, 4 May 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:Hand of God goal.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 as failure of WP:NFCC#2, in particular as represented by WP:NFC#UUI #7 and WP:CSD#F7 #2. Any inability of Getty to restrict the usage of this image elsewhere does not likewise allow us to use it as well without sourced commentary regarding the image itself when it comes to images from press/photo agencies. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This unreplaceable invaluable non-free photograph belongs to Photo Agency Getty Images and captures a famous moment in the history of football. We are using it to illustrate our article about this famous moment. While this photo is irreplaceable and the perfect illustration for illustrating any discussion about this moment (i.e., it most likely passes NFCC#1 and #8), this is exactly what makes the image so valuable for Getty images, and this is how they make money from this image (that is, licensing it to publications discussing the moment the picture captures). That means, our use, unfortunately, is not fair. It fails WP:NFCC#2. Obs. before voting, please understand NFCC is not multiple choice. Damiens.rf 17:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The use of this image was previously addressed 4+ years ago by an admin and 2+ years ago at WP:NFCR. Limited discussion and a while ago, but there's the background. VernoWhitney (talk) 18:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't really find the 4-years-ago discussion, but just an admin posting a template that says he believe this image to be ok to be used on three different articles: Hand of God goal, Peter Shilton, and Argentina and England football rivalry.
- The second discussion concluded (wisely) that the photo should not be used to illustrate the event it captures, but only to illustrate a discussion about the photo itself. The point is that the article where the image is currently used does not does that. The closer it comes is the phrase "Video and photographic evidence demonstrated that he had struck the ball with his hand, which was shown on television networks and in newspapers all over". While it states the existence oh photos like that (and videos of the same value), it does not discuss this or that image, and actually gives us the impression that none of those are specially notable to be discussed. --Damiens.rf 19:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell there was no discussion before Quadell placed that template 4 years ago (in response to the request for review left by Qwghlm), and the discussion from 2 years ago was just 2 editors; I just felt that prior opinions should be pointed out, just like prior AfDs. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Very very very reluctant Delete - This image is wonderful and perfect for its location. Getty image's website tells me that, for the use to which we are putting it, they would like at least $50 per 2 years of usage. I think that, most unfortunately, this image fails WP:NFCC#2 - Peripitus (Talk) 11:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With 285 results according to TinEye, their ability to restrict the use of this behind a paywall is pretty much nil. That, however, is irrelivant. What is relivant is that I've reduced the image size; The image is now 260×350 at 96dpi - in other words - pretty small and will look pixelated as hell if you try to print it. The maximum size doctrine exists for just this reason, by bringing the image below 16,000 pixels (400x400, but 500x250 would work too) and by bringing it far below the 300dpi needed for a good print, we've effectively removed the reuse value of this image. Therefore, I say that this image should be kept, as what we are using amounts to a cheap knock-off at this point. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:13, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below - Peripitus (Talk) 10:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

- And this is completely unrelated to the concern I have raised in the nomination. Congratulations, you have guaranteed the image passes WP:NFCC#3 but NFCC is not multiple choice. The problem here is WP:NFCC#2. There's a market for web-resolution versions of such images. --Damiens.rf 00:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Every website using this image (without a license) to illustrate some text about that event represents lost revenue for Getty Images. --Damiens.rf 00:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - 1) Don't be an asshole and don't treat me like I'm an idiot.
  - 2) By limiting the display size and reducing the dpi to a level that makes printing next to useless, I eliminated the threat this posed to Gerry's revenue. If someone wants a halfway decent copy of this, they still have to pay for it. Wikipedia's copy, used for reference, is unsuitable for posters, newspapers, or even a high quality website. I really don't worry about low quality websites, such as personal blogs, becuase they're not going to pay for it anyways, no matter what we or Getty does.
  - Sven Manguard Wha? 05:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Getty has royalty payment options for this image down to "Low resolution - Up to 180 x 150 pixels"......for which they want $50 for 2 years of web editorial use on a secondary page. Making the image smaller has not solved this issue - Peripitus (Talk) 10:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question: this can't have been the only visual record of that goal. What about screenshots of TV footage? Wouldn't there be alternatives that, while also non-free, aren't marketed by an agency like Getty? Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Answer - it isn't the only one (but is the best by far) - sorry to link to youtube but this shows what is available - Peripitus (Talk) 11:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Sven. Screenshots of TV footage are also copyrighted and would face the exact same legal challenges. It is one of those images where a free replacement isn't available. It passes NFCC#2 as it doesn't replace the image's market value/intent. — BQZip01 — ^talk 17:49, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sven didn't even addressed the problem I've raised on the nomination. --Damiens.rf 00:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes I did. Read my retort above. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The value of this photo relies on it documenting the fact that Maradonna did touched the ball with his hand. No matter how much you downscale its resolution, as long as you can see him touching the ball, it's still such a valuable image. --Damiens.rf 06:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per NFCC#2. Since we found that even small web resolution copies of this file are actively marketed, there clearly is "replacement of the original market role". Failure of NFCC2 overrides all other considerations, including that of irreplaceability. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to be picky, failure of any individual criterion overrides all other considerations, since NFCC is not multiple-choice. --Damiens.rf 07:58, 11 May 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:Civil defense logo.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: Delete; deleted by Peripitus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 11:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image for which better quality vector version exists? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 20:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, (or speedy db-self it based on the message in the image description page.) Also, why the heck are we using non-animated .gif files on this site? That's the format where good images go to die. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:15, 7 May 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:Eeoc.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 VernoWhitney (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:04, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unused image for which a Vector version is available Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:08, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:15, 7 May 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.