Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2006 December 26

< December 25	December 27 >

December 26

Image:Image-Pics 004.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Mackdadday (notify | contribs). orphaned image, sole contribution of user, personal photo - no encyclopedic use Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 00:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jam.pdf (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Velvet29 (notify | contribs). orphaned document, sole contribution of user, document is a 3 line bio Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 00:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -The symbol does not represent a widely known meaning. Tonytypoon 19:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:A New Media for Christ.pdf (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Iandstanley (notify | contribs). orphaned document, uploader absent more then a year, reads like an advertisement/how to guide Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 00:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - The picture is the same as Christ Church Bangkok.pdf. Tonytypoon 19:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Christ Church Bangkok.pdf (talk | delete)

Uploaded by AlbertJohnSwallow (notify | contribs). orpahned document, absent uploader, would be considered original research, summary is only a handful of lines long Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 00:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Christ Church Bangkok.pdf (talk | delete)

Uploaded by AlbertJohnSwallow (notify | contribs). orpahned document, absent uploader, would be considered original research, summary is only a handful of lines long Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 00:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:DianeFarrell.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by RichardMarcJ (notify | contribs). LQ. If we're going to insist on replacing fair-use images of living people with free ones, we need to swiftly delete images like these that do not adequately convey what the person looks like. Doing so is the only way to ensure we get pictures of equivalent quality to those we could get through fair use. We cannot tolerate bad photography just because someone slaps a free license on it — Daniel Case 02:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy keep, Daniel Case is upset about non-free images being removed and is being disruptive here in order to make a point. Free is a fundamental goal of the project, while "look at the pretty pictures" is only nice. He's also in no position to comment about the low quality of anyone elses free submissions although I'm still glad he's uploaded his own. --Gmaxwell 02:24, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Keep the photo until the editor wants to replace with a better photo. Tonytypoon 19:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks will get you nowhere. My picture of a historic house about a mile from my own is not at issue here. If you like, nominate it yourself (and while that image is, I admit, shot somewhat into the sun, it is properly focused which is more than I can say about the image in question). Low quality is a valid reason to delete an image. The German Wikipedia takes only free images, but they are not so squeamish about removing and deleting bad ones just because they're free. I do not see how following Wikipedia procedure is "being disruptive to make a point" unless the mass deletion of scores of images with the deleting admins deciding what constitutes "replaceability" with no agreed-upon guidelines for doing so is also "being disruptive to make a point".

Does this picture suck, or not? That's the only question here. Daniel Case 02:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The image is sufficient for our purposes, as is your little picture. I went through many pictures to find the lowest quality of your recent uploads, most are quite okay. In any case, it wasn't a personal attack... It was about a picture, about as impersonal as you get. I think the parallel is good. Neither picture is great. Both are huge benefits to the articles. (Yours is better of course.). I've taken quite a few lemons myself, and I'm always glad to see them replaced, but it would still stink to see someone nominating one of my pictures for deletion as part of a pointless argument against prohibiting non-free images. .. and finally we're not dewiki. Dewiki also deletes low quality articles, and thats pretty clearly rejected on enwiki at least as an aspect of policy. --Gmaxwell 04:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If that's sufficient, we need to do better if we're going to insist on free images of living people where a replacement could be made. We can only credibly be a free encyclopedia if we also at the same time insist on being a quality encyclopedia. IMO accepting that picture would be akin to accepting an article replete with grammatical errors and misspellings as a Good Article. As long as that picture remains in the article there is no incentive to create and upload a better one. (And thanks for the clarification about my own picture ... I do intend to take a better picture at some point, probably in warm weather. In return I drop the NPA accusation).

The photographer has demonstrated he can take quality images; I'm sure he won't take this personally. Daniel Case 05:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (WP:SK isn't really applicable, though). We really do need to, as the nominator pointed out, start being proactive about removing or replacing bad free images. In a lot of cases, I think that no image > bad free image > unfree image. But this one is merely blurred and doesn't look that bad when displayed in a lower resolution on the article page. So I suggest keep, but with the proviso that I do agree that we need to start removing junk and we need to prefer no image at all to a bad image or a replaceable non-free image.BigDT 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per BigDT. A poor quality free image will encourage making a better quality free image to replace it. It will also, ironically enough, encourage other photogaphers of other images, as they see that even this is better than nothing. AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting thought.. that "Wow that picture stinks" is an encouragement replace the image. I agree, and I've replaced images based on that sort of thinking myself. And yes like BigDT said, the image doesn't look too bad in the article. If the image were actually misleading, for example, rather than just low-resolution, my position would have been different. --Gmaxwell 21:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:789867003 m.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by ILitical (notify | contribs). orphaned image, used in vandalism by uploader in only two edits Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete- file history suggests myspace.com , which is a commericial website. Tonytypoon 19:18, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Quickie.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Act (notify | contribs). orpahned image, recently absent (has been since upload), questionable claim of PD and a souce as "personal collection" Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 02:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I almost wanted to vote "keep" after I read the source. .V. 08:54, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Asa.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Choppers bgs (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB Nv8200p talk 04:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tantalis.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by TharkunColl (notify | contribs). Image was used to illustrate Tantalis (now a redirect). License indicates GFDL, no restrictions, but appears to have been pulled from an Angelfire page. I strongly suspect this image originates from, or is a derivative of an image in Peter James's Sunken Kingdom, seemingly the only work to put forth the Tantalis theory. Serpent's Choice 04:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:As8.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Ndehart (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB, Users only upload Nv8200p talk 04:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Queen Rania.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Cybjorg (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Image description is, "Queen Rania of Jordan, scanned from a common photograph found in Amman's downtown.", yet the image is tagged as public domain. This image description is insufficient information to conclude whether the photo is legitimately public domain or whether a fair use could apply. BigDT 05:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:6-year-old_girl_tattoo.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Jessicagirl10 (notify | contribs). OR, UE. Also, history shows that copyright status was disputed, but uploader removed "no source data" template. I do not know the veracity of either the pd-self or nsd claims, but image is still OR and UE anyway. — --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as an orphaned and not particularly encyclopedic image ... although I'm not sure how anyone came to the conclusion that the uploader is not the copyright holder just from the information there. BigDT 06:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I looked closer, and it says "by Shannon Larratt." in the description, and the image does not appear to be uploaded by someone named Shannon. Maybe that's it. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
    • That's probably a good point. I didn't even think about that ... Jessica may not be her name (ie, she's a Jessic Simpson fan) or Shannon could be her mother (a girl is featured giving a tatoo in this user's other upload, so I'm assuming that she is the girl and her mother took the photo or something like that). Just looking at it, it doesn't look like it came off of somewebsite, so I'm content to accept that the user has rights to it. That doesn't make it encyclopedic, though. ;) BigDT 06:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Orphaned and has little use here. It also does not look very good.--CJ King 05:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tattooartist.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Jessicagirl10 (notify | contribs). Same as above — --Icarus ^(Hi!) 06:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC).

Image:Tociwinner.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Dannyzumwalt (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB. Vanity pic from deleted article. –  Anþony  talk  09:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:TocIIwinner.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Dannyzumwalt (notify | contribs). LQ, OR, UE, AB. Vanity pic from deleted article. –  Anþony  talk  09:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:TocchipsLogo.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Dannyzumwalt (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB. Vanity pic from deleted article. –  Anþony  talk  09:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:TOC Josh.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Dannyzumwalt (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB. Vanity pic from deleted article. –  Anþony  talk  09:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:TOC Chad.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Dannyzumwalt (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB. Vanity pic from deleted article. –  Anþony  talk  09:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:TocIIchad.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Dannyzumwalt (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB. Vanity pic from deleted article. Duplicate of Image:TOC Chad.jpg. –  Anþony  talk  09:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tociwinner 1.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Dannyzumwalt (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB. Vanity pic from deleted article. Duplicate of Image:TOC Chad.jpg. –  Anþony  talk  09:40, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:TocIIjosh.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Dannyzumwalt (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB. Vanity pic from deleted article. Duplicate of Image:TOC Josh.jpg. –  Anþony  talk  09:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Matt Cook.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Dannyzumwalt (notify | contribs). OR, UE, AB. Vanity pic from deleted article. –  Anþony  talk  09:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Tocchips.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Dannyzumwalt (notify | contribs). OR, AB, OB. Duplicate of Image:TOC chips.jpg, which is a candidate to be moved to commons. –  Anþony  talk  09:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:SP A02115.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Benyourfriend (notify | contribs). orphaned, 1 of 2 contributions by uploader, low quality Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 14:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:SP A0211.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Benyourfriend (notify | contribs). orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 14:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Declan(19).jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by AndrewMuzz (notify | contribs). orphaned image, sole contribution of user, it appears to be a personal photo of a child (presume the user) Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 14:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bertie456.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by TheBigDirtyBastard (notify | contribs). Orphaned image, it appears to be a cut and paste job, was used in vandalism by uploader Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 15:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Baski911.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Liquid Ocelot xxx (notify | contribs). orpahned image, very low quality image, recently absent uploader Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 15:10, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The usage of the now deleted copy of the image in [here] suggests attack use - speedy delete Agathoclea 18:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Picture(15).jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Samgunner1 (notify | contribs). orphaned image, very low quality, absent uploader Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 15:20, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Logomt0.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Asgsoft (notify | contribs). orpahned image, sole contribution of uploader, questionable copyright violation as a dirivative work. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 15:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Unpic1.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Pendarnik (notify | contribs). orpahned image, absent uploader, claim of GFDL license questioned as a possible dirivative work Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 15:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:St. Anselm.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Shoessss (notify | contribs). orpahned image, poor image given the large scanned white space around the image Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 15:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Cal Scrabble Tournament.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Albwu (notify | contribs). orphaned image, absent uploader, unencylopedic use Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 15:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:The Deuce Notebook Rim-measures.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Horhay mc rammerstein (notify | contribs). orpahned image, sole contribution of user, unencylopedic use, could be considered original research Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 15:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:1st logo.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by GeMiNeZ (notify | contribs). OR, "sensual-331 will take over the world one day you will see". Uh huh. BigDT 15:46, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Michael-urie.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by AMK1211 (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Tagged as PD-self, but has an ABC watermark in the corner. BigDT 15:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:THECUDA.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Erbcrew (notify | contribs). orphaned image, absent uploader, low quality, unencylopedic Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 15:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Sarah-paulson.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by AMK1211 (notify | contribs). Tagged as PD-self, but obviously a promophoto. I can't find the original, but a derivative of it is used at [1]. BigDT 15:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Streeterseidell.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by AMK1211 (notify | contribs). OR, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use BigDT 15:53, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Izzardsexie.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by AMK1211 (notify | contribs). (Not an orphan) Tagged as PD-self, but probably not. The image is also used at [2] and is probably a promo photo or media photo BigDT 15:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Its just me.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Visillius (notify | contribs). OR, user's only contribution, description page gives too much personal information (which I will remove). Suggest speedy delete per WP:CHILD. BigDT 15:58, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• delete - No use in wikipedia. Tonytypoon 19:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:AjG.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by DKokoris (notify | contribs). OR, uploader's only contribution, insufficient evidence to determine encyclopedic use BigDT 15:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jacksmannequin.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by CJMylentz (notify | contribs). Image is not used for identification and critical commentary on the music video it is taken from. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:02, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Image is identifying the band and lead singer. CJMylentz 21:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is no further comments, I'm removing the notice on the photo. CJMylentz 07:35, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Screenshots of music videos may only be used to illustrate the music video. Using it to illustrate the band does not qualify as fair use under our guidelines. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Is this true for movie screenshots or television screenshots? That don't make any sense. CJMylentz 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jacksmannequin2.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by CJMylentz (notify | contribs). Image is not used for identification and critical commentary on the music video it is taken from. Fritz S. (Talk) 16:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

The Image is identifying the band and lead singer. CJMylentz 21:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

If there is no further comments, I'm removing the notice on the photo. CJMylentz 07:36, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

See image above. --Fritz S. (Talk) 11:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Netcost.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Cory328 (notify | contribs). Netcost.jpg obsoleted by FSANetCost2006.png - Jfredrickson 16:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Thanksfortheadd.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Bolesjohnb (notify | contribs). OR, likely non-free, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use BigDT 18:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -The file name is confusing with "Thanks for the advertisement". The summary says it is created from the source of myspace.com, which is a commercial website. Tonytypoon 18:45, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Jwoolleypic.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Pats3games2glory (notify | contribs). OR, image is a concatenation of two photos. The description page says, "personal photos", but based on the user's upload log [3], I am concerned that "personal photo" may mean something other than "my camera took these photos". Downloading a photo off of the internet doesn't give you rights to it. BigDT 18:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:DJ JOEY MENCH1.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Casher (notify | contribs). OR, contains a logo mark so possibly not free, insufficient context to determine encyclopedic use BigDT 18:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Corkervictory.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by ModRocker86. OR, not from event I originally thought it was. No copyright either, but I didn't bother to find proper info since image is not what I thought it was. ModRocker86 18:55, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I listed this file for CSD by using {{db-author}}, since the author posted it for IFD and made a comment on the talk page asking for deletion. Will notify user. --MECU≈talk 19:25, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Eco deprimente.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Pmauriciocosta (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB, minimal contribs by user MECU≈talk 19:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -the image is not showing any point. Tonytypoon 18:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Eco 18anos.png (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Pmauriciocosta (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB, minimal contribs by user MECU≈talk 19:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Eddie.JPG (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Operationloop (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB, only 2 contribs by user, WP:NOT a free file host MECU≈talk 19:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:The Movie 2 poster 3.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by Operationloop (notify | contribs). UE, OR, AB, only 2 contribs by user (both here at IFD now) MECU≈talk 19:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete -the file has been modified from its original state. Tonytypoon 18:48, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Rouninlogo.jpg (talk | delete)

Uploaded by TFC King (notify | contribs). Uploaded as {{PD-self}} but this clearly looks like a promotional photo without any source information.- Metros232 22:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Uncircglans.jpg (talk | delete)

I think this image is UE and maybe considered pornographic. --Vince 22:52, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - pornographic. Tonytypoon 19:07, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• keep - First, being pornographic in of itself is no reason for deletion, see WP:NOT#CENSOR; and in my opinion this is not pornographic anyway. The image was uploaded for a given purpose by the editor, it was for addition to Glans penis and Glans. It has been removed by the nominator from one of the noted articles and that should have been disclosed. I think this is likely a content dispute and should be discussed on the approprate talk page where the image was deleted from rather then moving the image to IfD. I can appreicate that there may be other motivations of a 22 year old male to have his penis displayed on wikipedia, but it does not negate the fact the image is clear, well photographed and has good composition.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Also of note, the uploader was never notified of the nomination - is done now. The 5 day comment period should begin now.--Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 22:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• "Hard" Keep. This seems like a content dispute to me, and the above comment really seals that observation. .V. 08:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This shows what its supposed to show, it's not pornographic. 72.145.132.121 14:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for not informing the uploader. This was because I was unaware of that requirement. I think that a debate should be had on the article's talk page about what is appropriate content for that article. I have no problem with pictures such as this being published on the internet. However, I think there should be debate about whether images such as this are encyclopedic and therefore appropriate content for Wikipedia or just exhibitionist. --Vince 02:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)