Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2007 October 29

< October 28	October 30 >

October 29

This image is an illustration which contravenes original research policy. Specifically: "Images that constitute original research in any other way are not allowed, such as a diagram of a hydrogen atom showing extra particles in the nucleus as theorized by the uploader." In other words, Perfectblue's sayso that something is an EVP is not allowed. The image is not verifiably claimed by any notable group. The axes are unlabeled and the rationale for why this would be EVP and not something else is totally absent. ScienceApologist 01:01, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: Taking WP:NOR out of context without the consideration of the paragraphs before is not very Scientific (its like throwing out the substantiating evidence and simply proposing the theory alone) and highly suggestive of interrupting the normal editing patterns through violation of WP:POINT thus gaming the system in order to pursue a personal dispute between yourself an Martinphi now in Arbitration. All editors should take this into consideration. This discussion at least should be put on hold until the matters clear themselves up with Arbcom. --Northmeister 00:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Striking the above, in order to assume the best. I still don't like the timing of this deletion request but worse things have happened. Changed my 'vote' to delete below based on Jossi observations. --Northmeister 01:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the actual policy at Wp:or#Original_images. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quoted that policy. ScienceApologist 01:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read the rest. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's the last sentence! There is no rest. The stuff before it is irrelevant to this particular image which itself represents original research of the kind described in the sentence I quoted. ScienceApologist 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read what comes before it.

It's an Illustration:"An Illustration is a visualisation such as a drawing, painting, photograph or other work of art that stresses subject more than form. The aim of an illustration is to elucidate or decorate a story, poem or piece of textual information (such as a newspaper article), traditionally by providing a visual representation of something described in the text."

This should be sufficient for others here, so I'll probably not debate it further. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's nice that you have quoted to us the definition of an illustration. Now for the win, perhaps you can explain how this image doesn't constitute original research since perfectblue is claiming that it is an example of EVP? If I uploaded a grainy picture of my bedroom with a lens flare and said it was a picture of a ghost, would that be an acceptable illustration? ScienceApologist 01:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no, EVP was written in scare quotes, this is the same as writing so-called in front of it. It's a pretty obvious statement. Also, the image description explicitly stated that the image was created on the understanding that it had no scientific value. - perfectblue 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was never the "scientific value" of the image. It was also never about whether there were "scare quotes" or the phrase so-called. It was about it being your original research. ScienceApologist 20:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research and needs to go. Delete. Baegis 01:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator's logic is sound, and I would agree that the OR exclusion for images is violated in this case and this particular image would not be exempt from OR. Delete. Cumulus Clouds 04:59, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Image claims to be nothing and something at the same time. Equivalent narratives would be termed editorialising, I fail to see how this is different. Would recommend it be replaced by a real EVP image ((if one exists), surely with all the publications on the subject, there is something? Shot info 07:12, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The image summary reads: 'A self generated image of "an EVP voice" and surrounding background noise. Released to all who want to use it on the understanding that the image itself has no scientific value and does not represent proof of anything.' Not only is it OR, because it describes itself as an image of something whose existence is in doubt and was, as far as I can tell, an original production by the uploader, but it then disingenuously denies being OR. Cardamon 07:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
delete as unencyclopedic. dab (𒁳) 08:03, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An identical image is at Image:Evp2.png, and should probably also be considered under these deliberations. The uploader of both has discussed his rationale for uploading the second image here on his talk page. — BillC ^talk 19:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I listed the other images below. Baegis 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-encyclopedic and appears to violate even the wide latitude provided to images by WP:OR. Additionally, this appears to be a WP:COATRACK situation, where the image is a bit of an end-run around a highly controversial article and discussion ([1]). MastCell ^Talk 21:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While not taking back any of the reasoning below, I'll follow "consensus" on this matter, as it is not really an issue of NPOV or ATT, but merely an issue of a topical improvement to an article. I'd like to point out that the caption could simply have been changed to make no claims at all, and that any visualization of a voice would serve as an illustration of what EVP is supposed to look like. And that no claim was made in the actual article that the image was EVP. I would also like to note the timing of this deletion, and that ScienceApologist is currently attempting to get me banned by the ArbCom. So I think this image deletion was requested purely to make a point.

This image is a clear illustration. However, we could change the caption. Keep in accordance with WP:OR:

"Pictures have enjoyed a broad exception from this policy, in that Wikipedia editors are encouraged to take photographs or draw pictures or diagrams and upload them, releasing them under the GFDL or another free license, to illustrate articles. This is welcomed because images generally do not propose unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Also, because of copyright law in a number of countries and its relationship to the work of building a free encyclopedia, there are relatively few publicly available images we can take and use. Wikipedia editors' pictures fill a needed role."

There are no claims made in the article for this image, except that it illustrates the subject matter of the article. Alternatively, change the caption summary on the image page to something everyone likes, or nothing. But there is no reason under policy for deletion. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason is quite simple--there is no basis for thinking it represents the subject matter of the article, or for that matter any subject matter in particular. A speechlike waveform out of context is not illustration of any thing, and we have only the assertion of its contributor that it represents even what he thinks is an example of EVP. DGG (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DGG, but in the context of the article a speechlike waveform becomes an illustration. That's all that's claimed. The image is similar to the non-OR image at the top of the EVP page. No one -at least in the article- is claiming that it is actually EVP- it is only claimed to be an illustration of what EVP might look like- were it to actually exist. Same as with the pic on the Will-o'-the-wisp page. It illustrates the article, nothing more. That's what the OR page allows in illustrative images. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 00:28, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ Delete (after soliciting some advice from editor involved at WP:NOR page) Seems to me that NOR is being read wrongly and being used in an ongoing dispute thus violating WP:POINT in the process by said editors. The images themselves seem harmless enough, illustrate the paranormal topic, and show no indication of manipulation per say. There is presently an Arbcom involving the deletionist ScienceApologist. The image is indeed self-described by perfectblue as uploaded 'informing the reader' - and as this is not a science-related topic and clearly paranormal in nature, and as long as it is labeled as a 'suggested' or 'possible' EVP then the image does no harm and is not in violation of the spirit of the WP:NOR definition as it does not take on airs. If this deletion is allowed to stand then several images across Wikipedia, self-proclaimed and uploaded - that illustrate but do not pontificate about the subject would be erased into oblivion - doing more harm than good to Wikipedia in the process. Can a better image be found - I think so! But, that is not for here. I suggest a proper reading of WP:NOR be given - rather than taking a single sentence out of context and arguing from that. --Northmeister 00:15, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Concur with Jossi below after thinking over imgage itself, void of any other observations (regarding timing of deletion request and Arbcom case), I do stand corrected on my original observations about the policy and concur therein with ScienceApologist. --Northmeister 01:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Obvious OR. If a similar image is available from a published source, it could be used, but not a user-generated image. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinphi (talk • contribs) [reply]

Description changed - The above discussion has been restated as of this time stamp perfectblue 20:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion, post descriptive change

As the creator of this image I have changed the description, it now no longer meets ANY deletion criteria for a public use image. I'd also like to point out that this is a catch 22 situation that gives Wikipedia a bad name.

According to Wikipedia regs I can't say that this is EVP because there is no scientific conformation that EVP exists, I can't say that it's NOT EVP because I don't have a third party source to say that it ISN'T a ghost on tape. I can't say that it resembles EVP because there is no scientific confirmation that EVP exists in order for this to resemble, and no scientific consensus on what an EVP might look like if it ever were confirmed to exist.

How silly is that, I can't even say that this is a perfectly explainable sound because I don't have a third party to explain it. It's just a recording of sound, when you play it it sounds like a man saying a something, I put it up to show the kind of sound result that a ghost hunter would call EVP if they were to record it. What more does anybody need?

I also can't rename it as there doesn't appear to be a rename function. Therefore for the purposes of WP:NOR the EVP mentioned in the name now (officially, as the creator of the image) stands for "Electronic visualization (recorded by) Perfectblue97".

This is a silly silly situation that never should have arisen. It's just a picture of a wave-form. That's not WP:OR.

perfectblue 20:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it. The image is still original research. Just changing the caption doesn't make it less so. ScienceApologist 20:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just reaching. By the definition you're using a picture of anything user generated would be WP:OR. Take a look at any wave-form in any published media and you will clearly see that that's what this is, and it's not claiming to be anything more, certainly not anything that would require verification to a third party. - perfectblue 21:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, are you saying you want to incorporate this image into the article on waveforms? ScienceApologist 21:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per NOR on illustrations. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Martin, how do you explain that you have !voted to simultaneously keep and delete the picture? I think you should strike-through the !vote/comments that don't represent your opinion. ScienceApologist 20:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 was speedily deleted as nonsense. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 04:08, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Amtrak Brazos logo.svg

Image:Amtrak Brazos logo.svg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Bufet (notify | contribs).

Claimed "logo" - I know Amtrak is perennially broke, but? ;) SkierRMH 04:01, 29 October 2007 (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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Image:Ahwaz-Map.jpg

Image:Ahwaz-Map.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Hisham ibn Oamr Alharbi (notify | contribs).

Incorrect, useless, map not used in any articles. Strothra 05:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mow.png

Image:Mow.png (delete | talk | history | logs)

Image:MowDNA.png and Image:Cartoonmow.png

- uploaded by NeoNecronox (notify | contribs).

Deserve same fate as the Mows article. -- RHaworth 06:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:PacoIraq1.jpg

Image:PacoIraq1.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by User25be (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Mikeindialantic.jpg

Image:Mikeindialantic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Oceanbourne (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:42, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Tyfbanner.gif

Image:Tyfbanner.gif (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Soman (notify | contribs).

Orphaned, A vector version of this image is also available OsamaK 11:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Djzardonic.jpg

Image:Djzardonic.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Gorepriest (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:JEMIII.JPG

Image:JEMIII.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Slopigyo (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Coorg.jpg

Image:Coorg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Adugani (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sevag3.jpg.jpg

Image:Sevag3.jpg.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sevag.derderian (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:For web.jpg

Image:For web.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Waqcku (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 11:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:United States One Dollar Bill 2003.jpg

Image:United States One Dollar Bill 2003.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Eztli (notify | contribs).

Orphan, there is better version OsamaK 13:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. I was bored when I uploaded this, anyway. Eztli 20:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P R Indepence Flag.jpg

Image:P R Indepence Flag.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Marine 69-71 (notify | contribs).

Orphan, flags must be SVG. there is SVG version OsamaK 13:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xander face.JPG

Image:Xander face.JPG (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Xandergiles (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Deepbluey.jpg

Image:Deepbluey.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Fellinox (notify | contribs).

Orphaned personal photo OsamaK 18:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:World operators of Mi-8.png

Image:World operators of Mi-8.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Sniperz11 (notify | contribs).

I have uploaded the identical image Image:World operators of the Mil Mi-8.png so that it may be compatible with Template:Acopmap. Hence, this page becomes redundant.

Additionally, there are no pages that link to this (apart from my user page). Thus, Deleting it will not affect any other pages. Sniperz11^talk|edits 19:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Evp2.png

Image:Evp2.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Martinphi (notify | contribs).

Uploaded an image already considered for deletion to circumvent policy. See top of this page. Original Research Image. Baegis 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lets link to the image above so we can see your argument shot down by several editors. Here it is. Baegis 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Cumulus Clouds 01:18, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:EVP_illustration.png

Image:EVP_illustration.png (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Martinphi (notify | contribs).

Uploaded an image already considered for deletion to circumvent policy. See top of this page. Original Research Image. Baegis 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy does not indicate that this image or the other one should be deleted. See caption of image [2] for more. See argument above. There is no intent to circumvent policy, only to try and address the concerns of editors. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, lets link to the image above so we can see your argument shot down by several editors. Here it is. Baegis 21:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a second, you knew your other argument was going to lose so you decided to reupload the image? That seems dishonest to me, but it also means there's a strong precedent for deleting this image and any subsequent images identical to it (with or without caption) as OR. Speedy delete. Cumulus Clouds 01:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hs_129B-3.jpg

Image:Hs_129B-3.jpg (delete | talk | history | logs) - uploaded by Maury_Markowitz (notify | contribs).

we have a free image of this aircraft (or a very closely related one, i'm not an expert but they're on the same page) Calliopejen1 20:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm all eyes: what free image are you referring to? BTW, I doubt it's any freer that this one, ie, it's likely mislabeled. Maury 20:45, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Image:Henschel Hs 129B.jpg - maybe it's labeled wrong, but I figured that somehow the context and markings made clear that it was PD-USGov. Calliopejen1 21:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely not the same aircraft. The former (the topic of this thread) was one of a small number of B-3 models with the BK7.5 cannon. That's the big honkin' pipe sticking out under the front of the nose. The later is a stock B-2 model (IIRC), and obviously lacks this equipment. Maury 01:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So can I remove the tag? Or do you still feel it should go? I have no problem with a "free replacement request" tag BTW, but I believe there are no more B-3's. Maury 11:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No consensus to delete; image kept. -- RG ² 00:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]